sigh
No, that’s not where we disagree. That’s where you disagree with the point you think I am trying to make.
You continue to misunderstand my point. I don’t disagree at all with your comments regarding the likely outcome for animals dropped off at a shelter. I think the blunt approach taken by the worker in your example is a good one.
But the thing is, as a society we have decide that we don’t want a bunch of stray animals running around. We also frown on people killing them themselves and dumping the corpses in a river or somewhere. So to alleviate this problem, we maintain shelters where people can dump off their animals. It’s not pretty, but it’s the best solution we’ve managed so far.
The incentive for people to drop their animals off at shelters is that when they do that, there is at least a chance, however small, that the animal will find a home. If people knew, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that they were simply dropping off their animal to be killed, a great many of them would probably choose to just release their pets into the wild somewhere, and hope they do okay. We don’t want them to do that.
And look, I’m starting to get a bit annoyed here. You keep on insinuating that I’m under the delusion that most animals dropped off at shelters won’t be killed. For the last time: I’m not. And I never said I was. That has nothing to do with the point I am attempting to make.
Really, I need some feedback here: is it my ability to express my thoughts, or MM’s reading comprehension skills that are deficient here?
Jim, I’m glad you don’t think shelters are lying, and I’m not sure how I managed to misunderstand you so drastically.
Oh. Wait. Maybe it was because you said,
Backtracking is cool. Apologizing for inflammatory “death camp” language is cool. But don’t claim you didn’t say that shit above.
That said, you misunderstood my post in a few places, for which I take partial blame – I wasn’t clear. When I said,
I meant that the alternative to the shelter wasn’t a bunch of animals in cozy homes. My phrasing was ambiguous. And when I said,
my point wasn’t to play the holier-than-thou card. It was to point out that it’s totally unrealistic to “take in your fair share of animals.” We simply don’t live in a society in which your average 3-person family is equipped to deal with 6 dogs and 18 cats. I was illustrating the overpopulation crisis, not telling you what a slacker you were. I’d hoped that my examples with those numbers would make that clear; apparently, it didn’t.
To reiterate, your local full-access shelter is:
Not equivalent to a death-camp (I’d elaborate on that, but you’ve taken it back, and I don’t want to taunt Godwin any more than necessary), and
Probably not lying to you (I can’t vouch for other shelters, but most of them aren’t in the business of lying).
Now.
Ferrous, when you say that:
I think you’re partly right. Some folks do have this incentive.
I think it’s misguided, and shelters are morally responsible for disabusing people of this notion. I do it all the time.
You don’t drop off your pet at the shelter because you want to give it a chance at life. No, you find a different apartment building to move to, or you take it to obedience classes, or you don’t let it hang out unsupervised with your children, or you learn to deal with the terrors of the litterbox, if you’re trying to give it a chance at life. You take it to the shelter either because you’ve exhausted all your alternatives, or because you’re ignorant of the alternatives, or because the alternatives are too inconvenient for you.
And when you bring your animal to us, you sign its death warrant. At our shelter, you acknowledge that you’re asking us to euthanize the animal at our sole discretion if we choose not to make it available for adoption.
You bring us the animal instead of letting it go on the roadside because letting it go is illegal, constitutes abandonment, may constitute cruelty. You bring us the animal instead of letting it go on the roadside because if we kill it, at least we’ll make the death quick and painless, not death from starvation or car wheels or disease.
There’s no contract for us to adopt the animal out. We’ll try to adopt out as many animals as we can (to good homes), because that’s part of our mission. But you get no sort of assurance from us, explicit or implicit, that we’ll make any such effort with your animal.
Ferrous… I had an eloquent post all written up, then it fucking disappeared. I’ll leave it at this:
I don’t agree that people should have an overly optimistic picture of what will happen when they drop off their pet. You say people will choose to abandon their pets and hope for the best if they know it’ll be killed anyway. I say that maybe people will think twice before letting Patches have a litter because “it’s the right thing to do” or little Timmy (son/daughter) should experience the miricle of life first-hand. We disagree on a hypothetical situation. Neither of us are wrong.
:smack:
Dude! You can disagree with that all you want. But you’re not disagreeing with me, because I never said that! And I don’t agree with it either! Did you read the part where I said, "I think the blunt approach taken by the worker in your example is a good one. "?
Seriously, WTFF? This thread is making me crazy. I think I’m saying one thing, but people keep responding to me as if I’d said something completely different.
I agree. I’ve known more than one of the “Let Fluffy roam free” type of idiots in my day. I think the point Ferrous is trying to make, and correct me if I am wrong, is that people have a preconceived notion about what service shelters provide. Namely, that they will accept animals, find them homes if they can, and humanely put them down if they cannot. What this woman did though, was essentially circumvent right past step two to a slightly shocking version of step three.
The end result is the same–a litter of dead puppies–but they died in a manner that was not within the bounds of the implicit agreement between the dropper and the shelter.
Ferrous, I know I’m quoting Be here, but you said you agreed with it, so I’m gonna use this excerpt.
I think I understand what you’re saying; I don’t think you understand what I’m saying.
I’m saying that the shelter isn’t generally joining any sort of “implicit” agreement with the dropper to try to adopt out their animal.
Now, the shelter IS engaging in an explicit (usually) agreement to euthanize the animals in a humane method, if necessary. And as far as that goes, I can see the argument that this worker violated that agreement. My objection was to your saying that there’s an implicit agreement to try to find a home for an animal someone brings to us.
