# Do they live or do they die?



## LazyGRanch713

For anyone out there who does rescue, or shelter work...how do you do it? I've been networking with some area rescues and people involved in them, because I'm thinking this is something I would want to be involved with. Last night I searched one of the local area shelters (high kill rate) because there was supposively a female pap there that was scheduled for euthanasia today. Scouring through their list of adoptable pets I saw so many dogs and SO MANY CATS. How do you go into a shelter to pull a dog, and pass by the others who are awaiting execution? (This isn't a moral arguement, and I understand that no matter how hard you try you simply cannot save them all). But as I was looking for the pap I came across so many pictures of dogs, puppies, cats and kittens who looked scared to death and wondered how the hell I would be able to pull a single dog without having my heart busted in two leaving all the others behind. Maybe this is more of a vent than a question, but how do you do it without losing your mind?


----------



## Willowy

I don't know how they do it, not at all. I couldn't. I can't even go into a kill shelter. It makes me angry, and sad, and depressed, but mostly angry. I know for my next dog I want a shelter dog, but how can I do it? For Toby I just walked in the shelter and showed the employees his Petfinder page and said "I want this dog", and they took me to him. I didn't look at any other dogs, I kept my eyes straight in front, I knew I couldn't handle it. I suppose I could do that again, but what if the local shelter doesn't keep up on Petfinder? Ugh. It stinks.


----------



## JustTess

I'm interested in doing rescue work and occassionally visit with the husky rescue events in my area. My interest began when I wondered why would anyone want to give up an awesome dog like Ilya. I've found pages and pages of huskies in petfinder and daily postings of husky pups or young energetic huskies in Craigslist.



> How do you go into a shelter to pull a dog, and pass by the others who are awaiting execution


I know what I can offer in time, money, and attention with respect to the rest of my family...and I'm happy knowing that is the best I can do. I really wanted to wait until Sophie was older before I started fostering huskies. She's such a handful, but George must have had an angel. I learned he's likely housebroken because he didn't mess his pen and took a looooong BR break in the outside kennel we were interacting with him. He also gave me and my son his immediate attention when called and he was very affectionate. He only had a few days left and he was getting emaciated looking. My biggest concern was Ilya's acceptance...and it seems to work out.

If I could adopt more and had the space, there was another husky I would have wanted to adopt. She was a beautiful young female that had the coloring of a calico cat. She was very energetic but not as easily responsive as George. She had 6 days left, and I thought it would take more time and effort to train her. A couple of days ago, a friend tells me of two huskies dumped at a park that were heartworm positive. They seemed well cared for and trained. Why do people keep doing this?

As soon as George is healthy, I'm going to see if there is a family out there for him. I don't think I'm going to keep him because I won't be able to foster other huskies with the limit our city has on number of dogs you can own.


----------



## Binkalette

We do it because we have to do it. If we have 21 dogs in our shelter (that's 100% full) and we DON'T euthanize anybody, then we cannot accept any new animals in need. In my opinion, it is far kinder to humanely euthanize those with the least chance of finding a home than to keep them waiting around in a stressful shelter environment for months and years, mean while leaving other animals that may have better chances of finding a home out in the cold to starve, be eaten by a coyote, hit by a car, freeze to death.. imo those are all worse than being euthanized in a shelter by people who truly love you, and only want the best.

ETA: There is a no-kill shelter about 50 minutes from us, and we are ALWAYS getting calls from people in their area to come and pick up strays, because that shelter won't do it. They never have room, and DO just leave them out in the cold. They add to OUR counties problems because we then go pick up the animal and lose space at our own facility. They aren't solving anything.


----------



## Bones

Our shelter will euthanize any sick animal. If it's healthy and has no behavior problems it won't be euthanized. Dogs that remain at the shelter for a long period are normally pulled by a rescue or fostered out.


----------



## Willowy

Killing is killing, and it is never for the best. It is the ultimate evil. THE END. The Last Enemy. Any situation an animal may be in, the situation can always get better (except terminal illness of course). Death can never get better. I don't see how anyone can justify killing a healthy animal because of lack of space or whatever. That's why it makes me angry. Though mostly I'm angry at the owners who dumped their pets to die. What's wrong with those people? They should be shot.


----------



## Binkalette

Willowy said:


> Killing is killing, and it is never for the best. It is the ultimate evil. THE END. The Last Enemy. Any situation an animal may be in, the situation can always get better (except terminal illness of course). Death can never get better. I don't see how anyone can justify killing a healthy animal because of lack of space or whatever. That's why it makes me angry. Though mostly I'm angry at the owners who dumped their pets to die. What's wrong with those people? They should be shot.


Before I started working at the Humane Society.. I would have agreed with you. Don't get me wrong, we still HATE to euthanize and do everything in our power to avoid it, but with other places not accepting animals because they are full and no-kill, what are we supposed to do? The public does not come forward with enough foster homes. People do not donate to help us build a bigger facility.. People call our $85 dog adoption fee "INSANE" because apparently that's expensive for a dog. If you can, please tell me your ideas on what we should do? I would LOVE to never have to euthanize another animal again. (being sincere here)


----------



## Cracker

Willowy said:


> Killing is killing, and it is never for the best. It is the ultimate evil. THE END. The Last Enemy. Any situation an animal may be in, the situation can always get better (except terminal illness of course). Death can never get better. I don't see how anyone can justify killing a healthy animal because of lack of space or whatever. That's why it makes me angry. Though mostly I'm angry at the owners who dumped their pets to die. What's wrong with those people? They should be shot.


It's wrong to humanely euth animals that have little chance of a home but okay to shoot the dumpers? Think about this. If killing is always wrong then it's always wrong. I'm not arguing with your emotions here because I SO get where you are coming from and I would like to tar and feather animal abusers (which is what many of these folks are) too...but the reality of the situation is this:
You can't save them all. You can't support them all. Sometimes if there is no room at the shelter, the hard decisions have to be made and yes some animals will be euthed. Life in a cage for years on end for an unadoptable animal is not a life worth living. If you can find a rescue to take them, if you can find enough fosters, if everyone responsibly prevented accidental pregnancies, if people stopped looking at pets as disposable, if the economy recovered enough that people could afford vet care and food...if if if. It's not a perfect world and it never will be. All you can do is your best and sometimes that means making the life and death decisions for the GREATER good. It sucks, yes. 

