[News] Is Pet Overpopulation Really Killing Our Cats and Dogs? Part I An estimated 6 - 8 million homeless animals, primarily cats and dogs, enter animal shelters across the U.S. every year. Approximately 4.4 million of these innocent creatures are euthanized. But the rate of euthanasia is not the same in every community. While one city saves the lives of 90 percent of its homeless cats and dogs another town euthanizes 60 percent of their abandoned pets. Have you ever wondered why some communities are more successful than others? The No Kill Advocacy Center says they have the formula to save every healthy and treatable pet languishing in every animal shelter in the country and they want to share it with you. I’ve always had a gut feeling that putting a stop to the euthanasia of homeless animals was possible. And after interviewing Nathan Winograd, director and founder of the No Kill Advocacy Center, I am certain the goal is achievable. In the first part of this story, I hope to share the basic concept of the No Kill program and the simple changes shelters and rescue groups can make to drop their euthanasia rate. In the second part of the story I will discuss the infrastructure changes that must be made for communities to bring their adoption rates to 90 percent or more. Cities such as Reno Nevada, Richmond Virginia, San Francisco California and Charlottesville Virginia have already achieved this goal and Kansas City is well on its way. Winograd is a graduate of Stanford Law School and the author of two books on the animal shelter system: Redemption and Irreconcilable Differences. He left law to write animal protection legislation and in 2001 he became the Executive Director of the Tompkins County SPCA. When he left that job in 2004, Ithaca “was the safest community in the nation to be a homeless dog or cat.” In 2004 he started the No Kill Advocacy Center, dedicated to the concept of a No Kill nation for healthy and treatable pets. Winograd wasted no time getting to the point of the No Kill movement. His first sentence was to dispel the myth that pet overpopulation is responsible for the killing of 4.4 million cats and dogs. He said instead it’s a combination of municipal animal shelters that do not have a primary goal of re-homing pets and a lack of marketing skills. Winograd said, “Shelters must get their share of people looking to adopt a pet.” Winograd: “It’s kind of a numbers game and most animal shelters and rescue groups are not getting their ‘market share’ of the large number of people looking for a new pet. There are 17 million people that add a new pet, or replace a deceased pet each year. There are 8 million animals that enter the shelter system. This should translate into a home for every healthy animal. But 80 percent of the people do not get their cat or dog from a shelter or rescue group.” Winograd: “Shelters must focus on marketing and adoption. If they increased their adoption rates by only 3 percent, all of the savable, healthy and treatable pets would find a new home. This is why HSUS and Maddie’s Fund have started the Shelter Pet Project. They understand how important it is to increase awareness and get homeless pets adopted.” How does a shelter begin to attract more potential adopters? Winograd: “They need to be more customer-friendly. They have to make it easier for people to adopt new pets and reclaim lost pets. The shelter in Reno used to close its doors at 4:30p.m. Then they did a study and found that most people worked until 5:00p.m. Now they stay open until 5:30p.m. and their adoption and reclaim of lost pets skyrocketed to 93 percent.” Reuniting lost pets is a big part of the No Kill movement, isn’t it? Winograd: “When Reno decided to stay open for an extra hour a day, they found that many of the animals believed to be strays were actually lost. They currently reunite 60 percent of the pets in the shelter with their owners.” Winograd: “Lost cats are an even bigger problem. Missing Pet Partnership.org says that it takes two-weeks for most lost cats to get caught and sent to a shelter. They hide until they are practically starving and when they are finally caught by Animal Control; most owners have stopped looking for their pet. And to make matters worse, many frightened pet cats act like wild feral cats and are euthanized before they ever get near the adoption area.” What other concrete things can shelters do to increase adoptions? Winograd: “They can do two specific things: bring adoptable animals closer to where people shop and live and simplify the adoption process. Most shelters are on the outskirts of town. It’s hard for people to get to them. People are more apt to adopt if the pets are in retail areas that are easy to find and pleasant to be around. That’s why stores like Petsmart and Petco are great. They let shelters adopt from their stores.” “The next part is something rescue groups could change. They need to rethink their adoption policies. Some groups make it so tough to adopt that they scare people away.” Part II of the No Kill story will discuss the infrastructure needed in a community to lower euthanasia rates. Is Pet Overpopulation Really Killing Our Cats and Dogs? Part I |
