600 Euthanized in a month? (miranadobe)

DougB

I made this comment on Pet Finder and got ripped up pretty good, but it is a consideration.

Some of the rules that rescues use actually hinder placing pets.  It seems like it is better to euth an animal than place it with a family that doesn't meet standards set by the

 Some shelter workers are becoming the ultimate dog snobs but the sad truth is that it is at the expense of animal's lives. Honestly in a shelter that is killing 600 animals a month, the animals are far safer in unscreened homes than they are at the shelter.

AgileGSD

Krissim Klaw

 Sadly I can't think of anything particular unless we can somehow attach some value to the animals.  Sadly many people don't value dogs and cats that highly so it doesn't matter if they are slain by the millions.

  And even sadder is that shelter workers are can be some of the worst offenders as far as not valuing the life of animals in their care.

WOW.

sl2crmeg

AgileGSD

Krissim Klaw

 Sadly I can't think of anything particular unless we can somehow attach some value to the animals.  Sadly many people don't value dogs and cats that highly so it doesn't matter if they are slain by the millions.

  And even sadder is that shelter workers are can be some of the worst offenders as far as not valuing the life of animals in their care.

 

WOW.

Double WOW.

Agilegsd, you seen to always make accusations about shelters.  What, exactly, is your agenda?  Obviously you have one...

Do you have any suggestions or ideas that can actually help reduce the number of euthanasias or did you just join this thread to slam shelters, yet again???

BEVOLASVEGAS

sl2crmeg

AgileGSD

Krissim Klaw

 Sadly I can't think of anything particular unless we can somehow attach some value to the animals.  Sadly many people don't value dogs and cats that highly so it doesn't matter if they are slain by the millions.

  And even sadder is that shelter workers are can be some of the worst offenders as far as not valuing the life of animals in their care.

 

WOW.

Double WOW.

Agilegsd, you seen to always make accusations about shelters.  What, exactly, is your agenda?  Obviously you have one...

Do you have any suggestions or ideas that can actually help reduce the number of euthanasias or did you just join this thread to slam shelters, yet again???

Probably just to slam shelter workers again. I'm not even going to feed into her comments with a response.

Having managed animal shelters, I can say that while 600 sounds like a lot, and is by no means a good number, it isn't that uncommon in an open door shelter, especially depending on the time of year.

I will also say that I am on the fence with the strict adoption criteria vs. euthanasia. Euthanasia, by definition, is a death without pain; however, when is euthanasia the better option? For example, one of my previous shelters didn't adopt out barn cats. We were happy to set up a feral cat colony for someone that wanted barn cats, but we wouldn't adopt out a kitten or most adult cats into a barn cat situation. On one hand, it meant that we had to euthanize more cats. However, on the other hand, the statistic is that outdoor cats live about 3-5 years on average, can catch a variety of diseases from FIV to rabies, and may die a terrible death - hit by a car or attacked by a coyote. Given those choices, we decided that at least if the cats were euthanized while they were with us, it was a better fate than what may await them as barn cats. BUT another organization I worked for had a policy of not adopting puppies out to people who worked full time - I changed that policy immediately as it was 1.) ridiculous; and 2.) eliminated 90% of our targeted population for adoption. I finally got the point across that we should only hold our adopters to the standards that we hold ourselves to...and in some cases, not even that!

BEVOLASVEGAS

sl2crmeg

AgileGSD

Krissim Klaw

 Sadly I can't think of anything particular unless we can somehow attach some value to the animals.  Sadly many people don't value dogs and cats that highly so it doesn't matter if they are slain by the millions.

  And even sadder is that shelter workers are can be some of the worst offenders as far as not valuing the life of animals in their care.

 

WOW.

Double WOW.

Agilegsd, you seen to always make accusations about shelters.  What, exactly, is your agenda?  Obviously you have one...

Do you have any suggestions or ideas that can actually help reduce the number of euthanasias or did you just join this thread to slam shelters, yet again???

 I suppose everyone has an agenda who voices an opinion. I am not the only one on this thread who mentioned that some shelters were maybe not doing all they could do to place animals. I think that slowly but surely, I think the public are getting tired of being constantly blamed for shelter deaths while shelters resist any attempt modernize and become more and more snobbish about who they deem suitable to have a pet.

 There are plenty of resources available for shelters that wish to learn more about increasing adoptions and saving more lives, they certainly don't need me to tell them what to do. But a few things were brought up on this thread already such as adoption hours and over-screening. A few more would also include TNR programs, foster programs, networking with other rescue groups, getting available animals in the public eye (petfinder, CL, pet stores, newspapers, etc) and community outreach beyond just pushing S/N and telling the public how horrible they all are when it comes to animals.