Like the Starfish story...you can't save them all, but you can make a difference to ONE at a time.


----------



## Willowy

Life in a cage can get better. Death cannot. The starfish story is a cop-out. Nothing will change my mind on that.

Maybe killing unwanted animals is "necessary" to keep things safe and convenient for humans. But don't try to tell me it's best for the animals. It isn't and never will be. That's just something shelter workers have to convince themselves so they don't go crazy. I hate to take away someone's coping mechanism. But it just isn't true.

We (the humans) are supposedly the ones with the big brains. Take away the easy out and we'd find a non-fatal solution.

And, yes, of course I know it would be just as wrong to kill the humans who do these things. Although technically I just said they should be shot, not necessarily killed  . But the animals are the innocents. Humans are capable of being deliberately evil and/or irresponsible. They should be held to a higher accountability for having the big brains.


----------



## LazyGRanch713

Binkalette said:


> Before I started working at the Humane Society.. I would have agreed with you. Don't get me wrong, we still HATE to euthanize and do everything in our power to avoid it, but with other places not accepting animals because they are full and no-kill, what are we supposed to do? The public does not come forward with enough foster homes. People do not donate to help us build a bigger facility.. People call our $85 dog adoption fee "INSANE" because apparently that's expensive for a dog. If you can, please tell me your ideas on what we should do? I would LOVE to never have to euthanize another animal again. (being sincere here)


I can understand this, and I do. Our humane society has done a 180 in a GOOD direction, and they keep animals longer than the previous 3 days. I know funding is an issue, and some shelters have extremely limited funds to house, feed, and vet so many animals for such a long time (not to mention the money spent in office supplies, bills, staff, etc). I don't bad mouth or think shelters that have to euth are disgusting, nor do I think euthing a sick, tired, debilitated or dog who's so far gone (behaviorally) that adopting would be a liability. (Quite the opposite...I watched an animal cops show where they spent a LOT of time and money trying to rehab a HA rott...IMO that dog took a lot of time and money away from other dogs at the facility that maybe didn't have such unpredictable and dangerous issues. I was sick to my stomach and angry at the shelter.)
What DOES get me is people who refuse to SN their outdoor cat or pet dog in the name of "cruelty"...but won't take an hour out of their time to visit the shelter and see how MANY are out there, and understand what cruelty really is about. They didn't ask to be born, and they didn't ask to be dumped in the drop box. All because some cheap skate idiot thinks neutering an outdoor cat is a waste of money. Spit. Makes my stomach turn. 
Like I say, this isn't meant to cause arguments or bring up moral issues. It's more or less of how do you emotionally go into a shelter, pull one dog or one cat, and walk past the others leaving them to their fate? How do you choose which ones go and which ones stay? I went to the HS once awhile back, and the cats broke my heart. Reaching their paws out through the bars up to their elbows, begging for love. It just tears me up, and I never used to be this emotional. I think I'm becoming a softie...



Willowy said:


> Life in a cage can get better. Death cannot. The starfish story is a cop-out. Nothing will change my mind on that.
> 
> *Maybe killing unwanted animals is "necessary" to keep things safe and convenient for humans. But don't try to tell me it's best for the animals. It isn't and never will be. That's just something shelter workers have to convince themselves so they don't go crazy. I hate to take away someone's coping mechanism. But it just isn't true.*
> We (the humans) are supposedly the ones with the big brains. Take away the easy out and we'd find a non-fatal solution.
> 
> And, yes, of course I know it would be just as wrong to kill the humans who do these things. Although technically I just said they should be shot, not necessarily killed  . But the animals are the innocents. Humans are capable of being deliberately evil and/or irresponsible. They should be held to a higher accountability for having the big brains.


I have a lot of respect for shelters and rescues who spend equal time raising awareness and education about spaying and neutering, offering clinics, and having fundraisers to do that. (I am not against intact animals, and think "speuter EVERYTHING" is a bit over done. We NEED well bred dogs and good breeders to keep the breeds we love alive). But educating Betty the Breeder one why Muffykins (a peke-a-poo) might not need to have a litter of pups to "settle down" and explaining to people why neutering a dog shouldn't make a grown man cross his legs is half the battle. The only way IMO to stop the senseless killing is to stop the ridiculous and frivilous breeding.


----------



## Willowy

No, the only way to stop the killing is to stop the killing. As long as the easy way out is available, that's the way people will go. If killing is no longer an option, solutions will come.

I do think there are a lot of things that many shelters do wrong. One big one is to mislead owners as to what kind of chances their pet has --"oh, we'll find him a good home! Yes we will!". And off Fluffy goes to the suffocation chamber before the owner is even out of the building. I don't know why a shelter would lie to people like that, I think they should be straightforward and brutally honest, but that's not really the discussion either. I know a LOT of people who dumped their pet at a shelter who would not have done it if the shelter worker gave them a realistic talk about how likely their pet is to end up dead.

I hate to blame the shelters, but let's face it. One reason that people don't take responsibility for their own pets is because the shelters provide a handy, legal, guilt-free place to dump your pet when you don't want it anymore. If that doesn't change, nothing will.

But I guess the basic answer to your basic question of "how do they do it?" is: they convince themselves it's for the best. I couldn't lie to myself like that, but that seems to be the usual manner of coping for shelter workers.


----------



## Cracker

I don't work in rescue because I haven't the time to do it, I work with the owners that need help to PREVENT them wanting to get rid of their dogs and cats. To keep them in their forever homes where they belong. To help keep animals out of the shelters in the first place as much as possible. I also find it incredibly sad that so many animals are euthed but we cannot look at this as a black and white thing because it's NOT and it cannot be. It's not a cop out it's reality. It's all fine and dandy to say just stop the killing but until there is unlimited resources, space, and people to do it, it's just not going to happen. 