If you’re not saying that, my apologies for misunderstanding you.
Daniel, I’m no longer sure what point, if any, I was trying to make.
But seriously folks…Okay, that’s not exactly what I meant, but I can see how you got that, and how it might be read as an implied criticism of the good work you (non-feeding-puppies-to-snakes) shelter workers do. If you thought I was criticising you, please accept my apologies.
Really though, I meant more the “humane method” part, as well as the “implied agreement” to keep the animal for a certain time period, rather than just gas it immediately. Not that the shelter should actively try to find homes for the animals.
And if we’re getting hung up on the “impled agreement” part, let’s just change that to “expectation, right or wrong, of shelter patrons”. And stories like the OP go against such expectations, and harm the mission shelters are trying to accomplish.
Just for the record, my own interaction with shelters has always been of the taking away variety, not the dropping off. I’ve adopted three cats from shelters over the course of my life, and another one that would have gone to a shelter (or worse) had I not taken it in. You people do good work, and have my respect.
Okay, time to storm off again…oh, crap, I forgot to storm in. Ah, hell with it.
I realized that I forgot to put my opinion in my last post.
The woman shouldn't be fired. She should be given an award-she conserved funds and resouces and brought attention to this country's pet problem.
The puppies were essentially dead anyway. It was just a matter of time before they were gassed. The snake had a real chance at being adopted. Puppies with no future become food for snake with a future.
I fail to see the problem.
I also fail to see how these puppies were any different from the many that are euthanized and cremated or rendered every day.
I don’t have anything to add to this debate, as I really can’t formulate an opinion right now. But I would still like to share my own experience.
When my ex moved to Vancouver, he left me with both of his guinea pigs. I took them in gladly. What else to do? They became the joy of my life. They both died on my watch, but that’s life.
My best friend is leaving for Australia in a few days, then plans on settling in Toronto for a few years. Would I take in his bunny? Of course. She’s a pain in the ass, but what’s the alternative? Who’s going to adopt a six-year-old bunny? So I have another pet who’ll die on my watch.
My job is to provide her with the best life possible. I might bitch about Bunny on the boards (because she tends to destroy things at ground level), but I take good care of her, and will do so until she leaves me.
Sure, when I’ve been pissed off at Bunny’s destruction of my stuff, I’ve been tempted to bring her to a shelter, or to a farm, or to a bunny rescue. But in the end, she brings something special into my life: responsibility for someone other than myself, a cuddly friend, and sometimes, much comfort.
I doubt I’ll have pets for a while after Bunny leaves me, but count me in among those devoted to our furry friends. (I won’t comment on the puppy/python thing, sorry.)
Ferrous, no apology needed – I didn’t take what you were saying as a criticism. I was just commenting on what seems to be a common misconeption about how shelters work.
It’s not the fault of people who have this misconception, and for all I know, in some cases it’s not a misconception at all. But in many instances – full-access shelters that don’t have a time-limit on animals in the adoption room – it’s impossible to give every animal a chance at being adopted. Some folks, when we tell them that, get really mad at us. Usually when we explain our rationale, people calm down – but not always.
I know you weren’t getting mad about it, or blaming us, or anything like that. I was just commenting on the idea that shelters have an implicit agreement to at least try to adopt out every animal.
(And I probably shouldn’t’ve responded to you in the same post in which I responded to Jimbrowski – my anger at him probably bled through to my response to you. Apologies!)
Not only do shelters NOT have an implicit agreement to try to adopt out every animal brought to them, such an agreement would actually be irresponsible in the extreme, and no sensible member of the public would expect such a thing.
Do we REALLY want shelters to attempt to adopt out every animal they receive? Even the aggressive dog who’s already bitten a person? Even an elderly cat with cancer? Even the 4 week old puppy (whose chances of ever making a good adult companion animal are small, due to lack of socalization - 4 weeks being MUCH too young to leave its littermates and mother)? Even the 3-month old dog with distemper (contagious to the other animals in the shelter, and unlikely to survive neurologically intact despite expensive medical treatment)?
Some animals, through no fault of their own, are NOT adoptable. But their owners may prefer to delude themselves and drop them off at a shelter “where those nice shelter workers will find Fluffy a new home” rather than accept the unpleasant truth and take responsibility for euthanizing the animal themselves. The rest of us are under no obligation, though, to support them in their unrealistic views. I think it is tragic that nearly all shelters would euthanize the animals in my above examples immediately, rather than wasting precious cage space on them - but the tragedy is not the shelter’s doing. The tragedy lies in the fact that, for some animals, euthanasia truly IS the most merciful option. And I certainly can’t fault shelter workers for focusing their limited energy and resourses on those animals which their experience shows are the most likely to be adopted. It’s a triage situation - one they didn’t create, but which they have to deal with.
Nobody yet has mentioned the 13 dogs listed in the article as “Went to research”. To my mind, that is far worse than the puppies being eaten, although that bothers me as well.
I also wonder how it is that so far this year, 529 dogs were adopted, but only 78 were adopted all of last year. That’s barely one per week.
StG
Current owner of 5 rescued dogs, 2 rescued cats.
All spayed and neutered, thank you very much.
Why? Research animals have to come from somewhere, and those dogs were doomed anyway. Seems to me that their role in helping develop medical procedures and devices makes their deaths infinitely more purposeful than if they had simply been gassed and incinerated.
