No-kill shelters /Leave-the-killing-to-someone-else shelters

[hop 0]

La question des refuges qui "euthanasient" et des refuges qui "n'euthanasient" pas est généralement traitée de façon manichéenne : les méchants d'un côté et les bons de l'autre. Ce n'est pourtant pas si simple.




No-kill movement bumps up against reality in U.S.





By ROWLAND NETHAWAY

GUEST COLUMNIST




WACO, Texas -- "No-kill" animal shelters must be right up there with Mom and apple pie.

After all, who could support the killing of dogs, cats and other small animals that provide loving companionship to people?
No-kill should be a no-brainer.

But no-kill animal shelters have critics, especially from some animal lovers.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has written that no-kill animal shelters should really be called "leave-the-killing-to-someone-else" shelters.

While admitting that the people who run these shelters mean well, the animal-rights organization charges that no-kill shelters routinely turn away animals that are "diseased, badly injured, aggressive, elderly or unsocialized after spending their lives at the end of a chain -- animals who have little chance of being adopted."

Besides being selective in their acceptance of adoptable animals, no-kill shelters that promise to keep every animal until it is adopted can result in animals stacked in cages where they remain warehoused in miserable conditions, according to PETA.

The ideal of never killing any animals brought to shelters runs head-on into the reality of an estimated 8 million stray or abandoned dogs and cats that need homes each year. There is no way that a nationwide no-kill policy could humanely warehouse all the unadopted animals.
The donations that flow to no-kill shelters often come at the expense of government-supported shelters also run by well-meaning and caring animal lovers.

When city-run shelters become competitors with no-kill shelters, the traditional shelters not only suffer from a drop in donations, they also become dumping grounds for the least adoptable pets, which often must be euthanized.

San Antonio's Animal Care Services, according to an Associated Press story, took in 1,004 dogs and cats during a recent week. Only 76 of those animals were adopted or rescued. The rest were killed.

The city-run shelter reports that it takes in around 50,000 dogs and cats each year and must kill 95 percent of them. Still, the San Antonio shelter has set the goal to become a no-kill shelter by 2012.

The no-kill movement is growing nationwide. And why not? It is cornering the market in public sympathy and donations. After all, only unfeeling lowlifes would favor killing dogs and cats.

It is unfair to the compassionate animal lovers who work in traditional shelters to be characterized as polar opposites to no-kill shelters.

To achieve the commendable no-kill goal nationwide without passing off the heartbreaking animal-control problems to someone else, more efforts should go toward programs that offer free or low-cost spaying and neutering of dogs and cats.

Cities should adopt ordinances that require sterilization of animals adopted from shelters.

When donations are given to no-kill shelters an equal amount should be given to traditional shelters that administer spay/neuter programs.
In most communities, traditional animal shelters, often run by the local humane society with government support, are charged with returning lost animals to their owners or placing them in a good home.

They also have the responsibility to accept unwanted animals brought to the shelter and to provide them with care while awaiting adoption, when that is possible.

In addition, traditional shelters often are responsible for educating the public about the pet overpopulation problem and the importance of spaying and neutering pets.

Aggressive programs that can persuade the public to spay and neuter diminish the need to euthanize animals to control overpopulation.

There should not be a competition between traditional animal shelters and no-kill shelters. Everyone should be working toward the same goal -- the day when there is no need to kill unwanted animals.


No-kill movement bumps up against reality in U.S. - 23/08/07
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/328839_nokillshelter24.html?source=rss