When I went to the THS for a dog I visited five or six times before I got Cracker. Each time was hard, each dog I looked at had to be assessed for suitability for my work, my cats, my apartment and my financial ability to care for them. Each one I did not choose was a good dog but wasn't a good fit for health issues or for dog dog issues and each one I felt bad about not being able to take...but it was important to get the dog that would be the RIGHT dog. Not the prettiest, not the youngest, not the healthiest, but the dog that would be able to participate in my life as it was at that time. It was hard not to grab a whole bunch of them and run off with them, saving them from whatever fate they may see..but that would not have been the responsible thing to do. 

There was a dog there in the back room (the unadoptable or 'holding" area) and this dog was a 170 lbs of mastiff mix with NO DOG LEFT IN HIM. He was extremely dangerous, still, with cold hard eyes. No one, even the behaviour guys could even get in to feed him. He never went out, ever. They had to use the rabies pole to remove him from the kennel to clean up his voids and to put food in. He didn't received vet care. Nothing. They could not get near him. I asked why he was still there six months after he was seized. He was patently unadoptable. The president of the shelter refused to euth him. Finally the shelter paid to have him drugged within an inch of his life and driven in kennel to Chicago to a behaviour centre. They took one look at the dog and euthed him on the spot. All that money, time and work for a dog that was NOT a candidate for rehab or anything else. This is why I say never say "stop ALL the killing". This dog had no life. None. Someone somewhere took it from him. The most humane thing that could have been done was euthing him. 

Terminally ill, suffering dogs and cats should not be kept alive. Animals that are behaviourally a SEVERE risk to themselves or others should also be properly assessed and if not rehabilitatable should be humanely euthed as well. Save the ones that can be saved. 

If shelter workers were unable to keep this in mind and use the "copout" as a protection, there would be no shelter workers.


----------



## Binkalette

Willowy, I think that you should spend some time working in a shelter. Until you have done that, I cannot take you seriously. You still have not given me ANY ideas for how to suddenly stop euthanize all together. What do I do when there are no kennels left? Magic another one out of thin air? Start grouping animals that shouldn't be grouped (we already group animals that can be) together and hope they don't get each other sick, breed or fight and kill each other? What happens when I can't fit anymore animals into a kennel? Am I supposed to not take in all of the other animals in need? Where will they go and what will happen to them? Nobody will take them in, but you don't seem to understand that. 

We do everything in our power to get animals out. We have very low adoption fees.. so low I don't know if I'll be getting a pay check some weeks. We are very active in our community, asking for support, donations and foster homes. We do things for the community, we host fund raising events, holiday pet photos, obedience classes. We support a new TNR program for feral cats, so that they can be spayed, neutered, vaccinated and dewormed, and then be moved to a colony. 

The community knows we are there to help, but we do not tell ANYBODY that brings their pet in that fluffy will find a great home. We also flat out stop accepting owner surrenders when we are about half full. Today a man brought in his 14 year old cat because he suddenly has allergies to her. I told him that she did not have good chances of finding a home, and that when we become full again (end of the week) she will be one of the first to go. People don't want to adopt a 14 year old cat, and it would be very cruel asking he to wait in a 2x2' cage for a year or two until the right person comes along that is looking for a very old cat. Most people won't even adopt a 6 year old cat! Anyway, after telling him that he thought about it for about 2 seconds and said "Oh.. well.." and signed the papers. People. Don't. Care. They are not committed to their animals like we all think they should be.

We do keep dogs as long as we possibly can, sometimes admittedly too long. One dog that we finally got placed in a rescue a few months ago was with us for 7 months. She was very fearful of everything and would just lay, curled up in the back of her kennel all day long. She was terribly thin, because she was too stressed to eat. When it was time to go out for a potty break, she had to be led outside with a leash.. she would crawl along the floor peeing the whole way. We have some very dedicated volunteers that worked with her every day for those 7 months, she made some progress but not much. Eventually a spot opened up in a rescue (*A* rescue.. out of 280 some in Minnesota alone..) and they were able to take her in. She is still there. You can't tell me a life like that is better than no life at all. There are far worse things than death.

So Anyway, Willowy, some specifics please on what I can actually *DO* to stop having to euthanize animals? The space runs out you see.. there are always more.


Also.. I don't know where you get off saying euthanasia is an "easy out". Who is it easy for exactly?


----------



## sassafras

Binkalette said:


> ETA: There is a no-kill shelter about 50 minutes from us, and we are ALWAYS getting calls from people in their area to come and pick up strays, because that shelter won't do it. They never have room, and DO just leave them out in the cold. They add to OUR counties problems because we then go pick up the animal and lose space at our own facility. They aren't solving anything.


Few things get me riled up faster than a "no-kill" shelter without an open admission policy, especially if they are critical of shelters with open admission policies who do euthanize. It's easy to be no-kill when you pick and choose the easily adoptable animals to take in and ignore the rest.


----------



## Willowy

Killing IS the easy way out. Maybe the shelter workers are sad about it (and it's not their fault at all). . .but now that animal no longer exists, so nobody has to find space for him, feed him, train him, clean up after him, etc. Nobody has to ever think about that animal again. Easy.

If the animal is already dying, of course it's a mercy to speed that along painlessly. If the animal is dangerous in a way that can't be managed, of course it needs to be killed for everybody's safety. There are certain mental illnesses that would necessitate killing the animal as well. I'm not saying no animal should be killed ever. It is killing for space, for convenience, for lack of resources that is morally wrong.

And I'm not saying it's possible for a random shelter to just stop killing. There would need to be a lot of things that need to happen before that becomes a possibility. However, the shelters shouldn't pretend that it's in the animals' best interest to die. It is ONLY for the benefit of humans, 100%.

And no, I will not believe that death is better than reversible life circumstances. Life got better for that dog who was in the shelter 7 months. If she were killed, that would have been IT. The end, no improvements possible. How could that possibly be better?


----------



## brandiw

I volunteer with a rescue group who pulls from the local kill shelter, and it just about kills me to go in there. But, I do it anyway. I used to cry my eyes out over the ones that I couldn't help, but truly, I have to focus on the ones I can help. I think sometimes you become a little jaded, even though there are certain ones that still get to you. 

