West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Open Discussion

1. hammerhead
   Member Profile

   

   As most of you know I am in rescue. You need to know the dark side of rescue. When the "no kill" places are full where is the general public to take their animals? To the shelter where they will might be put to sleep. Why? To full, to old or aggressive, or maybe human doesn't want them anymore. The reason for this is because we can NOT save everything, people NEED to know this.

   I have made very difficult decision in my rescue this year more than any other year. I will NOT deny of having to put animals to sleep because of health mostly, but most recently aggression. I had to take a rescue back and it is not going to work. The dog has attacked my dog 3 times. NO RESCUE can or WANTS to help. I don't blame them. It is a huge liability. I again have to make the difficult decision to put an animal to DEATH.

   I do not call myself a no kill nor will I ever. When I can't take in a animal then I send to them to some shelter. Well truth be told, they may end up dead. As to not get myself into trouble I won't say any more about the shelters I deal with.

   I have a heavy heart and it is never easy to put an animal to death. That is the reality of things in the shelters, they can spin anything to justify to put animal to death. I won't put a spin on it, it is the truth.

   FCAT

   Posted 1 year ago #         

2. mehud7
   Member Profile

   

   spay and neuter, spay and neuter, spay and neuter, spay and neuter...

   Posted 1 year ago #         

3. JoB
   Member Profile

   hammerhead...

   i am so sorry.

   We have come so close to doing the same thing.
   I am lucky that my two get along with one another
   and that i can stay home with them or take them with me pretty much 24/7
   and that i have found a kennel where they can be housed when i can't be home or have someone visit that i can't house elsewhere..
   and that we have been lucky
   and no-one has been hurt...

   the day i can't make that work any longer
   we will have to say goodbye to a real sweetheart
   who learned all the wrong things from his first family:(

   it's not an easy choice to make.

   Posted 1 year ago #         

4. flowerpetal
   Member Profile

   

   My heart is with you Hammerhead. I cannot imagine how difficult a decision that must be. I do believe it to be necessary at times. An unadoptable dog/cat uses valuable resources be it financial or emotional. I'm grateful you are here to help rehome pets.

   Posted 1 year ago #         

5. BBGuest
   Member Profile

   

   Oh Pam, I am so sorry.

   A friend recently referred to putting an animal down or to sleep,'active euthanasia' as EXECUTION.

   I was horrified by the term and yet....

   It takes a lot of chutzpah to say what you say and to identify the face & reality of no kill. The term no kill and 'adoptable' as criteria leaves a lot to be desired. If a place will not take a problem animal, isn't that the same thing as killing them?

   You can not save them all. Society can not save them all. Shelters can not save them all. Money can't save them all. It has to be a work in progress and a resolve to fix the problem.

   In the mean time, thank you.

   Posted 1 year ago #         

6. funkietoo
   Member Profile

   The term 'no kill' is a victim of human subjectivity, and therefore, has too many different definitions. I prefer, and use, the phrase ‘increase the save rate’. How do we increase the save rate? Through Prevention and Retention programs.

   Many of the national municipalities and non-profit shelters utilize the Asilomar Accords as a method toward a ‘No Kill Nation’. Although the Asilomar Accords may have its place in measuring how we decide to save or humanely kill animals in our public trust, IMHO, it still justifies killing. Many TNVR/feral cat advocates railed against the Accords because feral cats were in the “unhealthy & untreatable” category—which seemed to give shelters a green light on humanely killing them. The Accords have softened the language around ferals…e.g., ‘Some feral cats will fall into the “unhealthy & untreatable” category. Ferals, however, are one of the best illustrations of the fact that “unhealthy & untreatable” does not mean unsavable’.
   http://www.maddiesfund.org/No_Kill_Progress/Asilomar_Accords.html

   I dream of the day that we, as a collective society, have matured to the point where when an animal enters a shelter, rescue group, is being abused by someone, etc, the first question we ask is ‘What do I/we need to do to save this animal’…and we do it. Nirvana—yes. Possible—I believe it is.

