I'm not big into AR, but I thought I'd post this as it might interest some of you.

I saw on the news today that the Dallas SPCA will no longer euthanize any animals simply because of lack of space. Instead, they will increase their adoption campaigns and refuse to take animals when they are out of space.

I'm not sure if they will still euthanize animals for any other reasons. They didn't talk much about the story on the news.

That doesn't really solve any problems. They're still euthanizing for behavior problems, and when they're full they're just refering people to other animal control agencies that do euthanize.

This was the best news article I could find on the situation:
http://cbs11tv.com/consumer/local_story_032142816.html

Instead, they will increase their adoption campaigns and refuse to take animals when they are out of space.
Ooh, turn-away shelters are bad news. Alot of people, when shelters refuse to take in their dogs/cats, will abandon them or kill them themselves instead. Refusing to take in animals is not a good idea. IMO anyways.

How is this better? there are a limited number of people able/willing/safe to adopt out to and and almost infinite number of animals. No kill shelters hurt more animals than they help.

Ooh, turn-away shelters are bad news. Alot of people, when shelters refuse to take in their dogs/cats, will abandon them or kill them themselves instead. Refusing to take in animals is not a good idea. IMO anyways.
Agreed. They think this is good, but this is the worst news ever for the animals.

How is this better? there are a limited number of people able/willing/safe to adopt out to and and almost infinite number of animals. No kill shelters hurt more animals than they help.
Well I disagree (strongly) with you on that last point.

I don't like that Open Access shelters make it so easy to dump off animals. It's this type of attitude that has caused pets to become thought of as disposable in the first place.

Ooh, turn-away shelters are bad news. Alot of people, when shelters refuse to take in their dogs/cats, will abandon them or kill them themselves instead. Refusing to take in animals is not a good idea. IMO anyways.
So I assume you take in all the animals you find. That's really great, but it's not very practical for most. I don't think a lot of people will kill their pets if they are turned away, but I do think some practical options need to be laid out for the people. Not knowing anything about this shelter, I can't say whether they're doing that or not.

Well I disagree (strongly) with you on that last point.

I don't like that Open Access shelters make it so easy to dump off animals. It's this type of attitude that has caused pets to become thought of as disposable in the first place.


Yes, people do think that, and that is a problem, but making it so that there is no where to take unwanted pets when the numbers don't add up isn't going to help solve the problem. I would rather there be stricter laws for getting the pets in the first place, fines for not spaying and neutering, and more consequences for neglect (including neglect of mental and emotional needs) than the solution of "we don't want to kill animals, you figure it out yourself". It just encourages the type of people who give their pets to the shelter to continue to keep them in substandard conditions.

I feel that the financial, legal, and volunteer resources could be better spent to help pets as a whole rather than just the few animals they can fit into the shelter, and manage adopt out.

I don't think a lot of people will kill their pets if they are turned away, but I do think some practical options need to be laid out for the people. Not knowing anything about this shelter, I can't say whether they're doing that or not.

No, most won't kill their pets, but they will let them go w/o vet care, lock them in the back yard and leave them there, "set them free", and adopt them out to people who are also unwilling to care for them and possibly unwilling to spay/neuter and make the problem even bigger.

thanx for the info---not sure if it helps or not but at least they are trying..

peace and love

jenn:pibo:

I'm not big into AR, but I thought I'd post this as it might interest some of you.

I saw on the news today that the Dallas SPCA will no longer euthanize any animals simply because of lack of space. Instead, they will increase their adoption campaigns and refuse to take animals when they are out of space.

I'm not sure if they will still euthanize animals for any other reasons. They didn't talk much about the story on the news.

Can they help arrange foster care for some of these animals until a home can be found. I am glad they won't euthanize HEALTHY animals, but we won't want them turned loose on the street or sold to a lab if some person just doesn't want their animals anymore. Euthanizing should only be done as a last resort when there is no way to ease the suffering of a beloved pet. Then, it's an act of kindness.

Their own website gives more information: http://www.spca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Reservation_Required

It looks like the other SPCA in Texas will be switching to a Reservation Required system too, once it's animal control contract is up. Typical of most No Kill shelters, if someone is turned away and refuses all alternatives they do suggest going to the local animal control shelters which are Open Access and Euthanize due to space.

And yeah, they do have a foster home system it appears.