Unfortunately, the last dog that I pulled as a foster didn't show behavioral problems at the shelter (when they are so stressed in that environment, you can't know their true personality), but once I took him home and he settled in, he showed some severe territorial agression that ended with him biting someone. He was too much of a liability to adopt out, so I decided to keep him and work with him myself. He has made great strides, but he isn't what I would ever deem safe with strangers. I don't agree that working with dogs with behavioral issues aren't worth it, but I will admit on this issue, I have a lot of bias. I know what a great and loving dog Moe is with me and my husband, and after having him in my home, there was no way I would have chosen to euthanize him.

I agree with Willowy, that killing the dogs and cats is wrong. However, I also have seen the damage that a poorly run no-kill shelter can do, and I'm not convinced that they are the be all and end all either. Besides, I live in a very rural area, and people here can't be convinced that increasing the city run animal control/shelter budget is a good thing. I actually think that they do very well with what they have, but they can't do off-site adoption events or stay open more flexible hours, because they simply don't have the money in the budget to do so. Until more people than the animal welfare community think that it is a priority, it won't be for most locales.


----------



## LazyGRanch713

brandiw said:


> I volunteer with a rescue group who pulls from the local kill shelter, and it just about kills me to go in there. But, I do it anyway. I used to cry my eyes out over the ones that I couldn't help, but truly, I have to focus on the ones I can help. I think sometimes you become a little jaded, even though there are certain ones that still get to you.
> 
> Unfortunately, the last dog that I pulled as a foster didn't show behavioral problems at the shelter (when they are so stressed in that environment, you can't know their true personality), but once I took him home and he settled in, he showed some severe territorial agression that ended with him biting someone. He was too much of a liability to adopt out, so I decided to keep him and work with him myself. He has made great strides, but he isn't what I would ever deem safe with strangers. I don't agree that working with dogs with behavioral issues aren't worth it, but I will admit on this issue, I have a lot of bias. I know what a great and loving dog Moe is with me and my husband, and after having him in my home, there was no way I would have chosen to euthanize him.
> 
> I agree with Willowy, that killing the dogs and cats is wrong. However, I also have seen the damage that a poorly run no-kill shelter can do, and I'm not convinced that they are the be all and end all either. Besides, I live in a very rural area, and people here can't be convinced that increasing the city run animal control/shelter budget is a good thing. I actually think that they do very well with what they have, but they can't do off-site adoption events or stay open more flexible hours, because they simply don't have the money in the budget to do so. Until more people than the animal welfare community think that it is a priority, it won't be for most locales.


When we first got Jazz, the first thing he did was bite me. (It was more of a scream and a mouth; he never left a mark one me). After the fact, he's been fine. It's amazing how different they can become after being with you for a week or so. 
I think the killing is wrong, too. But I don't think the shelter workers are at fault for having to do so. I watched a video whien I was a young teenager (first learning about puppy mills and the overpopulation problem) that still haunts me to this day. It was a shelter worker, can't remember where, loading the gas chambers and pulling the switch. It was horrible, but it wasn't the shelter workers fault. Like Binkalette said (about the man who dumped his 14 year old cat). People Don't Care. And it's the workers and volunteers that have to clean up after their carelessness. 
I too have seen what a poorly run no-kill shelter is like. It's more or less of beggars hoarding, because they beg for money and don't adopt dogs and don't take any in, either. No kill to me = Someone Else Kills Them Somewhere Else. This particuar place has taken a few of their dogs to the HS to be dropped rather than do it themselves, and muddy their "no kill" rep. That IMO is sick.


----------



## waterbaby

LazyGRanch713 said:


> I too have seen what a poorly run no-kill shelter is like. It's more or less of beggars hoarding, because they beg for money and don't adopt dogs and don't take any in, either. No kill to me = Someone Else Kills Them Somewhere Else. This particuar place has taken a few of their dogs to the HS to be dropped rather than do it themselves, and muddy their "no kill" rep. That IMO is sick.


Yep, I've seen well-run no-kill shelters and horrible, horrible no-kill shelters. And this time of year, refusing to take an animal in because there is no space and you won't put it down means that animal freezes to death outside. I'd much rather see it euthanized. But I don't believe that death is evil either. 

We're lucky here. I volunteer at a kill shelter, but I can't remember the last time we've had to put a dog down due to space. We have good turn-around and a low return rate. For the cats, it's not so good. But still better than a lot of other parts of the country and we have some great partners that help us find foster homes and provide overflow space and staff.

Is it lazy to euth an animal due to space restrictions? Maybe, but I think it's a heck of a lot better than leaving an animal out on the street, starving and sick - just washing your hands of it because you don't want to sully your no-kill rate.


----------



## Willowy

waterbaby said:


> But I don't believe that death is evil either.


Why not? What, exactly, is NOT evil about death?


----------



## Bones

Willowy said:


> Why not? What, exactly, is NOT evil about death?


What's evil about it? Everything dies. Death is a fact; there is no good or evil about it. How you get there- now that's debatable


----------



## LazyGRanch713

waterbaby said:


> Yep, I've seen well-run no-kill shelters and horrible, horrible no-kill shelters. And this time of year, refusing to take an animal in because there is no space and you won't put it down means that animal freezes to death outside. I'd much rather see it euthanized. But I don't believe that death is evil either.
> 
> We're lucky here. I volunteer at a kill shelter, but I can't remember the last time we've had to put a dog down due to space. We have good turn-around and a low return rate. For the cats, it's not so good. But still better than a lot of other parts of the country and we have some great partners that help us find foster homes and provide overflow space and staff.
> 
> Is it lazy to euth an animal due to space restrictions? Maybe, but I think it's a heck of a lot better than leaving an animal out on the street, starving and sick - just washing your hands of it because you don't want to sully your no-kill rate.