 I don't imply that all shelters/rescues are bad but IME too many are willing to settle for the status quo. I have seen improvements in the ones in my area but also have seen one private "super shelter" not really live up to it's expectations and misled the public (they have yet another new director, so fingers crossed!). The biggest improvements have been at the county pound which added extended adoption hours once or twice a week, get their dogs on petfinder and now the formation of a rescue group soley to take at risk dogs from the pound.

 Those that think no screening is better than euth - how do you feel about the people who get pissed at our shelter when we deny them because their current animals are not seen by a veterinarian (we take their vet's word on current status - we don't insist on a set schedule of vaccines), because they intend to keep the dog chained out 24/7, or because their last 3 pets died after being HBC because they refuse to confine them?  Seriously, people don't understand why we don't adopt to homes like this and it boggles my mind.

I am not trying to start a war here and I am not knocking the work done by rescues.  But we are looking at a new reality now.  People are hurting bad, and one symptom is they abandon their pets.  The animals are coming into rescue faster and faster and it looks like they are coming in faster than they can be rehomed in the traditional way.  and it will probably get worse before it gets better.  Either new methods have to be developed or euthanasia is going to increase.  

Small rescues will probably stay the same, but larger rescues could try other methods.  Better merchandising of pets, advertising, streamlined application and interview procedures , sophisticated fund raising, and reevaluation of adoption criteria.

I guess I just don't  accept that it is better to euth a healthy animal than place it in a less than perfect home.  Most people who want to adopt love animals.  They may need some education, but they are not the enemy.  They may treat the animals differently than some rescuers would like, but that doesn't mean the animal is mistreated.  I see lots of healthy happy animals in kennels, and a farm cat is at least alive for a while and is being a cat instead of a house ornament ( my cats are house ornaments). 

Alive is better than dead, dead is better than abused, but what is abuse.  If you define abuse to include kenneling a dog or letting it roam a farmstead, or not being home all day to care for the animal or not having a vet because this is your first pet, you may be needlessly killing a dog. And if a person has tried to adopt and been turned down for some micky mouse reason and they buy a dog, don't tell them they killed a dog in rescue.  They didn't.

maggiesmommy

Plus, technically, the USDA has labeled them inedible, so, though other countries eat dog and cat, its technically illegal to butcher and eat dog, cat, and horse here.

Maybe ask a state legislator to propose a law mandating humane education in schools as part of a comprehensive no bullying curriculum.  Not only would that reduce the problems about animals, it might reduce school and domestic violence, too.

Also, educate veterinarians about the long term cost to dogs of behavioral issues, and encourage them to send clients to puppy kindergarten EARLY, before the dog has a chance to become an untrained adolescent.  Most dogs that are given up in puppy hood are 7-11 months old!!!!!  Which coincides with the developmental period when they start becoming more independent and obnoxious if they haven't already been trained.  I get a lot of people call me for "puppy class" when this happens, and they are amazed to find out that Fido is nearly an adult, and they will be in Adult Manners, not PK.  Those are the lucky ones, though.  At least the owner is hoping to keep them...

It sounds good-a law requiring schools to teach humane treatment of animals, but it raises questions.  Who pays for it (think unfunded  mandate), what or who sets the agenda (PETA, HSUS, AKC, the local puppy miller, the average citizen who may not qualify to adopt for a silly reason, the local farmer whose taxes pay a big part of the school bill) how do you find time for it in a day or week or year when the rest of the curriculum has to be spent on reading ,writing, math, DARE, drugs, bus safety ,health and sex ed, and dozens of other topics that are part of the curriculum and should be part of parenting instead of school. My wife's school doesn't allow furry animals for allergy reasons, and the rights of the one with an allergy will trump the rights of any who want animals in school.

Good TV shows, cheap CD's teaching pet care, a video game with points for good pet care , training classes for beginning pet owners at the rescue, sponsoring pet clubs for kids (4H style).  They may all exist already, but where and when?

Veterinarians should be an excellent source of help, but they probably aren't aren't familiar with all of their  local resources.  Educating them is an excellent idea. Working with them could eliminate a lot of pet surrenders.

I am not against background checks.  I know there are people out there who should not be allowed near animals and children.  I do believe some of the criteria used can be counter productive and encourages people to use BYBs and pet shops.  Americans are stubborn people. You tell us we can not do something, and we will do it just because we can.

I'm not sure about new laws (that always gets me concerned), but a program like the DARE program would be great to teach kids proper pet care in schools.  It could easily be run through each county's cooperative extension service.  This is the same dept that oversees county 4-H programs.  The programs could be set up as either special assemblies, or in-class lessons, etc.  Those departments are already funded, so I don't think it would be too difficult, cost-wise to get this kind of thing set up.