So I assume you take in all the animals you find..
No. As a college student with no job, and just enough money for food, it would be cruel of me to take them in. I would have to starve them to death. I would take them to shelters but they are full because they're no-kill. See what I mean? I can't save these dogs because of the shelters are no-kill, and unwanted dogs/cats are living long depressing lives in cages in the shelters because they're no-kill.

Then take them to a vet and have them euthanized.

All you're doing is shifting the responsibility of death onto the shelter. If a shelter is full and they are forced to take in an animal, they have no choice but to put it to sleep.

No. As a college student with no job, and just enough money for food, it would be cruel of me to take them in. I would have to starve them to death. I would take them to shelters but they are full because they're no-kill. See what I mean? I can't save these dogs because of the shelters are no-kill, and unwanted dogs/cats are living long depressing lives in cages in the shelters because they're no-kill.

There is some truth to this. One of our dogs was in that situation. He was at the SPCA during a no-kill moratorium (since revoked) for 10 months. I think it fair to say he probably almost went crazy.

I volunteer at a no-kill shelter 99% cats. Luckily the cats do not live in cages but in a more "house" environment. I don't know if we have ever turned away a cat - it's not where I do my volunteering but I can find out.

Today, I removed 2 cats (surrendered) out of a house who had to be euthanized due to extreme poor health. These people frankly are a little whacko. 2 more are coming out of there and HOPEFULLY we can convince them to give us another 2 leaving them with 2 that (again hopefully) we can take and have them checked out. The ONLY reason we got these 2 initial cats is because we are no-kill. I don't ever think any of these cats ever went to a vet, ever.

I don't know how I even feel about it all no-kill or kill - there are just so many, many, many animals, it just doesn't ever end.

there are just so many, many, many animals, it just doesn't ever end.

Thats my problem with no kill, if there were a somewhat managable number of animals per person in the US I could see it working, but with figures as high as 30 cats/person and 15-20 dogs/person I just don't see how no kill can work. Even if they were willing can the gov, private persons, volunteers, etc. really care for that many animals, even if the totally unadoptable ones, and ones with behavioral problems were euthanised?

I hate hate hate killing animals of any sort, but if I have to choose a dog being euthanized by an open access shelter or being chained up in a back yard, having several litters of puppies and dying of untreated heart worm infection, its not a hard choice.

You're welcome, jenni-anti-fur. Glad I could contribute to the discussion.

Then take them to a vet and have them euthanized.

All you're doing is shifting the responsibility of death onto the shelter. If a shelter is full and they are forced to take in an animal, they have no choice but to put it to sleep.
I told you I can't afford to!

When is a shelter forced to take in an animal? And what shelters put the new ones to sleep instead of the ones that have been there the longest? I'm not the one that breeds dogs, why are you holding me responsible for that? I'm really confused as to what you are accusing me of.

Thats my problem with no kill, if there were a somewhat managable number of animals per person in the US I could see it working, but with figures as high as 30 cats/person and 15-20 dogs/person I just don't see how no kill can work. Even if they were willing can the gov, private persons, volunteers, etc. really care for that many animals, even if the totally unadoptable ones, and ones with behavioral problems were euthanised?

I hate hate hate killing animals of any sort, but if I have to choose a dog being euthanized by an open access shelter or being chained up in a back yard, having several litters of puppies and dying of untreated heart worm infection, its not a hard choice.

I agree.

No-kill isn't the solution. It's no-birth

but if I have to choose a dog being euthanized by an open access shelter or being chained up in a back yard, having several litters of puppies and dying of untreated heart worm infection, its not a hard choice.


Exactly...
If it is left to have puppies, thats like doubling the suffering (more animals are going to suffer, the offspring) of the dog being euthanized in the first place.
I dont think Im very clear, but I hope you get it :p

I told you I can't afford to!

When is a shelter forced to take in an animal? And what shelters put the new ones to sleep instead of the ones that have been there the longest? I'm not the one that breeds dogs, why are you holding me responsible for that? I'm really confused as to what you are accusing me of.Okay, I guess I don't understand what you are argueing in favor of.

Okay, I guess I don't understand what you are argueing in favor of.
Keeping animals from harm, which also includes unwanted animals being kept for years in confinement because no one wants them. It's a sad reality, but for unwanted animals, euthanasia may be the only way to save them mental anguish. Don't blame the vets that euthanize, blame the ones who brought those dogs into this animal owning/selling/exploiting business by breeding them.
I don't see any other options for a world where there are more dogs and cats than there are loving/wanting homes. Unless we all become animal hoarders, we don't have much choice.