I don't think death is necessarily evil; I think the stupid morons who let their dogs/cats breed and then dump the litter and mother at the shelter are the evil ones to blame. (I say stupid rather than ignorant because stupid _knows_ about the overpopulation problems, and have tame animals that could easily be SN'ed.) 
The cats bother me, a lot. We had a litter we fostered last summer in August. 6 kittens. 5 are still here, and stand little to no chance of adoption since they're 1 1/2 years old. (The kitten no longer with us was euthanized at 6 months old due to a birth defect that was unfixable. I say euthanized instead of killing because the kitten WAS suffering and I think deserved a merciful death. Healthy animals that are euthanized, either humanely or not, are killed because they don't need or want death. Thank you Jean Donaldson.) 
Like I say, this is probably more or less of a vent on my part. It's just so sad. I encourage people to spay or neuter their PETS...I don't think everything should be speutered. Dogs who can contribute to the gene pool with health, temperament, working ability, working instinct, etc IMO are fine to breed. I love my breed(s). Every spring I groom the once a year farm dogs who roam and are intact, and I wonder WHY. Every spring I see almost every farm house within my driving distance with a sign that says "FREE kittens!!!!!" And I wonder WHY. Every time I see the dog warden from the HS I ask if the cats are moving, he shakes his head no. I wonder why. It just sucks. I have nothing but respect for all of you who are involved in rescue work, shelter work, or shelter volunteering in any way, shape or form. I'm working on springing a papillon from a kill shelter who is no longer adoptable because she bit an employee who picked her up, post surgery. Even the HS said it was a pain response, but a dog with a bite record can't be adopted out. Hopefully they will release to rescue; the rescue that's working on it right now says they're pretty good about giving a good bio of the dog, why they aren't adoptable in their eyes, and what their chances are. I hope we get her. It's mentally exhausting, and I haven't even met the dog yet!


----------



## MooMoosMommy

I understand being upset about euthanizing perfectly healthy adoptable animals. I don't, however, see an easy fix for the problem at hand. 
I have volunteered at a few shelters and will again once my daughter is older. I will also have my children volunteer. 
Death is part of living. When I had my GSD, Hildy, PTS she was in pain. She was tired and most of that 'light' in her eyes was gone. Her death, while heartbreaking for us, was also a relief- for her. Watching her go destroyed me in some ways and in other ways I saw and knew she was at peace finally. I didn't feel her death was evil- in any way, shape, or form. 
To say that shelter staff and volunteers use 'copouts' is completely misunderstanding and shows lack of being 'in the know'. The lady who did the euths at one shelter I volunteered at had a heart of gold and many times I overheard her talking to the animals she had to PTS. She loved them when many others didn't and I am certain that many of those animals will be waiting for her at the bridge. 
It's actually insulting to shelter staff and volunteers to say that we use 'cop outs' to get us through. You are very wrong BTW, at least IMO. What always got me through was watching the adopted leave, seeing the cards and notes from previous adopters, seeing an shy and/or abused dog learn to trust us again. Shelters aren't always about death as some seem to think- there are many success stories and many remarkable stories found there that testify to an animals will to live and ability to trust again.


----------



## waterbaby

Willowy said:


> Why not? What, exactly, is NOT evil about death?


I honestly don't know how to answer this question. Death just _is_. It's the end of life. It can come about in bad ways, yes; but in and of itself, it's not evil. 

I've seen a lot of animals live through physical and mental anguish because people were so averse to putting them down. I think suffering is worse than death, even when there's potential for alleviation of that suffering. That's not to say that I'm opposed to medical care or behavioral care for abandoned pets, just that I think sometimes we ask them to suffer too much in order to relieve our consciences. How long should we ask a dog to live in a kennel, to completely shut down, to be tortured 24/7? Months? Years? Why would we do that to them?

OTOH, I'll be the first to admit that I'm sometimes wrong. There are times when I see animals so broken that I think we're just torturing them until we finally put them down, but they come through and they go on to have wonderful lives. And those times cause me to doubt myself and to be thankful that there are people with your point of view out there who pulled for that critter. But mostly, I see the suffering.


----------



## Willowy

Bones said:


> What's evil about it? Everything dies. Death is a fact; there is no good or evil about it. How you get there- now that's debatable


HOW you get there, yes, and also WHEN you get there. Death is a fact when someone is elderly, or terminally ill. And there are unfortunate accidents. But to forcibly TAKE the life from a young healthy being is completely evil. This is why humans spend their entire lives trying to avoid premature death. This is why murder is the worst crime a person can commit.

If death is better, why try to save ANY of them? They might suffer in the future. Dang, I'd better have my dogs PTS now so they don't suffer someday. I might get in a car crash someday and suffer. . .better end things now! Isn't that PETA's stand? That death is better than being adopted? Isn't that why everyone hates them (one reason)?

I absolutely cannot understand the assertion that death, the absence of existence, is better than temporary suffering. There's just no way. If there is ANY potential for the alleviation of that suffering, that existence is, at least, an existence, and is better than being gone forever. 

And, sure, I know that many shelter workers do care very much about the animals. It doesn't change the fact that perfectly good animals are having their lives forced from them for the sake of human convenience.


----------



## Binkalette

So your saying you are a vegetarian. I get it.


----------



## Willowy

Binkalette said:


> So your saying you are a vegetarian. I get it.


I'm not. Killing animals for meat is different (I do have a lot of problems with the way the current meat situation is handled, but killing for meat is not morally wrong). Not the same as killing because we don't want to take responsibility.

And nobody is saying that meat animals are dying for their own good. They're dying because humans want to eat meat. Nobody disputes that. I'm just saying that shelters should be honest about the fact that the animals are dying to keep everything convenient for humans, and not because it's better for them to die.


----------



## Cracker

Wow. 
People work to prevent premature death because they FEAR the unknown, not because early death (for whatever reason) is evil. A life of suffering (extreme suffering) is not a life. Being stuck in a crate for months on end without hope of living a free life is not living. 
Your black and white view on this is quite unsettling and unrealistic. Keep tilting at windmills here, there is little hope of you convincing any of us here that it is evil to prevent further suffering through human euthanasia.


----------



## waterbaby

LazyGRanch713 said:


> I'm working on springing a papillon from a kill shelter who is no longer adoptable because she bit an employee who picked her up, post surgery. Even the HS said it was a pain response, but a dog with a bite record can't be adopted out. Hopefully they will release to rescue; the rescue that's working on it right now says they're pretty good about giving a good bio of the dog, why they aren't adoptable in their eyes, and what their chances are. I hope we get her. It's mentally exhausting, and I haven't even met the dog yet!


I hope you can save your pap, Lazy. I think fostering is the toughest leg of rescue work. It's very emotionally demanding.


