Saturday, October 29, 2011
My Own Hypocrisy Revealed
After my previous post in which I ranted about communities allowing the mass gassing of dogs to occur, I discovered my own hypocrisy when I realized that I had never thought to ask the local goverment-run Animal Care and Protective Services department what methods of euthanasia they use. I had automatically assumed that they used the same humane injection methods used by vets in medical cases. In other words I was remaining blissfully ignorant. I have now e-mailed the department and I am awaiting a response.
Questions Raised by the Miracle Dog
If you haven't seen the story of Daniel Milagro , the beagle who survived a gas-chamber, you need to check it out. However, it does raise a couple of questions.
First, why is this barbaric practice still used? Did the local community know about it and, if so, why did they tolerate it? Well, with all the publicity it is definitely known now. What is going to be done about it?
Secondly, where were all these people that are now desperate to adopt Daniel when these 19 dogs were sentenced to death and were being herded into the gas chamber? Certainly the publicity means people now know about Daniel but would they be so keen on adopting a dog if he wasn't a celebrity of sorts. And if they were desperate to adopt how come nobody had already applied for this particular dog?
Let us not forget that even though one dog miraculously survived, 18 others were successfully murdered!!!!
C'mon people! Show your concern at all times, not just when something makes the headlines
First, why is this barbaric practice still used? Did the local community know about it and, if so, why did they tolerate it? Well, with all the publicity it is definitely known now. What is going to be done about it?
Secondly, where were all these people that are now desperate to adopt Daniel when these 19 dogs were sentenced to death and were being herded into the gas chamber? Certainly the publicity means people now know about Daniel but would they be so keen on adopting a dog if he wasn't a celebrity of sorts. And if they were desperate to adopt how come nobody had already applied for this particular dog?
Let us not forget that even though one dog miraculously survived, 18 others were successfully murdered!!!!
C'mon people! Show your concern at all times, not just when something makes the headlines
Friday, October 28, 2011
When "no-kill" doesn't mean no-kill!
One topic that is certain to turn my face blue and start me frothing at the mouth is rescue shelters claiming to be "no-kill" shelters when in reality that is far from the truth. The next time you are considering supporting a shelter that claims to be no-kill you had better take a look at the fine print! As an example, let me tell you about a situation that I know of personally.
A true no-kill shelter that I am familiar with was asked to pull a gorgeous little pug/pekinese mix out of a so-called "no-kill" shelter. This dog had been scheduled for euthanizing the following day because he was considered unadoptable. When asked about this the response was that this dog was known to try and bite people. When further asked about when these attempts occurred it was stated, "When you grab him by the collar or when you try to take his food away." My first thought was, "Well, duuuuhhh!!" Actually this was not my first thought; I've taken a little artistic liberty and cleaned it up for general viewing. The rescuing shelter showed this sweet little guy at their next adoption event at a local pet superstore, and throughout the event he was on his best behavior. One of the store's trainers even tried a few things and declared him a highly trained dog. No evidence was seen of food aggression or any other type of aggression. Okay, he was a little territorial and yappy, but aren’t all pug/pekes?
I decided to look into this "no-kill" policy of the shelter from which the dog was pulled and, lo and behold, under all the declarations that this was now a no-kill shelter was the statement that by this they meant no dog will ever be killed to make room for another. Leaves a lot of wiggle room, doesn't it! Under this policy, declare a dog unadoptable—often an opinion rather than a fact—and they are eligible to be killed. What makes these word-games worse is that they are often played by some of the biggest and best supported shelters in any given geographical area. The particular shelter that I am thinking off saw a massive increase in donations when they declared themselves no-kill.
It is understandable, not acceptable but understandable, when a shelter finds itself having to implement euthanasia policies because of space or money--we all know that there are far too many abandoned or neglected dogs on our streets—but it is completely unacceptable to declare your shelter no-kill when what you actually mean is: okay, we kill the dogs sometimes but not in every circumstance. Don’t play word games with us! The only time a true no-kill shelter will euthanize a dog is for medical reasons. We owe it to these dogs to understand exactly what we are donating our time or money to, and these shelters owe it to the dogs to make sure that the public knows what their policy is. We shouldn’t have to have a law degree to work through all the possible implications of a well-worded statement.
