Pet overpopulation is a myth

I doubt you will find ANYONE on this board who will say that those conditions ideal.  I won't use the word "acceptable".  I guess that depends on when one draws the line between an animal being better off dead.  The dog pulled from that shelter did not have an easy road, but she was nursed to health, had some behavioral issues dealt with, and was adopted last month.  When I went to first visit her at that shelter they had a litter of GSD puppies in a rabbit cage.  I went back a few days later to pick up the dog we were pulling and all those puppies had been adopted.  The shelter manager told me that the dog we were pulling would have had to be euthanized except she had four HW+ dogs and "those always go first" (our dog had kennel cough, whips, and the abscess, but being HW- apparently spares you from the needle in that county).  The manager gave us the dog for free even though we didn't have 503(c) papers.  She truly cares for the animals, I have heard it from more than one person and seen it myself.  But according to your sources we are supposed to blame the shelter managers for all the problems...

I guess that is my issue with your "links".  They certainly point out areas for improvement but none realistically address the heart of the issue - money.  Who pays for these facilities, programs, people, and supplies?

Liesje

2bully

 I also find it offensive that some find that a shelter keeping animals in that kind of state and conditions is excusable

 

And I find it offensive that people who have not even seen the data for certain areas are so quick to make assumptions about where the money is coming from and how it's being used.  So you would support euthanizing way more dogs in order to save the money spent on them for a state-of-the-art building?  'Cus really that's the only viable solution around here, unfortunately.  Unless people can actually step up and accept the blame themselves instead of point fingers at the shelter manager.  The shelter manager is not the one that decides the county budget for the shelter.  Or should they be paying for new facilities out of their own pockets?

 There is no excuse for those kinds of conditions period. I don't care what the entities mission is, how its funded, or any excuse that can be brought to the table couldn't get me to find those conditions acceptable.

2bully

 There is no excuse for those kinds of conditions period. I don't care what the entities mission is, how its funded, or any excuse that can be brought to the table couldn't get me to find those conditions acceptable.

Then what is the alternative?  Euthanizing the animals.  But your links were very pro no-kill programs.

Either you find those conditions acceptable or not and it shouldn't be contigent on the mission of those responsible for that care or lack of it.

In the case of city/county animal shelters, you seem not to understand that they are mandated BY LAW to take the turn ins and pick up the strays.  They are mandated BY LAW to keep the strays a certain amount of time and sometimes to keep all intake animals a certain amount of time unless there are certain dire medical conditions met requiring instant euthanasia.  These shelters are so poorly funded that they are reduced to using dirty needle heartsticks to kill the animals or cruel and inhuman gas chambers (if they're lucky and they have $$$ for that chamber).  In all of those cases they do not have CHOICES, they do not have enough staff or volunteers to keep the crap out of the cages or the animals fed in alot of the facilities, much less reach out to media outlets for advertising!  Owners, hoarders, breeders all retain one very important thing that those facilities do not -- CHOICE.  The staff at alot of shelters dearly wish they could euthanize the animals and keep the numbers manageable but because of poorly structured statutes and rules, they're not allowed to if the animal is considered adoptable.  To euthanize on arrival would prevent the suffering they have to stand by and witness without the resources to help end it.  They're not greedy, seeking profits, they're not mentally disturbed, hoarding excessive animals in deplorable conditions, they're charged with a duty their local governments don't want to fund and their hands are often tied.  The hands of the others you mentioned are NOT TIED they're operating with choice.

Hey, I've got an idea!  100% euthanasia.  Once a dog has "failed" in a first home, for whatever reason, the owners will take them to a facility and have them put down.  No exceptions.  Then we won't need shelters/rescue at all and all the people who spend their time finger pointing, finding fault, and playing the blame game will have to find something else to do.  Shuffleboard, maybe.

Liesje

2bully

 There is no excuse for those kinds of conditions period. I don't care what the entities mission is, how its funded, or any excuse that can be brought to the table couldn't get me to find those conditions acceptable.

 

Then what is the alternative?  Euthanizing the animals.  But your links were very pro no-kill programs.

My views have not always been this way, I have proof from this very forum.

http://community.dog.com/forums/p/10320/463937.aspx

Peta and the HSUS find euthanizing animals an effective means of management.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-12-no-kill-shelters_N.htm#uslPageReturn

I think more can be done. I also think that those in a position to make policies and are charged with management of the shelters are in a key position to make changes for the better.

2bully

Liesje

2bully

 There is no excuse for those kinds of conditions period. I don't care what the entities mission is, how its funded, or any excuse that can be brought to the table couldn't get me to find those conditions acceptable.

 

Then what is the alternative?  Euthanizing the animals.  But your links were very pro no-kill programs.

I think more can be done. I also think that those in a position to make policies and are charged with management of the shelters are in a key position to make changes for the better.