----------



## MooMoosMommy

Willowy said:


> I'm not. Killing animals for meat is different (I do have a lot of problems with the way the current meat situation is handled, but killing for meat is not morally wrong). Not the same as killing because we don't want to take responsibility.
> 
> And nobody is saying that meat animals are dying for their own good. They're dying because humans want to eat meat. Nobody disputes that. I'm just saying that shelters should be honest about the fact that the animals are dying to keep everything convenient for humans, and not because it's better for them to die.


And pray tell me whom are the ones killing these pets for 'convenience'? What are shelters supposed to do? Are they supposed to expand with NO money with which to do so? Are they supposed to hire many more people to care for these dogs/cats again with not enough money? How will these pets get a quality life in a kennel situation for, perhaps, the rest of their lives? Walked a few times a week by volunteers whom do their best to give these animals a little enjoyment in their mostly dreary existence? Ever seen a dog suffering mentally from this cramped environment in just a few shorts days/weeks/months? I HAVE. I have seen perfectly good dogs ruined because of this situation! 
Maybe instead of blaming shelters for this horrible situation- You should volunteer in some form. Sitting on the porch, so to say, and saying that this is all done out of 'convenience' is quite sickening to me. You have made a judgement without apparently knowing what shelter staff and volunteers see and live everyday that they set foot in the shelter. It's easy to talk the talk but not so easy to walk that walk....


----------



## sassafras

If death is truly worse than temporary suffering, then there is no justification for euthanasia EVER. Because even in the terminally ill or injured, suffering will be temporary until they die naturally

It's easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize and tell people what they should think and feel and how they are justifying unjustifiable actions. Unfortunately it does nothing to solve problems or make good homes for animals magically appear.


----------



## kafkabeetle

Willowy said:


> I'm not. Killing animals for meat is different (I do have a lot of problems with the way the current meat situation is handled, but killing for meat is not morally wrong). Not the same as killing because we don't want to take responsibility.
> 
> And nobody is saying that meat animals are dying for their own good. They're dying because humans want to eat meat. Nobody disputes that. I'm just saying that shelters should be honest about the fact that the animals are dying to keep everything convenient for humans, and not because it's better for them to die.


I am floored by these statements given your previous comments. In my mind it is WAY worse to kill an animal in ANY manner so that you can eat it than it is to kill an animal because you don't have the resources to give it a half decent life (or to help the next pup in line). Humans are perfectly capable of living a healthful like without meat in our current circumstances so why support that sort of senseless killing. I find your mentality here completely hypocritical and kind of shocking.


----------



## Laurelin

I worked in a kill shelter two years... it emotionally drained me. We had a 70% euthanasia rate though to be honest I am sure a large, large portion was feral cats as they're a huge problem around here. But we were a rural shelter with a run down building and not enough room. The only shelter within a few hours of here... Yes there are improvements that could be made and many that are being made but it's simply a matter of resources. These shelters are given an impossible task. There is just no way to save them all with the available resources.

And you just can't make people care. You know how many times people have been flat out told that their dog or cat they're surrendering will be killed? I can't even count the times we've told someone that and they still signed the animal over. People just don't care and they're too cowardly to euthanize them themselves. Space is an issue here. We'd sometimes get in 200 animals a week and we only have two dozen runs. Then what? 

Someone HAS to do SOMETHING. If you take away the shelters, people will just go out to the country and dump the animals. Then they starve, get shot, run over, etc. How is euthanasia worse?

It's not a coping mechanism or a copout, it's the reality of the situation. How did I do it? I tried to focus on the happy stories, which there were a lot of too. I tried to make sure that SOMEONE in the world showed these doomed animals love before the end of their life. It is all that I- as one individual- could do.


----------



## sassafras

Laurelin said:


> Someone HAS to do SOMETHING. If you take away the shelters, people will just go out to the country and dump the animals. Then they starve, get shot, run over, etc. How is euthanasia worse?


Yes, unfortunately the people who are die-hard irresponsible will be irresponsible no matter what. When I was in school I had a classmate who had worked at a rural veterinary clinic in an area with no shelters or animal control. So people would bring them litters of puppies or kittens to euthanize. She was flat-out told on more than one occasion by these people that either the clinic euthanized them or they got drowned in a sack in the creek. In that situation, you can either keep your hands clean or help the animals, but not both. Sometimes people suck. And sometimes the choices we are faced with in life are not a matter of "good" and "bad", but "bad" and "worse".


----------



## LazyGRanch713

kafkabeetle said:


> I am floored by these statements given your previous comments. In my mind it is WAY worse to kill an animal in ANY manner so that you can eat it than it is to kill an animal because you don't have the resources to give it a half decent life (or to help the next pup in line). Humans are perfectly capable of living a healthful like without meat in our current circumstances so why support that sort of senseless killing. I find your mentality here completely hypocritical and kind of shocking.


Considering HOW most animals are killed (in slaughter, for food), I find it twice as disgusting as euthanasia by needle, but that's just me.


----------



## MooMoosMommy

LazyGRanch713 said:


> Considering HOW most animals are killed (in slaughter, for food), I find it twice as disgusting as euthanasia by needle, but that's just me.


Boy do I ever agree! Euthaniasia compared to slaughtering is much easier on the animal. 


I wish and pray everyday that there would be no need for shelters BUT honestly I don't see a day when they won't be needed. Shelters are needed and required to keep the things I witnessed as a child from happening. There weren't any nearby shelters when I was young so everyone dumped the unwanteds or killed them themselves. It was just the way things were done..... Sad but true.
My father and I pulled a bag out of the creek near our home once because I heard 'something'. It was filled with puppies, 6 total. Only 2 were alive and barely. Dogs and cats regularly seen on the side of the road, in the ditch, on the road dead or dying from being hit. It was a common occurence. Now we have 3 different shelters fairly close by and this is less and less of an issue because now these 'P.O.S.' irresponsible 'people' have a place to take their unwanted. IMO things have gotten better in some ways from those days. I am thankful that shelters are around and are willing to take in these discarded pets. If it weren't for them many would end with worse fates than euthanasia. 
I have heard many complain about shelters but those same people don't do anything to help or change things. They sit in their glass houses and cast stones. In a imaginary world the things they suggest would be great and wonderful but this is not that place. 
I discussed in another thread once that I have grown attached and loved some of the pets I have known were PTS at shelters. My heart was broken and I was ANGRY but not at the shelter or the staff- at the person/people whom helped create these dogs/cats and those whom abandoned them. They are the ones that I reserve the right to be angry with, not the ones whom have to have the crappy job of cleaning up their mess.