   Posted 1 year ago #         

7. hammerhead
   Member Profile

   

   Well you keep dreaming funkietoo..

   Posted 1 year ago #         

8. funkietoo
   Member Profile

   Hammerhead, your sarcastic statement is uncalled for, rude and has been reported to the WSB.

   Posted 1 year ago #         

9. MarySheely
   Member Profile

   Funkietoo, I did not at all read Hammerhead's last comment as rude. I thought it was more in a John Lennon "Imagine" kind of vein. The fact is, though, that sometimes very difficult decisions have to be made. We have two rescues, both from shelters. And there were 100s more at the shelters waiting to be adopted, and who knows how many would actually make it there.

   Posted 1 year ago #         

10. flowerpetal
    Member Profile

    

    Yeah MarySheely, I gotta agree with you. I didn't take it in that way at all. Perhaps Hammerhead meant something entirely different. If this is reportable to "the WSB" and results in some sort of censure, then many of the posts in the forum are in danger; at least the way I look at it.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

11. GenHillOne
    Member Profile

    huh? I must have missed something there.
    -
    Despite the sad beginnings of the thread - tough stuff - I'm "happy" to see the discussion. I've come to wish the term "no kill" would just go away. There are places that should be designated high-kill because of their practices, but the other is just something to make humans feel better. The trickle-down effect reflects on all.
    -
    I hope Humanity's learning curve is improving...remember how cruelly we used to treat PEOPLE who were deemed "unhealthy & untreatable"? And, of course, we can still do better.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

12. JoB
    Member Profile

    some days it's hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel.

    that doesn't mean it's not there..
    just that it's hard to see.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

13. ALS
    Member Profile

    hammerhead, thanks for posting this. And I also didn't see hammerhead's comment to funkietoo as worthy of reporting. Blunt? Yes. But certainly not in violation of anything.

    The problems with the term "no kill" is that it has been viewed by too many as a magic bullet. Yes, it's heartbreaking to know that half the animals who enter our shelters this year will not make it out... or that 5-7 million pets are put down in the US every year because there are simply not enough homes for them all. But choosing not to euthanize doesn't fix the problem. "No kill" should really be renamed "kill somewhere else - I am washing my hands of this." I will also never claim to be of the "no kill movement," because in my opinion, a quick and humane death is better than a tortured life.

    Unfortunately, working in rescue means you are exposed to a lot of dark sad things that most of the public is sheltered from. Maybe if the public knew the harsh realities and gut-wrenching decisions that needed to be made by those who dedicate their lives to saving animals, they would think twice about dumping their animal at the first sign of inconvenience.

    At the end of the day, the only way to reduce euthanasia in shelters and rescues is to stop so many homeless animals from coming into them in the first place. And that responsibility lies squarely on pet owners, not the shelters who have to make the decisions about who lives and who dies.

    Really, it's simple. Pet owners need to:

    1. Think carefully about getting a pet and whether your life will be conducive to said pet in 10 or 15 years.

    2. Spay and neuter

    3. When you take in an animal, keep it for life. If you can't deal with a problem, what makes you think someone else wants to?

    Posted 1 year ago #         

14. GenHillOne
    Member Profile

    "No kill" should really be renamed "kill somewhere else - I am washing my hands of this."
    -
    That is the best way I have ever heard it put.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

15. HunterG
    Member Profile

    

    BBGuest...

    Euthanasia is not execution in some cases. Unfortunately, in many cases it is - I hope that you can educate your friend.

    Pam...

    I am extremely sorry for your recent experience - I know that you know that your decision was proper, but right now, I know that emotions come in to play and really screw with your judgement and logical thinking.

    One thing I can say is that all you do for those creatures that cannot do for themselves is an amazing thing. (hope you do not take this the wrong way )but I appreciate your impatience and at times utter anger in regards to treatment or mistreatment of animals, and irresponsibility of pet owners.

    If more individuals had the same passion that you do to help the little ones the population of unwanted cats and dogs would not be so out of control, and only the people who deserved to have pets would have them.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

16. westcoastdeb
    Member Profile

    I am with Hunter.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.