I ran across this guy's name (Nathan Winograd) last year while researching animal rights groups. I definitely think he is on the right track as far as the problem of pets in shelters goes. For anyone that's interested, here's the link to his web page....Nathan J Winograd |
Thanks for the info, Woogie Man! |
Part II In Part I of this story I shared excerpts from an interview with Nathan Winograd, director of the No Kill Advocacy Center about his equation to end the senseless killing of an estimated 4.4 million cats and dogs in our country’s animal shelters every year. The interview included some simple changes shelters and rescue groups could make to increase adoptions and drop euthanasia rates. Part II of this story will discuss the “mandatory programs” a community must implement to raise adoption rates to 90 percent and higher. One of the main principles of the No Kill equation is that animal shelters reject “kill-oriented” ways of doing business and implement innovative programs. Too many shelters refuse to try new ideas. They don’t see themselves as a service to re-home pets. They get accustomed to the idea that euthanasia is part of their job and lose sight that every life is precious. Animal shelters are needed to lead the way to get a community excited and energized. The No Kill website states, “The decision to end an animal’s life is an extremely serious one, and should always be treated as such. No matter how many animals a shelter kills, each and every animal is an individual, and each deserves individual consideration.” Currently there are No Kill communities in California, Utah, Virginia, Nevada, Kentucky and Indiana. Each has achieved a 90 percent or higher rate of adopting homeless pets and reuniting lost animals with their owners. These are the two key principles of the No Kill equation. Here are the mandatory programs and services prescribed by the No Kill Advocacy Center: Feral Cat TNR Program A comprehensive trap-neuter-release program is needed to stop feral cat colonies from multiplying. High-Volume, Low-Cost Spay and Neuter Clinics Sterilizing pets is crucial to the program. Spay/neuter clinics must be located in areas that are easy for the public to reach. Rescue Groups Animal rescue groups are needed to take hard to adopt pets from municipal shelters in order to free up space for incoming cats and dogs. Foster Care Volunteer foster families are critical to the success of a No Kill city. They rehabilitate pets that are sick, injured, have behavioral challenges or are too young to be in a shelter. Comprehensive Adoption Program Animal shelters must meet the needs of the community so the highest number of pets gets placed into new homes. This may mean being open more hours, having offsite adoption centers, offering incentives, making adoption policies more flexible and improving overall marketing of homeless pets. Pet Retention Shelters must take an active role in keeping animals with their human families. They need to be a resource center that can solve behavior problems, give advice and do whatever it takes to keep companion animals in their homes. Medical and Behavior Programs Animal shelters need to implement policies for vaccinating, handling, cleaning, socializing and sterilizing pets. They must also provide for the veterinary care of sick and injured animals. Public Relations/Community Involvement This boils down to educating the public through ongoing marketing that there are lots of pets to adopt. Community involvement encourages partnership with local agencies that can assist a shelter meet their goals. Volunteers Volunteers are needed in every department of an animal shelter. Their expertise can make the difference between the success and failure of a program. Proactive Redemptions One of the most overlooked areas for reducing euthanasia rates is reuniting lost animals with their families. Shelters that actively work to return pets have seen the most dramatic change to their lifesaving numbers. A Compassionate Director To complete the No Kill equation a humane shelter director is needed. That person must be willing to lead a community and implement new policies and programs in order to save lives. If your community would like to adopt the No Kill equation, the organization offers seminars to show you how to get started. Currently seminars are planned for: Kentucky, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey and Washington. Click here for details. To summarize, the No Kill Advocacy Center dispels the myth that pet overpopulation is the cause for the euthanasia of 4.4 million animals in shelters annually. They claim 17 million Americans add a new pet to their family every year, but 80 percent do not adopt from a shelter. If shelters put more effort into marketing the cats and dogs in their care, they could get a larger portion of the public to adopt from them, instead of buying animals from places like retail pet shops. This would dramatically drop the number of animals euthanized. As a result it would also decrease the demand for puppies and kittens that are purchased from pet shops and ultimately lower the number of animals born in large-scale breeding facilities such as puppy mills. If you live in a community like mine, the No Kill concept may seem like a fairytale. But there are cities that have achieved this goal and I hope you will be inspired to start the program in your area, as well. Is Pet Overpopulation Really Killing Our Cats and Dogs? Part II |
