Enough with the no-kill shelters and related wrongheadedness

Great Debates
1

I was going to go IMHO, but then I thought there might be a good chance this would go debate -level, so I’ll just put it here.

I think my bona fides as a dog lover are established. I love animals generally, and dogs WAY above all. I’m a bit of a dog nut, actually, and getting worse instead of better. And so while my position may be valid for more than dogs, I’m confining myself to dogs because I know and understand them best.

In recent months I’ve gotten a lot of exposure via Facebook to lots of rescue pages and rescue organizations, leading to a lot of stories of heartbreak and sorrow, as well as joy and laughter.

And something which is really making me nuts and I finally want to bring it up here: the emphasis on no-kill and life at any price, by which I mean the obsessive desire to save every dog facing euthanasia in shelters and/or saving every dog that has been abused, no matter what it costs, how long it takes, or, and this is really the crux of it, how much the dog has to continue to suffer to reach the point where the suffering ends, if indeed it ever does.

I completely understand the motives, the emotions, the desire. Totally! I share it! I get it I get it I get it. But while it’s the right heart, it’s the wrong answer.

It is an irrefutable truth that it is not currently possible to save every dog, make them happy and comfortable, and find them a good home. It is not. Period. There is not enough money. There is not enough time. There are not enough people and volunteers and resources. There is certainly not enough homes. That is the reality.

Therefore, triage is necessary. At least it’s necessary if one wants to contribute to the greatest good for the greatest number, vs. assuaging one’s own discomfort at being aware of whatever animal is right in front of them this minute, and I really hope that most people involved in rescue really want the greatest good for the greatest number.

Trying to save this particular dog facing death tomorrow is not the way to do it.

Raising thousands of dollars to put a dog that’s been dipped in acid or set on fire through months of agony is not the way to do it.

And for damn sure, focusing on making every shelter no-kill and keeping dogs locked up in shelters for months and oh my god years on end is not only not the way, it is its own special kind of cruelty.

Because dogs do not understand death the way we do. Dogs do not fear death the way we do, and while a dog may or may not suffer some stress and fear moments before being put down, I can say with absolute certainty that it’s nothing compared to the ongoing misery of being locked up in a run 23-24 hours a day, surrounded by an ever-changing array of stressed and fearful animals, no stability, randomly dispensed affection, and very little in the way of healthy stimulation. That is something a dog understands perfectly, and it is cruel, a thousand times more cruel than releasing the dog through a quick death.

The time, money, resources, and emotion devoted to preventing death could be far better utilized in two crucial ways: preventing unwanted life by subsidizing spay and neuter, and by getting aggressive about education: not only about spay and neuter, but about care and training of dogs. Even subsidizing training, because the biggest reason dogs end up in shelters is because people become overwhelmed by the task of training them when they don’t really know how. So they blame the dog and dump it either directly or indirectly and it ends up in a shelter. If there was an aggressive push to help people learn how to raise and train dogs, starting with children, there would be far fewer people giving up on them. Not none, of course, but far fewer.

Also:; subsidize basic vet care for low-income households. So many animals who are otherwise very loved end up suffering because the need vet care that is beyond the means of the person who loves them. One of the most common ailments that needs to be controlled and shows up time and again is mange.

Anyway, people who get so emotional at the thought of a dog dying need to realize that one of the most beautiful things about dogs is the way they are able to live in the moment, and they don’t care about death. But they do care about suffering, both physically and emotionally. It’s YOU who cares about death. If you care about the dogs, focus on ending the most suffering for the greatest number as effectively as possible, and accept that sometimes that means a gentle, quick death. (And yes, sometimes that’s not how it happens in shelters, so changing that is not a bad idea either. Gassing or otherwise suffocating is a cruel way to euthanize, and that should end.)

As for emotional, an amazing outfit in New York does something I don’t think I’d have the strength to do: volunteers go an spend really good time with dogs slated for euthanasia, playing, petting, feeding… giving them a really good last night on earth. I admire the hell out of those people, and I wish I could do it myself, but it would break me.

So if no one disagrees, I guess this can be moved to IMHO.

But otherwise I’ve not yet heard an argument for no-kill/life at any price that isn’t entirely based on a personal reaction to the sadness of dogs dying, and supports an end goal of ending the most suffering for the greatest number.

