ALS
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?