GREAT article. I'm going to check out this guy's books right now. |
Wow, this guy has some great ideas. I really hope we can be successful in implementing them. |
The part about rescues making it easier to adopt is also true of many rescues over here. Many people have gone to adopt a pet only to find themselfs classed as unsuitable due to working, young children etc. One person on another forum was refused because they were a, not active enough. b, too active. c, not enough land [ 5 acres is not enough]. d, no experience of the breed, even though they already owned one. Forsome people their faces just dont seam to fit. |
I don't want to start a big debate here, but I agree. One poster here was rejected for an adoption, but then ended up getting selected because the first choice adopter did not even show up to pick up the dog. So that rescue's criteria may have been very stringent, but apparently did not screen out someone who wasn't very interested in adopting and not even responsible enough to notify anyone of their change of heart. I've ordered Winograd's latest book off of amazon: Amazon.com: Irreconcilable Differences: The... It looks like he has two books out. |
Hmmm...I agree with the ideas this man has except for the part about rescues being more lenient. Rescued dogs IMO, are different than any other dogs. Dogs that have been through a rough life (and most rescues have) often don't have many chances left. It's imperative their new adoptive home be their last home.....one in which they are loved, cherished, and provided for in the most stable of homes. |
Quote:
I so agree with this! The following info is quoted from Valley Dogs Rescue, with whom I worked to place Ambrey (the pit bull :), love her!): The national average: Only one in ten animals remains with its adoptive family for life. That is a staggering and unacceptable statistic. The remaining nine get tossed around through multiple homes, taken to the pound, lost, or worse. It is so tough on these animals to be "tossed around". Omg, when I left Ambrey at her new, forever home...she went crazy when I left, bc we became so attached to each other. A rescue dog should not have to go through this over and over, and that's why it's so important that rescues find the *right* home. So, I don't think rescues should change this practice -- perhaps they just need to do a better job of communicating WHY they are so choosy, so that their choosiness doesn't alienate clients - rather, it helps the client identify w/ the fact that the choosiness is about the *animal*, not the client. This article is GREAT! |
Well, let's keep in mind that not all rescues have been traumatized. I remember a recent ad from the ASPCA that featured a talking dog who had just been abandoned (loosely quoting): "I'm not neurotic or sick. That's a stereotype. I just belonged to a total loser." I think different rescues can have different goals and different placement criteria. The rescue I volunteer at does not have particularly stringent criteria, but it still has an excellent permanent placement rate. I believe this is (1) because they have the right criteria, and (2) because generally, while they will take dogs with severe physical problems if they are fixable, the most of the dogs have good temperment. I agree that dogs that have emotionally scarred need careful placement. I also believe that it's relatively easy to assess this if the dog is in good physical health. There are multiple sides to this issue. Of course the dog's wellbeing is the most important thing. I think that can be acknowledged while also acknowledging that a lot of rescues are not professionally run, and do turn people off to what can be a very positive experience (not pointing any fingers here). I've seen other people get put through the wringer for rescues. When I first joined here, I was thinking about getting Thor a sister, and I emailed a rescue explaining that I wanted a female yorkie that was smaller and younger than Thor so they'd have the best chance of getting along. I'm sure I sounded dumb, and like a million other people looking for tiny female yorkie puppies, but the person I emailed took it upon herself to inform me that as a small yorkie, Thor would die young. I did not in any way ask for her opinion on this matter - it was just her way of discouraging me from looking for a teeny. Again, I am all for rescues. I know that I personally will ONLY get a "pre-owned" pet. However, I think it's really important that everyone in animal care understand where they can do better. Nobody and nothing is above criticism. Why would a rescue not want to learn where they can do better, and why would they not consider whether their screening process could be improved? Two key words in "my" rescue's motto are Respect and Humility. I think this is so important. This doesn't mean that staff members have not gotten nasty Yelp! reviews from disapointed adopters, because they have. In any situation where people are rejected, there are going to be hurt feelings. I think it's even more important because of that to be gracious, conscientious, and fair. Also, just to be fair, Thor falls into that 9 out of 10 statistic, because I am his second owner. However, I would not characterize him as being "tossed around". |