In case you are wondering, the dog of which I spoke was adopted after a couple of months and, last I heard, he was bringing joy and laughter to the adopters—not a biting attempt in sight.
A true no-kill shelter that I am familiar with was asked to pull a gorgeous little pug/pekinese mix out of a so-called "no-kill" shelter. This dog had been scheduled for euthanizing the following day because he was considered unadoptable. When asked about this the response was that this dog was known to try and bite people. When further asked about when these attempts occurred it was stated, "When you grab him by the collar or when you try to take his food away." My first thought was, "Well, duuuuhhh!!" Actually this was not my first thought; I've taken a little artistic liberty and cleaned it up for general viewing. The rescuing shelter showed this sweet little guy at their next adoption event at a local pet superstore, and throughout the event he was on his best behavior. One of the store's trainers even tried a few things and declared him a highly trained dog. No evidence was seen of food aggression or any other type of aggression. Okay, he was a little territorial and yappy, but aren’t all pug/pekes?
I decided to look into this "no-kill" policy of the shelter from which the dog was pulled and, lo and behold, under all the declarations that this was now a no-kill shelter was the statement that by this they meant no dog will ever be killed to make room for another. Leaves a lot of wiggle room, doesn't it! Under this policy, declare a dog unadoptable—often an opinion rather than a fact—and they are eligible to be killed. What makes these word-games worse is that they are often played by some of the biggest and best supported shelters in any given geographical area. The particular shelter that I am thinking off saw a massive increase in donations when they declared themselves no-kill.
It is understandable, not acceptable but understandable, when a shelter finds itself having to implement euthanasia policies because of space or money--we all know that there are far too many abandoned or neglected dogs on our streets—but it is completely unacceptable to declare your shelter no-kill when what you actually mean is: okay, we kill the dogs sometimes but not in every circumstance. Don’t play word games with us! The only time a true no-kill shelter will euthanize a dog is for medical reasons. We owe it to these dogs to understand exactly what we are donating our time or money to, and these shelters owe it to the dogs to make sure that the public knows what their policy is. We shouldn’t have to have a law degree to work through all the possible implications of a well-worded statement.
In case you are wondering, the dog of which I spoke was adopted after a couple of months and, last I heard, he was bringing joy and laughter to the adopters—not a biting attempt in sight.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Why Title This Blog "What We Owe to Dogs"?
As this blog progresses many posts will simply be dog-related: anecdotes, memories, random thoughts, and a few plugs for rescue activities in my locale: Jacksonville, Florida. However, many will reflect my deep-seated belief that humans have reneged on a contract, a partnership, that they formed with these animals thousands of years ago.
Humans created dogs as we know them now. We designed and adapted them to play specific roles in a partnership. Some of those roles were positive, but all too often we asked dogs to perform tasks that were unpleasant or unsavoury. Unfailingly they performed those roles and the only cost to us was food and companionship. Yet, although the dogs required so little, although they asked so little, somewhere along the way many humans decided that even this cost was too high. Worse still, many seem to have decided that these animals do not even deserve a modicum of dignity. Abuse, abandonment, downright cruelty are often the currency with which these loyal partners and companions are repaid. As a tough economy hits hard even some who thought of themselves as dog-lovers have abandoned their companions .
I realize that there are many true lovers of these beautiful creatures. The cruelty and neglect is not exhibited by everyone, but even a few abusers--and there seems to be more than a few--can cause untold suffering. So what do we owe to dogs? I contend that we owe them at least the same love, care, companionship, and protection that they have given to us.
Humans created dogs as we know them now. We designed and adapted them to play specific roles in a partnership. Some of those roles were positive, but all too often we asked dogs to perform tasks that were unpleasant or unsavoury. Unfailingly they performed those roles and the only cost to us was food and companionship. Yet, although the dogs required so little, although they asked so little, somewhere along the way many humans decided that even this cost was too high. Worse still, many seem to have decided that these animals do not even deserve a modicum of dignity. Abuse, abandonment, downright cruelty are often the currency with which these loyal partners and companions are repaid. As a tough economy hits hard even some who thought of themselves as dog-lovers have abandoned their companions .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)