(Of course, I assume that’s everyone’s real goal, but if not, all bets are off, obviously…)

2

I’m in agreement here. Those hardliners who demand no-kill solutions aren’t really doing much to solve the immediate problem. It goes beyond pet animals though. There were communities that were/are plagued by white tailed deer. Not only do they munch on vegetable gardens and damage landscaping, deer account for 1.1 billion a year in damages to automobiles per year according to State Farm. But when you introduce a plan to control the population of deer via hunting them you will run into all sorts of resistance. Neighbors view them as pets (and go so far as to put out food for them to eat) and will instead suggest more costly methods of population control including contraception. I pictured distributing condoms to deer but it actually entails catching females and giving them medication.

Practically speaking, there are too many stray dogs and cats to demand no-kill solutions for them all. It just makes sense to euthanize the sick ones and others who just aren’t going to be adopted.

3

So how long would you allow the dog to live in a shelter before you put it to sleep? Two weeks? Three? Four?

4

I couldn’t agree more, and I’m an animal lover to an extreme. I don’t think there are black and white solutions that would work everywhere, but we could do a lot better by our four legged friends if we put all of the resources they’re using for infinite doggie jail towards spay/neuter and teaching people to take pet adoption more seriously.

I don’t wanna make the rules about how long we keep them, that’s got to be a shelter-to-shelter thing, depending on numbers and dollars, and every other factor. Humane treatment of animals does include euthanasia, as much as we may hate it.

5

I agree that no kill shelters cost a lot of money that could be spent on other better programs. I don’t feel right criticizing a no kill shelter because at least they do something. It’s hard to be judgmental from my couch when the extent of my animal activism is arguing about pitbulls.

I can understand why we seek to save animals that have been tortured. The easiest answer would be to put the dog down. In some cases it is overdone and euthanasia would be the most humane solution. On the other hand these extreme cases generally create a large amount of public interest and donations. If it costs a rescue 10k to save a dog, but the story brings in 15k worth of donations then the rescue has been a net positive. For example I have said in the past that as f’d up as the Vick dogs situations were, the plethora of news coverage regarding their rehabilitation was one of the better things to happen to pitbulls in a long time.

My personal belief as to the overpopulation problem isn’t the much maligned back yard breeders but how easy it is to get rid of an inconvenient dog. As long as there is demand people would breed dogs regardless of laws or regulations. Demand would exist at much lower levels if people who purchased dogs kept them until the end of their natural lifespan. Usually there is no cost to getting rid of an unwanted animal. There needs to be some sort of economic punishment to getting rid of a dog. With how desperate some shelters are to get rid of animals it is not hard for some idiot create a revolving door of animals. Our shelters easy acceptance of animals also means that back yard breeders can clear out excess inventory with no repercussions. Unfortunately we have a catch 22 situation where if we make it costly to put animals in shelters people will dump the animals somewhere creating even more hassles. I think that our only chance is to help alleviate our problems is a culture change where pets are not considered so disposable.

6

It would depend on any number of factors, and I don’t think it’s wise to be entirely cut and dried, because that’s the problem with no-kill itself: never kill, no matter how miserable the existence, period. That’s incredibly wrong. So i wouldn’t replace it with a cut & dried kill date, either. But there would be smart guidelines: puppies and young healthy dogs definitely get more time than old or sick. Popular breeds get more time than unpopular breeds. Dogs that have been tested and display good temperments get more time than those that don’t. It’s not rocket science…

Good way to put it.

I didn’t want to be directly insulting to anyone with this, but I have to say that some of what I see on these facebook pages makes me absolutely crazy. All this endless gooey crap* coupled with hysteria at the idea of a dog dying seems extremely self-serving and reflects things that actually have very little to do with the dogs and everything to do with the people acting out like this. It’s terribly frustrating to see so much effort basically wasted.

Oh, and there’s a third aspect that offends me: the gore porn. There’s a few pages that seem to almost enjoy finding the most foul photographs of the most revolting stories and posting them directly, no buffer zone. I’ve called 'em out for a it a few times, particularly in the cases where there is no good purpose served. The most egregious example was a close-up photograph of the fatal impalement of a dog that had been killed by burglers in the process of defending its family. That really pissed me off and undermined my faith in the sincerity of the people running the page, who defended it as necessary to show that animals suffer, which of course was complete horseshit. I don’t object when it’s there to shock people into taking note of someone who is systematically torturing animals, but the killing of a good dog by criminals…what the fuck was that supposed to do, except give a bunch of drama queens something to freak out about?