----------



## FlashTheRottwuggle

Willowy...you say "killing is killing" and "it's never for the best" but then you turn around and justify slaughtering (killing) meat animals. How is that different? And also I would like to know...specifically...what have you...personally...done to help animals whether they are in shelters, homeless, in rescues or at slaughter houses? Anything?

I walk the halls of the shelters and it breaks my heart. The day we brought Colt home (and I wasn't intending to bring anyone home), I could easily have brought 4-5 others home if I had the money. We won't even mention the cats and I'm not a cat person. How do you pick and choose? You have to pick the one that is a "fit" for your family or will most likely be "attractive" to someone else and be a "fit" for another family. Then you go home, cry your eyes out, and move on. It hurts. You ache inside. Every time I look at Colt, I ache for the others I couldn't save, then I hug him closer and am thankful I could save him. 

No-kill shelters are ONLY able to be no-kill because they have the luxury to pick and choose who they will take and who they won't. Then the ones they won't take are forced on the shelters who do euth because they HAVE to take them. They have the contracts with the counties, cities and towns. They HAVE to take everyone, no matter what diseases or behavioral problems they have. And they never hesitate to tell people who are dropping off pets that the likelihood is their pet will be PTS. And when they are full, they have to make a choice. In reality, it is the same choice for both no-kill and kill shelters, only the no-kill shelters simply turn their backs and spout how wonderful they are, while the kill shelters then have to take these animals who were rejected and do the "evil" deed. And then people like you Willowy accuse them of being evil. People who don't adopt, people who don't spay/neuter, people who don't fundraise, people who don't volunteer or foster, people who don't care. 

What do I do, you ask? I raise funds for the local shelter as part of a fledgling Friends group we have developed. Our first fundraiser made over $8000 for the local shelter. We plan to help the shelter educate the public, help raise funds, help in any way we can. I also am registered to foster for at least 6 different rescues. And I've taken in 4 unwanteds so far which my family thinks I shouldn't have due to my income but I did, we're fine, and they aren't going anywhere without me.

So how do we become completely no kill. Just stop you say. Then what, where do they go? Well killing is inhumane. So is being cramped in crates and kennels. So we should just allow them their freedom and set them all free. Right? Then they can be happy and live carefree...breeding, spreading disease, getting hit by cars, freezing to death, scavenging for food. Sounds wonderful for them. 

Also I have worked in slaughter plants as part of my sordid past. It's no treat, trust me. The regular slaughter seems inhumane enough to me, but if you really want to sicken yourself, attend a kosher slaughter. The animal is fully awake and aware as the rabbi slices its throat with his special knife. I wanted to scream. That's when I quit my job. I have seen animals euthanized and it is much better, far more peaceful than that. 

So I too am waiting for your miraculous solution to the problem of what to do with all the strays and unwanteds.


----------



## Willowy

I have no miracles. I know that plenty of people will deal with the problem themselves if there are no open-intake shelters. Like I said, maybe it's "necessary" but nobody should be claiming it's the best thing for the animals. That's all I'm saying. Death may be the only choice, but it is the ultimate evil and is never better than life.

I never said that I was angry at shelter workers. Just that the killing of perfectly good animals makes me angry. The more people who get angry on the subject, the more likely something will be done about it someday. We need more angry people!

No, I don't think that current meat-raising methods or slaughtering techniques used in commercial slaughterhouses are humane. And half the meat produced in this country is wasted, so half of the animals suffered and died for no reason. So it's mostly the current conditions I object to. And I don't eat much meat. . .but because of the cultural normalcy of eating meat in this area, it's overly difficult to avoid meat altogether. Same as avoiding killing in shelters--unless the cultural normalcy of killing unwanted pets changes, the shelters have to go on killing. However, I truly do not think that killing animals for food is morally wrong, under the right conditions. They died for a purpose, not for no reason at all like the shelter animals (or those killed by their owners). This subject can be debated ad naseum (and has been), but I don't believe it's hypocritical to eat meat and still say that it's wrong to kill unwanted pets. 

What do I do to rescue animals? Well, I have 3 formerly unwanted dogs and 20 indoor cats, and I have had all the neighborhood feral cats TNRed. . .I simply cannot take strays to the shelter to die. It would kill me. And nobody else will adopt them. So I keep them. Sigh. Unfortunately, I know that this can't go on, I definitely can't have any more dogs, and if any more cats show up (and they will), I can't keep them. They will have to be killed. I can't deal with that, and that realization is mostly what put me in such a bad mood on the subject.


----------



## FlashTheRottwuggle

Thank you Willowy! Sometimes a little bit calmer explanation of your views works better than angry remarks. It's wonderful what you are doing for the feral cats. I understand the anger and rage but until we come up with a solution that works, I don't know what the shelters can really do.


----------



## Binkalette

The dogs and cats euthanized do end up with a purpose even after death. All of ours are picked up by a company who prepares them and then distributes them to Veterinary colleges so that the students can learn with them and will be better able to help the living animals in the future. Yucky to think about, but better than nothing.


----------



## sassafras

Thanks for the explanation Willowy. I don't think anyone is or would argue that euthanasia is _objectively_ the best thing that could ever happen to an animal, but that under certain circimstances _subjectively_ it can be the best of the reasonably available options.


----------



## kafkabeetle

Willowy said:


> However, I truly do not think that killing animals for food is morally wrong, under the right conditions. They died for a purpose, not for no reason at all like the shelter animals (or those killed by their owners).


1. The purpose of an animal that dies for human consumption is their preference of convenience, enjoyment of the taste etc. It's interesting to state that you eat meat for reasons of normalcy, and that is ok, but euthanizing unwanted, stressed pets with little hope of getting a proper home is not. Social reasons and convenience are way less valid reasons for killing in my mind, especially considering that we don't need meat to be completely healthy and there are tons of common foods that don't contain it. Meat is killing for the luxury of a human. They were born for that awful, petty purpose. Euthanasia may be for convenience, but it's at least parcially a form of mercy killing as well.