Excellent post, Quicksilver...:thumbup:....and good on you for your volunteering. Also, your quote, "I'm not neurotic or sick. I just belonged to a total loser." would make a great t-shirt for some shelter/rescue dogs :D The national average that Ann cites is scary to think about. I truly hope that it's way off. |
Quote:
|
I agree with everything being said here. I think that adoption centers need to be stringent - if it was me, I would be too. But I think another big part of the solution would be to employ an animal behaviourist who could work with the new owner and explain the dog's behaviour. Then maybe the new owners would be able to make sure that the dog fit with them and they with the dog. When Cash was about 5 months old, he drove me insane. He peed on my pillows, he would get into the garbage and spread it all over the flat, he would run away with my clothes when I try to get dressed (it's only cute when you are not in a hurry!) and he never listened to me. I very nearly gave him away. I was so close to the breaking point. But I decided to use half of my allowance (student) to get Cash some more training. We joined a clicker training class and now he is my best buddy. Btw, he came from a terrible breeder who hacked off his tail with a blunt knife, so he had his fair share of issues! Sorry for the long post. My point is this: We need to educate the community on dog behaviour and dog training and then maybe the new owners will be able to keep their new dogs. |
yessss i work in an animal shelter... poor little babies who dont get adopted and euthanized! :( |
I'm about halfway through Winograd's second book, Amazon.com: Irreconcilable Differences: The... . All I can say is that it's very disturbing. He claims that most shelters are horribly run, and don't accept that they could save more than 90% of incoming animals because they don't want to acknowledge their incompetence. This guy is a zealot, no question. I need to read more before I can really assess his position. I hope this thread gets more views, because if what he is saying IS true, it is completely revolutionary - NO MORE ANIMALS KILLED IN SHELTERS. Also, I wanted to share some information from this book, because it clears up some confusion I had about the ASPCA, HSUS, PETA, and the garden variety "pound". It appears that the ASPCA was founded in 1866 in New York, and the name says it all: it was a society dedicated to preventing cruelty to animals. For instance, it provided water troughs to over worked horses. At the time New York was concerned about roving dog packs, and instituted animal control to pick up these dogs and exterminate them. This is the kind of pound that's portrayed in the movie 'The Lady and the Tramp'. I won't even describe how dogs were killed by the pound back then, because it's too gruesome and depressing. The ASPCA was very vocal in its opposition to these practices, and instrumental in mandating more humane treatment of dogs (for instance, people were paid to bring dogs in to be destroyed, no questions asked). Then, in 1910, the New York government contracted out its animal control department to the New York SPCA. The large majority of SPCAs since then have followed this model, and that's why the SPCA is synonymous with the city pound - your local city pays your local SPCA to do ALL TYPES of animal control, including round up of strays, licensing, checking on reports of abuse, etc. Winograd argues that these contracts for animal control have led most SPCAs tragically astray, putting them in the business of killing stay pets, when they should be fighting to protect them. He argues that in certain cases, local SPCAs should stop taking these contracts. He also points out that in many cases, the government underpays on these contracts, and the SPCA makes up the difference through charitable contributions. So basically, if your SPCA runs a kill shelter, you should not donate to it, as you are subsidizing horrific treatment of pets. I found this contention shocking. I always thought that of all the controversy out there about animal rights, you could at least be safe giving money to the ASPCA. :( Similarly, it appears that in a few cities, PETA has contracted with the local government to do animal control. That's why there is sometimes news about PETA taking shelter animals in. Most SPCAs run according to HSUS's written guidelines. Anyway, I found this very helpful, as I did not really understand the difference between government mandated animal control, and SPCAs. I didn't realize that SPCAs can turn down these contracts, in which case, either animal control is run by the local government, or it is contracted to another private organization. I hope this is helpful to someone else here as well. |