Grr.
*baby talk, words like “precious” thrown around, and WAY too much “sleeping with the angels/rainbow bridge”. Sorry, just curls my toes and makes me even more convinced that these people are working out issues that have pretty much nothing to do with animal rescue.

7

This is a valid point, and I agree. But it needs to be done right. Saving animals like Patrick that have been neglected and starved is great, because the minute they are rescued the pain and suffering is reduced by the first meal and just keeps getting better, and it it’s pretty cheap, to boot.

But the burn victims (and it’s so fucked up that there are so many…) no. The ones who are going to be forced to endure multiple painful procedures, no.

And the ancient ones…oh jesus! When a dog is 14, has no family or home - let go!

8

If someone wants to make a no-kill shelter, I applaud that. People should be allowed to spend money however they want. And if it makes an animal activist feel better to donate their money to a no-kill shelter, that’s fine with me. But even PETA euthanizes animals. There is nothing wrong with triage and there’s nothing wrong with euthanasia of unadoptable pets. It’s a merciful death, and makes room for more adoptable pets that otherwise would remain feral and continue to increase overpopulation.

9

We need to get serious about limiting breeding. First we needs some real numbers. The net is full of show breeders claiming they are out to ‘‘better the breed’’ and breed responsibly. It is also full of their badmouthing backyard breeders, puppy mills, and anybody so rash as to meet the demands for smaller than breed standard dogs, or crosses.

Are the dogs bred by show breeders healthier and have better temperaments than other dogs? Especially if you go beyond OFA and CERF and start looking at bloat, allergies, cancer. etc.? Are show breeders contributing to the problem by keeping puppies past the best time for socialization? Do puppies kept to 12 weeks end up as misfits being dumped in shelters and killed? http://www.apdt.com/veterinary/assets/pdf/Messer_ND06.pdf

Having worked with service dogs for 20 years, I have seen what can be done in a breeding and socialization program that places a high prioriy on sound dogs.

Having spent the last half of that time on line on dog forums, I can vouch for the role the ignorance of the general public plays. I have no idea how many questions I have seen by concerned that their young female is discharging blood.

We need to identify where all the low quality dogs are coming from and the best way to limit it.

10

No kill shelters are more for the human than for the animal.

As well as the Humane Society. The ASPCA recognizes the need for it also, though I’m not sure they actually euthanize animals themselves.

11

How do you feel about Nathan Winograd’s argument?

Redemption

12

I think he’s nuts. He really thinks there’s a huge untapped resevoir of people – to the tune of 4-5 million per year – who really want a dog or cat but just don’t know how to get one? Uh, really? If there really exist people that stupid, they are too dumb to be allowed to own an animal. I have never met a person, whether rural, urban, or suburban, who did not know how to obtain a domestic pet if they wanted one.

Plus, as far as I can tell, the math just isn’t there. Most people who want a pet, know where to find one, but let’s say you find a home for every one of this year’s unwanted 4 million cats and dogs. Those people won’t be needing a replacement for 15-20 years. So over the 18 year healthy cat lifespan, 72 million new homeless domestic pets will be created. Meanwhile, the US has 300 million people, about 25% of which are under the age of majority and can’t be said to own anything. If it were true that there is untapped pet ownership sufficient to home all unwanted domestic pets, it would mean that a full 1/3 of the US adult population wants a pet but doesn’t have one AND just need to be educated about how to get one? That doesn’t even account for the fact that most people live in households. It’s coming close to HALF of all US households that need to adopt a pet – one they would not have otherwise adopted, because 4-5 million is the “unwanted” or non-adopted pets, it is not the total domestic shelter pet flow-through – in the next 18 years to meet those figures. Does that sound likely to you?

Anyway, the other problem with no-kill shelters is that they very, very easily become hoarding situations. Because the people already have excessive emotional involvement with “saving every animal” they can’t turn away “just one more” which becomes one, one, one, and another one and pretty soon you have stacks of cat corpses and a condemned property.

13

I wouldn’t say he’s nuts (honestly, that article was so short on the actual details of his plan, I would be hard pressed to say what he is), but I would say he’s wrong. For one thing, i think he falls into the trap of assuming a dog is a dog is a dog. Like people come to the shelter and say, “I want a dog,” and the worker hands them a dog, and they say, “Thank you!” and walk out. No.