2. Our "purpose" for killing an animal means absolutely nothing to the animal we're killing. Logic like this is for *your* conscience and is in no way reflective of what the death meant to the animal. So in my mind it's irrelevent.


----------



## LazyGRanch713

Willowy said:


> I have no miracles. I know that plenty of people will deal with the problem themselves if there are no open-intake shelters. Like I said, maybe it's "necessary" but nobody should be claiming it's the best thing for the animals. That's all I'm saying. Death may be the only choice, but it is the ultimate evil and is never better than life.
> 
> I never said that I was angry at shelter workers. Just that the killing of perfectly good animals makes me angry. The more people who get angry on the subject, the more likely something will be done about it someday. We need more angry people!
> 
> No, I don't think that current meat-raising methods or slaughtering techniques used in commercial slaughterhouses are humane. And half the meat produced in this country is wasted, so half of the animals suffered and died for no reason. So it's mostly the current conditions I object to. And I don't eat much meat. . .but because of the cultural normalcy of eating meat in this area, it's overly difficult to avoid meat altogether. Same as avoiding killing in shelters--unless the cultural normalcy of killing unwanted pets changes, the shelters have to go on killing. However, I truly do not think that killing animals for food is morally wrong, under the right conditions. They died for a purpose, not for no reason at all like the shelter animals (or those killed by their owners). This subject can be debated ad naseum (and has been), but I don't believe it's hypocritical to eat meat and still say that it's wrong to kill unwanted pets.
> 
> What do I do to rescue animals? Well, I have 3 formerly unwanted dogs and 20 indoor cats, and I have had all the neighborhood feral cats TNRed. . .I simply cannot take strays to the shelter to die. It would kill me. And nobody else will adopt them. So I keep them. Sigh. Unfortunately, I know that this can't go on, I definitely can't have any more dogs, and if any more cats show up (and they will), I can't keep them. They will have to be killed. I can't deal with that, and that realization is mostly what put me in such a bad mood on the subject.


That I can wholeheartedly agree with. Especially can empathize with the TNR on ferals. We've lost ferals to cars and crop machines no doubt, but I think the chance at a decent life with food, shelter, and living in a cat colony is FAR more humane than dumping at a shelter. I think if you asked any feral cat if they'd prefer the chance at life vs. certain death (at a shelter), most would pick a chance!! (The thing that gets me is those who think euthing at a shelter for ferals is humane...if cats are 100% feral and totally terrified, what are the chances of a euth by needle? I don't consider gas chambers and the other methods used to euth feral animals humane by a long shot). We feed and shelter how many barn cats, I don't know. Most are semi-tame, but a few...no way, jose. The likelihood of a completely tame adult cat being adopted is slim, and the odds of a semi-feral being adopted is pretty much nil. I can't bring myself to drop them off at a pound, and they aren't hurting anyone by being here and it's _my_ property.



kafkabeetle said:


> 1. The purpose of an animal that dies for human consumption is their preference of convenience, enjoyment of the taste etc. It's interesting to state that you eat meat for reasons of normalcy, and that is ok, but euthanizing unwanted, stressed pets with little hope of getting a proper home is not. _Social reasons and convenience are way less valid reasons for killing in my mind, especially considering that we don't need meat to be completely healthy and there are tons of common foods that don't contain it_. Meat is killing for the luxury of a human. They were born for that awful, petty purpose. Euthanasia may be for convenience, but it's at least parcially a form of mercy killing as well.
> 
> 2. Our "purpose" for killing an animal means absolutely nothing to the animal we're killing. Logic like this is for *your* conscience and is in no way reflective of what the death meant to the animal. So in my mind it's irrelevent.


Some people don't do well without meat in their diet. Doesn't make the way factory farming or slaughter is ran any better, though.


----------



## GypsyJazmine

Willowy said:


> perfectly good animals are having their lives forced from them for the sake of human convenience.


Convenince?...More like necessity...What does a shelter do when the money & space is gone?


----------



## Bones

This bothers me. What would you do? The only solution in my opinion is to create and enforce strict ownership laws. All animals must be spayed and neutered unless otherwise licensed. All animals must be micro-chipped and heavy fines levied if people allow their animals to roam or remain intact without proper approval/paperwork. Then the intake will decrease if bad ownership ends up being too costly. Otherwise there is really no tenable long-term solution. Allowing animals to roam freely in the streets is a public health hazard not to mention an environmental hazard (ie ferals and bird populations). I've spend 2,500$ this year ALONE having feral cats neutered at my grandmother's house- I finally realized that no matter how many I had neutered that they would keep coming and that I was wasting my money trying to create a localized TNR program. Since August I have taken 12 unaltered feral cats to the shelter. Do I feel bad? Yes. Will I lose sleep? No. Why? Because I'm pragmatic. I can't afford to neuter 10-15 cats every year. No one else here does- there's just not enough money coming into rescues to neuter feral cats regularly for a TNR program. So where do ferals go? To the shelter where they are put to sleep after 1 day. 

I just don't see any other way unless changes are made top-down to decrease the rate at which animals are brought to shelters. Otherwise most shelters have to chose to either euthanize the animals they have or let them roam on the street. Either option is abhorrent- but the main priority of local municipalities is the health and safty of it's citizens. The shelter will be obligated to follow the policy set forth for it.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest

Back to the original question, this is how I do it. It isn't ideal, but I try to do the best I can when I took at the dogs there. I have to admit that I DO have a weakness for all senior canines, so they are usually top of my rescue report list (I sent the ideal pulls to rescues). Dogs with obvious signs of human aggression do not make the list. I have strong beliefs they can be rehabbed, but it is very rare I find a place that will be able to put in the work. The risk of getting them into a rescue is huge, especially if they're declared unadoptable. Dogs that have aggression issues in any manner vary. I try with the DA dogs, but I DO tell rescues that from what I have seen they are DA.

"Cute" dogs almost never go on my list. By that I mean highly adoptable dogs. Small, fuzzy dogs. Purebred dogs or puppies. Usually puppies. I have never ran into one of these dogs that didn't already have a sign up list behind them. I will keep tabs on one if need be, but they almost always are adopted immediately in my area.


----------