Please elaborate.... 

In my city, San Antonio, our city owned animal control was exposed through an "investigative" report in the local paper.  People were outraged at the conditions and the numbers of animals killed (50,000 a year).  The city blustered and made excuses and fired people.  They built a new facility (over 12 million dollars) and hired new people. They have no more room in the new facility than existed in the old one to house animals!  They no longer pick up strays unless they are sick or injured.  Owner surrender now costs money.  I have seen people there to surrender a pet and when they find out they have to pay, they leave with their pet.  Guess where it ends up?  The streets around the new building have strays everywhere!  Dead dogs in the street.  Owner retention is the answer, but like many have said, it usually doesn't work.  EDUCATION of children is a start. 

The only change we have seen is being done by VOLUNTEERS who now are allowed to "work" at the facility and pull adoptable animals and find foster homes.  Money is not the problem in some cities, it is simply that people don't step up and do their share in the community.  There are ways to fight this problem as 2bully is trying to point out.  It is not going to happen overnight and you can't depend on a tax payer run shelter to solve the problem.  Government just doesn't work that way.  Get out there and find a way to volunteer and encourage others to do the same. 

 People on this board and especially this thread are preaching to the choir.  We all seem to do what we can to help animals in need.  Attacking each other seems pointless to me.

Liesje

2bully

Liesje

2bully

 There is no excuse for those kinds of conditions period. I don't care what the entities mission is, how its funded, or any excuse that can be brought to the table couldn't get me to find those conditions acceptable.

 

Then what is the alternative?  Euthanizing the animals.  But your links were very pro no-kill programs.

I think more can be done. I also think that those in a position to make policies and are charged with management of the shelters are in a key position to make changes for the better.

 

Please elaborate.... 

http://www.dailysentinel.com/services/content/services/Special_Sections/Progress_08/stories/CommProgress_Animal_Shelter.html

I continue to post links that provide all kinds of strategies. Is it up to me alone to come to your communities to effect change? Is it not enough that I have provided the info so that you and those of like minds can use it to effect change in your communities. I'm fighting for ways to effect change in my community. I face as much opposition there as I have met with here. I haven't resigned myself to defeat, should you? I'll even put up a link that is more aligned to animal rights thinking.

http://www.saveourstrays.com/FAQ.htm

Here is another link that outlines strategies

http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/archives/overpop1.htm

Here are 2 links that talk about Michigan.

http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/archives/resc21.htm

This one takes a little reading.

http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Articles/LegislativeUpdate08192008

I don't see in any of the links where they address the issue of gov't funding and none seem to provide tactical suggestions or examples.  We are talking about government agencies, not HSUS or rescues or privately funded shelters.  At some of these places it's not possible to volunteer even if you wanted to.  I cannot walk into the animal control unit and start demanding changes.  Even if I handed them a check for $10K that's not how it works (for better or worse).

I think this thread is going in circles, personally... 

JackieG

In my city, San Antonio, our city owned animal control was exposed through an "investigative" report in the local paper.  People were outraged at the conditions and the numbers of animals killed (50,000 a year).  The city blustered and made excuses and fired people.  They built a new facility (over 12 million dollars) and hired new people. They have no more room in the new facility than existed in the old one to house animals!  They no longer pick up strays unless they are sick or injured.  Owner surrender now costs money.  I have seen people there to surrender a pet and when they find out they have to pay, they leave with their pet.  Guess where it ends up?  The streets around the new building have strays everywhere!

I wonder if the same as true here.  As I've said, our Humane Society is an entirely private organization, not affiliated with HSUS or the county animal control.  They have a great facility, vets on staff, great outreach programs, obedience programs, behavioral counselling, and they are part of the animal network so they will take in overflow from other places.  But as you've pointed out, I can't simply attribute their "success" at basically being no-kill to all these new programs.  They charge for an animal surrender, even a stray.  On the other hand, the county shelter is free can cannot deny anyone.  So I guess it only makes sense that the county shelter is filthy, over-crowded and under-funded.  They cannot turn anyone away and are mandated by law to hold animals for a certain length of time.  I think the HS is taking in overflow animals that should have ended up their in the first place, but some people really cannot afford to pay to surrender a stray dog they are just trying to help.  I paid to surrender one, but I've worked at the shelter so I know he had the best chance, being a small white fluffy dog. 

I think the old saying "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" is appropiate. How does one change government? The basics of been outlined its up to you and those with like minds to adapt the programs to fit your communities. Its not a one size fits all solution.

2bully

Its not a one size fits all solution.

finally 

Liesje

2bully

Its not a one size fits all solution.

 

finally 

 Finally you understand? That strategies are available and all one needs to do is tailor, modify, adapt, and size it to meet their needs.