A curious wrinkle in the pet over-population story is that some areas are actually importing dogs from other countries to meet their needs. While it's commendable to bring in dogs from other states that may otherwise be euthanized, it's downright disturbing to import them while dogs are being put down in this country. I think some areas have been so successful in eliminating the stray problem that they are in danger of losing some shelter funding if they don't maintain a certain population. So there's an economic incentive to maintain the status quo. I don't know enough to speak intelligently about this, but the very fact of importing dogs from other countries for shelters speaks volumes to me. Maybe we need a Nathan Winograd to open our eyes to the reality of shelters. Here's a link about the importation of dogs. Dog Laws At Large: Dog shelters import from around the world to fill the need |
Is that avatar new? I love it! Winograd actually says that many shelters import dogs from other states -- and they make room by killing dogs they already have. :( Often dogs will be moved to a shelter that has a higher kill rate than the one they are currently in. I finished the book. I found it both provoking and frustrating, for a lot of reasons. He says over and over again how morally bankrupt the ASPCA and PETA are, but he doesn't really go into why, except to say that they are mired in bureaucracy. Presumably money must be part of the problem... he makes very vague allusions to the fact that a No Kill policy is considered more expensive. But zealots make me nervous, because they often consider their cause more important than the truth. I think I may buy his first book. I'm hoping that has more practical, fact-based solutions. This one is kind of a screed. Though again, if he's right - revolutionary. ___________________ Okay, just read your link. Very interesting! I wonder why US shelters would import from other countries rather than other states?? One thing that does give me pause, the article ends on a pro-pet store note. |
I wouldn't call it a pro pet store stance. I saw it as just a statement regarding regulatory oversight. Maybe I'm wrong because, as I said, I can't really speak intelligently about it all. I do think it's a mystery to the average person how shelters truly operate and what the motivating factors are. Whatever the case is, I don't think it takes away from the central point of the article...that being the importation of animals from abroad. It's kind of ghastly to think a shelter might euthanize a dog just to make room for one it sees as more desirable. I would hope not but it does seem that he (Winograd) is intent on showing us the 'soft white underbelly' of shelters. Thanks for the review of his book. I think I may get a copy, too. Yes, that's a new pic in my avatar. That's Darla...I call her my little monkey. I need to get a pic with her all gussied up (she had been out playing when I took that pic) but she's a little beauty. Thanks for noticing :). |
Yes, please let me know if you read the book. His first one might be a better bet. It's such an incredible idea, I really want to find out more about it and discuss it with everyone! |
Quicksilver, my library has this title: Redemption : the myth of pet overpopulation and the no kill revolution in America So, I think that must be his 1st book? I'm going to put it on hold. Thanks for the review, very interesting. And Jim, that is really interesting. I wonder what they mean by "importing" (exactly). I know there are some rescues/orgs who specifically work in Puerto Rico etc to try to get stray animals out of there (and other poorer areas) bc of the situation for animals. But, this sounds different from what's being described in the link (not sure if it's the entire original article or not). And it would be so wasteful (like you said) to bring them over here, just to take the place of another euthanized animal. It would be interesting to learn more about this. |
Yes, that's his first book! Please let me know what you think. Just a warning, he rips into PETA pretty hard. Brace yourself. ;) |
Superb thread that I will follow with interest. I wonder how many others out there that are in the dark about this emotional subject matter. |