DougB

I am not trying to start a war here and I am not knocking the work done by rescues.  But we are looking at a new reality now.  People are hurting bad, and one symptom is they abandon their pets.  The animals are coming into rescue faster and faster and it looks like they are coming in faster than they can be rehomed in the traditional way.  and it will probably get worse before it gets better.  Either new methods have to be developed or euthanasia is going to increase.  

Small rescues will probably stay the same, but larger rescues could try other methods.  Better merchandising of pets, advertising, streamlined application and interview procedures , sophisticated fund raising, and reevaluation of adoption criteria.

I guess I just don't  accept that it is better to euth a healthy animal than place it in a less than perfect home.  Most people who want to adopt love animals.  They may need some education, but they are not the enemy.  They may treat the animals differently than some rescuers would like, but that doesn't mean the animal is mistreated.  I see lots of healthy happy animals in kennels, and a farm cat is at least alive for a while and is being a cat instead of a house ornament ( my cats are house ornaments). 

Alive is better than dead, dead is better than abused, but what is abuse.  If you define abuse to include kenneling a dog or letting it roam a farmstead, or not being home all day to care for the animal or not having a vet because this is your first pet, you may be needlessly killing a dog. And if a person has tried to adopt and been turned down for some micky mouse reason and they buy a dog, don't tell them they killed a dog in rescue.  They didn't.

 I totally agree with you Doug.

 Killing animals now to prevent the chance that something bad might happen to them in the future is certainly an odd way of thinking. For high kill shelters, I think screening should be limited to checking to make sure the adopters aren't known animal abusers. If I honestly filled out an adoption application, I would be turned down by shelters or rescues. I own intact animals and occasionally breed them, my dogs rarely see a vet (and FWIW I rarely see a doctor) and they are given limited vaccines. I know multiple "dog people" who have been turned down for adopting both dogs and cats from shelters/rescues because of their intact dog (s). These are people who are extremely dedicated dog owners - there is something majorly wrong with the system when they are deemed unsuitable owners. One friend of mine was turned down to adopt a 10 year old cat from the local shelter because she has intact dogs.

 DARE sounds like such a good idea, but it is an ineffective program.  The kids make all the right responses, but studies show that behavior doesn't change.  My wifes school used to spend 18 hours on DARE, but had to cut back to 10  - budget cuts and needs of other programs  Using the schools sounds so easy, but the curriculum has been enlarged almost yearly and to add anything more means something else gets cut back.  Maybe a pet club as an extra-curricular activity.  I remember 4-H as a non-school activity held a various homes .  If you can convince a business to sponsor a bowling team, why not a dog club or cat club.  If they have a room that can stand accidents, they have a meeting room.  I would think that you  would want kids interacting with animals, learning how to train and care for their animals by actually working with animals. 4-H already has pet care and training programs. It would be nice if they could promote and expand these and move the 4-H programs off the farm and into urban areas.

DougB

  I would think that you  would want kids interacting with animals, learning how to train and care for their animals by actually working with animals. 4-H already has pet care and training programs. It would be nice if they could promote and expand these and move the 4-H programs off the farm and into urban areas.

  4H has long since moved off the farms and offers projects for just about anything youth could be interested in. Many areas do have established 4H dog clubs. I have been an advisor for a 4H dog club for about 10 years and 4H is how I got started in dogs. I joined with my mixed breed when I was 11 and by time I was 15 I had a purebred dog that I trialed in AKC (and I remained an active 4H member until I aged out). Ohio 4H just had an all new dog project book and workbook made a couple years ago, which is a really good resoruce for care and training. This website is for Ohio Dog 4H: http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~prec/4h/dog/index.htm There are two other 4H dog clubs in our county and the local all-breed club gives all the clubs weekly use of their building. In the summer all three clubs also have outdoor practice.

 If anyone would like to volunteer to be an advisor for a 4H dog club or start one, your local extension office can get you started.

The reason I mentioned DARE as a comparison is because it's an in-school program.  If it's ineffective, that's not really the point. 

4-H clubs are great (I was VERY active in the NC 4-H horse program as a teen), but the kid has to already have an avid interest in something to join a club.  An in-school pet care program would reach many more kids, because it wouldn't be an after-school only thing.

Example - at my (suburban) middle school we had FFA.  Every kid went through it as a class for a quarter (rotated with Home Ec, Business class, etc).  When I was in the FFA rotation, the teacher knew I rode horses and asked if we could do a field trip to visit my barn, which was only a couple minutes from the school.  My trainer agreed, so we had all the kids out, and she taught them a little bit about horses, as well as the goats she had.  Everyone had a great time, and everyone learned something from the experience.