I am almost at a point where I would like another dog. If someone called me and surveyed, I might say that, yes, I want a dog. But, I don’t want just any dog. I want a smallish dog, but not tiny. It has to be a low shedder, and not need too much grooming. It needs to have a low prey drive, and not bark too much. Preferably it will be trained and mannerly, or young and intelligent seeming. I want a dog that is pretty to look at. But, when I go into my shelter all I see are large dogs, mostly pit mixes, that are totally untrained, if not down-right aggressive. Dogs with high prey drives. Dogs that bark a LOT. Dogs that have never been anywhere but chained in a yard, or left in this cage at the shelter. Ugly dogs.

And I’m sorry, but those aren’t the dogs I want to take home to be my companion for the next 10-15+ years. A lot of people like those kind of dogs, and have the skills to work with them and make them lovely housepets, but a lot of people don’t.

I think (and in my talking with animal rescue people, they agree) that when a dog that fits the description above (or something close to it) comes into the shelter, it doesn’t stay long. The problem is with those other dogs, and I don’t think it has an easy fix. Back to the debate, I do think euthanasia can be the right choice for some of those dogs.

14

Haven’t read the book yet, but my guess would be he’s arguing that animal breeders produce as many animals as shelters kill, and if everyone who now buys from a breeder was educated to get animals from the shelters instead, the net effect would be the same, but few deaths and bankrupt breeding operations.

15

“Breeders” probably do produce close to that number (that’s where the shelter dogs come from!), but good breeders absolutely do not. I agree that more people should adopt, rather than get dogs from bad breeders; you are saving the dog’s life, and you are getting the same dog, essentially. It isn’t like the “breeding” from those puppy mills is worth a damn. And I do think there needs to be more awareness on that, etc. I also think there is a problem with certain types of “rescue operations” (actually, hoarders with a domineering personality) that go into shelter and take all the decent, cute dogs, and then create asinine rules about who can adopt, leaving decent people in certain locations very few ways to get a friendly little mutt.

I just think there a lot of problems, and there isn’t an easy, or quick fix. I’m sure some things could be done better, but shelter workers are generally good people doing a hard, heartbreaking job. If there was an easy way to fix it, I think they would.

16

I have this board to thank for introducing me to the idea that no-kill shelters means not killing animals that should be euthanized for their own good - that just hadn’t occurred to me before. I don’t support keeping animals alive just for the sake of keeping them alive, either. If the animal is not having a good quality of life and that doesn’t seem likely to change, it’s time to end their life quickly and painlessly.

17

Some people look for dogs for very specific purposes though. I don’t hunt birds, but if I did I would probably want a good bird dog of some kind. I need a breed with a lot of energy, a love for water (let’s say I duck hunt) and one that is obedient. I’m not sure I’m going to find something like that at a shelter as easily as I will with a breeder. Also, as miss elizabeth pointed out, I expect to have this dog as a companion for a long time. I want to make sure as much as I can that the dog and I are compatible.
Another problem is that some shelters make it a pain in the ass to adopt an animal. At least I’ve heard on some other SDMB threads. There’s no way I’m going to allow a home inspection in order to adopt a pet.

I am sure there are plenty of good dogs that are put in shelters. I’m not convinced that there are enough homes that actually want to adopt all of them though.

18

Good to know the fight against ignorance is winning… :wink:

19

The thing that you find so irritating and unacceptable in part B of your statement above exists to help you and the animals succeed the goal you cite in Part A. It’s a very good thing, and while some fussy obnoxious rescue groups and shelters can be, well, fussy-obnoxious about it, it is the reason rescue groups have a better record, a MUCH better record at successful lifelong pet placement than shelters that just have you fill out a form and write a check.
A home inspection, done properly, is really not that big a deal. I’ve done them for rescue groups, and it’s pretty straightforward. You just want to check the layout of the house, access to the yard, proper fencing, making sure there IS a home (vs. people trying to get animals for unsavory purposes). Checking for other dogs and other pets or children (people lie about this kind of thing all the time because they want a particular dog and that leads straight to failure), and a brief interview with as many family members as possible to be sure that the rescue is sending the right dog into the right home. It’s not like home checks involve poking around in your refrigerator and computer, and it shouldn’t have to take longer than 10 minutes.
Instead of focusing on it as some kind of intrusion, you could change your perspective and be glad of the help in increasing your odds of success in finding the pet that is really the right one for you.

20

Having gone through this process I can that in my experience adoption agencies have totally lost perspective on this. Finding a good match for the pet is important, but most lost track of the basic fact that you are doing them favor by adopting an abandoned animal, not the other way round.