Ann, I haven't found any real definitive info on this (the importation of dogs) but the article I linked to does mention Puerto Rico and Taiwan specifically. I don't see how anyone can justify helping out other nations' animals while millions of ours are being put down, whatever the reason. Just think of the cost of transportation alone and how far those dollars could go here. And then there's the issue of bringing diseases in. I'm not sure if these dogs must go through quarantine or not. I, like Quicksilver, would love to see a really honest discussion of this issue. I think so many of us just assume that our shelters are doing a great service and leave it at that. Maybe we should ask if they are doing all they can to end the problem or if they are merely doing enough to 'stay in business'. Many shelters do, after all, get public funding. I don't mean to disparage the front line volunteers at shelters. I think they have the hearts of saints but still the problem persists and we can't seem to get below a certain level of animals being put down. For their sake, I think the hard questions need to be asked. It's curious that resources are always found for cases that get publicity (puppy mill busts, typically) while thousands of animals are put down daily in a business as usual fashion. I don't want to get *too* long-winded here, but let me relay a story. My neighbor just got a mixed breed hound from our local shelter. He was scheduled to be put down on the day he got him. This is a young dog, just over a year old, and sweet as can be. He is heart worm positive (like many shelter dogs down South) but the Humane Society told my neighbor they would pay for his medicine. So he pays $65 for the dog and takes him to the vet. The vet gives an estimate for his treatment that goes over $600. My neighbor calls the Humane Society about this and they said they would pay for the medicine only, which is only $100 of the total bill. This shelter dog all of a sudden turns into a $500+ investment and this guy doesn't have that kind of money. He was given the option to return the dog for another, but that would have just been a death sentence for his dog (Chevy is his name). I told Nathan (Chevy's new dad) about the slow kill method for heart worm treatment. He asked his vet about it and the vet agreed that it would be an option for Chevy, especially due to his young age and the likelihood that he wasn't heavily infested with them. So, that's the route he'll take with Chevy. I don't know how pertinent this is to the issue except that this is just another thing that keeps some people from adopting. Heart worms are a major problem in Southern shelter dogs and not advising prospective adopters of cheaper alternative treatments means many of these dogs are not adopted and are put to sleep. Anyway, I'd just love to see a good discussion of the issue. I hope more people see this thread and respond. |
I have heard him speak on the radio many times and have read his first book. I will say a great deal of what he is talking about is the truth and I believe most people cannot handle the truth of what is really going on in this country and the people who are involved all have their own little kingdoms to protect. I see it right her on YT...everyone hates puppymills, cruelty to animals etc but few will do anything about it and most can't even look at the pictures. Most only care about their own dogs and the heck with the rest.....The pet industry is over a 94 billion dollar a year industry... I understand his anger at the other organizations because I believe everyone is making $$$ off of animals and at the end of the day...more just die. It was the same for me when I found out AKC doesn't give a flying flip about the animals...only the breeders. Just look at the legislation they help pass to protect the breeders rights...no matter what. Look at the USDA requirements..they are beyond cruel, but again no one does anything about it. I am not just bashing the AKC but also any of these other organizations and many of our laws. Enough $$$ is raised but few organizations really step up to the plate. One that I believe in is Best Friends in Utah (read their books) but since they are private I have never seen numbers issued on euthanizing dogs. I am also a person who will look at each organization knowing they are not all 100% perfect and I take different parts from each one of them. For the most part I want an AKC dog as an example. I do not agree with everything PETA is doing but I do know they have always been the first ones to tell the world many of the cruel actions that are happening to many animals. I support them because of this... If people got involved in rescue and could take the emotions out of the issue then they would understand how cruel this country is. They would understand laws have to be changed and I have been saying this for years. You have to look at each cities laws, each counties laws, each state laws and the federal laws...everyone is making $$$ off of these animals. Spend some time in a city paid shelter and look at the laws they are forced to follow..you will get a real rude awakening. But before anyone says we have to change it...I have two issues: First we over product dogs and cats every year by over millions....I believe we should restrict the amount of litters that can be born in a year...it starts with the breeders (all of them - volume included). It is beyond me how anyone feels it is their "right" to bring in more animals into this world and use my tax payer $$$ and my emotions to do this. Also if they all lived who would feed them and who would pay for the medical costs? Second - I do not believe animals should live in a shelter environment for the rest of their lives. While I hate all of these animals being euthanized, I also think being kept in a kennel is also cruel and there are articles about this with some of the no kill shelters...they go crazy. In my mind unless we stop the massive amounts of breeding this all will continue. I also believe we should charge the breeders for their dogs ending up in rescue situations that are tax payers burden. Just go to all the sites that sell or give away puppies/kittens every day. It is all about supply and demand and in order to sell new puppies/kittens then the older ones (old stock) must be removed. Almost all of these issues would go away if we stopped the huge production of animals that goes on in this country. Radio : Nathan J Winograd P.S. Interesting about not helping animals from other countries....then we shouldn't help people from Haiti as a comparison? I believe we have to all care about all animals to fix this problem...It affect everyone of us both emotionally and financially. |
Quote:
I think the situations in various shelters varies widely from area to area so there is no blanket solution. For instance, in my area (Mississippi Coast), most all the dogs in the shelter are large mixed breeds. Here's a link to our local shelter. You can see for yourself the animals they have. Humane Society of South Mississippi - 2615 Hwy. 49, Gulfport, MS 39501 In my area, though far too many dogs are PTS, the problem is even worse for cats. Fewer are adopted and they bring the kill ratio way up. There are feral cat colonies here and what's being done now for them is to capture them, s/n them, and release them back to the colony. These cats will never be adoptable so it may be the best for them. We'll see how it works over time. |
Thanks for your thoughtful response, livingdustmops. What I am wondering about is his contention that for the most part, shelters could be run differently and we could effectively stop euthanizing pets. Winograd's contention is that there is NOT a pet overpopulation problem in the US, that if shelters ran more efficiently, almost all these pets would have homes. He says several times in this book that he would visit shelters where well over half the cages were empty, but at the same time, these same shelters were still euthanizing dogs because they were "over capacity." Also, while I hesitate to bring this up because I know it's a real sore spot... I believe this book gives lie to PETA's claims that their abysmal kill rate (90%+) is because the animals they take in are the "worst of the worst". Based on my reading, it appears to me that they ran (run?) some open admission shelters in several counties, and there's no reason to believe that the profile of dogs and cats they admitted was any worse than it is for an average shelter. If this is the case, this is an appalling failure of leadership on PETA's part, and it makes me ill that they basically lied about why their kill rate is so terrible. Again, I'm not sure I trust Winograd to tell the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". I'm still learning about him. |
HaHa...well hell the only thing you picked on was the last sentence...:p Actually I have given $$$ for Haiti animals via Best Friends because they went there. Of course not everyone will agree with me but I feel enough people will give $$$ (not enough $$$ will be given) for the humans and very little will be done for the animals there. I have visited Haiti twice in my life and I will never forget seeing a dog dying right downtown and no one did anything. If you read what happens to many animals in many countries again it is cruel and inhumane. Until proof is given I have only seen a few dogs imported from other countries so I am not sure that is really going on in large numbers and shouldn't be a point on this thread unless we know real numbers. For the most part and again this goes along with my "I'll take different parts" and throw out the rest theory when it comes to feral cats. I would rather see them fixed and released then euthanized because the numbers would shock people because more cats are euthanized than dogs. For the most part it is always a much higher % of dogs in shelters are the big breeds...but then again they have been the most popular over the years and take less upkeep than the small companion pets. You also don't see as many hunting dogs (except for the labs) in shelters...and I am guessing because they were purchased for a reason. I have seldom if ever seen a bloodhound in a shelter but is that because they are used in the south more for hunting wild boar? I don't know. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I do think education helps but we need more. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2003 - 2018 YorkieTalk.com
Privacy Policy - Terms of Use