OMG...This is TERRIBLE!

[Skyler]

I was told about this at work today and I just couldnt believe it. This is a 2 day old video / news story from Local 6 News here in Indianapolis about a shelter in a town very close to here. Some people just dont diserve to live.

 

Watch the video on the right once you get to the news story:

 

Channel 6 News Story

[sweet_ceana]

I saw the title when I clicked on the link and I couldn't even watch. How horrible.

[flrpwr52]

I have no words.

[Dixie_Girl]

I watched it. Kudos to Jamie Glandon!! An AC officer who really cares. It will be interresting to find out WHY the dogs, Gabby, the BC and the 3 lab pups did not succumb to the euthenasia. Was Jack Hill using less to save money? Or using something else? I hope Jamie's job is not, as she fears, in jeapordy. I would also like to know what happened to the others. But given that Jack Hill ordered Gabby's immediate re-euthenasia, kinda gives the answer to that. She should be given praise for making this public, instead of worrying about her job.

[Skyler]

I agree Dixie, she should be given praise and hopefully the story will find her someone thats willing to give her a stable job. But on the other side of the coin I cant go along with anyone who is able to euthenize dogs. I strictly support no kill shelters. I just cant understand the incompetence of the individuals involved and Im wondering what lasting effect the partial euthenasia is going to have on the dogs that survived. Ugh, I just dont get it.

 

When I hear of more about the story I will update the thread.

[Kat's Dogs]

That is horrible. I can't believe they don't "check" the dogs. Oh man....I can't even imagine what the poor dogs went through.

 

I agree Dixie, she should be given praise and hopefully the story will find her someone that's willing to give her a stable job. But on the other side of the coin I cant go along with anyone who is able to euthanize dogs. I strictly support no kill shelters.

OK, bit of a rant here. There are too many dogs and not enough homes - euthanasia because of over-filled shelters is a fact in this current day, as horrible as that is. The people involved are not "bad" or in any way don't care for the dogs, and often their jobs just tear them up inside. I feel sorry that people look down on them because of what they do. I think it is especially horrible when people won't adopt from a kill shelter because they don't want to "support" them. A shelter cannot be though of in the same way as a a puppy mill. The shelters (99% of them anyway) regret as much as we do what their job is, but in most cases they just don't have a choice unless someone comes forward to help them out.

 

I have seen several cases where people immediately assume that the volunteers and staff at kill shelters don't care for the animals or assume that they are in some way supporting what these shelters do. So many people that are "strictly no-kill" will not volunteer, adopt from, or work for kill-shelters, but these are the shelters that need support the most - that is the only way they can become no-kill: if they have ample staff, volunteers, space, and foster homes. If people want to support no-kill, than perhaps more people should go and help out the kill shelters rather than just avoid them and frown upon them from a distance.

 

OK, sorry, rant over.

[Skyler]

I totally hear what you are trying to say and have looked at it from that view point. However, to me thats like a vegetarian working at a slaughter house.....It just doesnt work.

[vaporflowers]

I totally hear what you are trying to say and have looked at it from that view point. However, to me thats like a vegetarian working at a slaughter house.....It just doesnt work.

 

I don't understand how you can fault the shelter workers who are forced to euthanize. Several *million* companion animals are euthanized in shelters each year. If they weren't euthanized, what would we do with them? Where would we put them? How could we enrich their lives enough that they would not go "cage crazy"? It would be nice if we could have a whole bunch of no-kill sanctuaries that had the manpower and the money to maintain so many animals but the truth is we don't. There are just TOO MANY. It's overwhelming.

 

And that's not the fault of the shelter. Blame the people that don't spay and neuter, who breed irresponsibly. Blame the puppy mills that churn out adorable fuzzies to the unsuspecting public with no regard to temperament or health. Blame the backyard breeders who just want to make a buck.

 

But don't blame those that perform the euthanasia. I would rather an animal lover be the one lovingly stroking a dog's head as he passes on, comforting him at a scary time. At least the animals know some compassion before they go.

[Dixie_Girl]

I have to say that as much as it breaks my heart to hear about animals being PTS, just because there is no place for them, I think it worse for this animal to spend day upon day, week upon week, wondering what the hell happened! Where are my people? Why am I here? And for sensitive breeds, like the BC, it is worse than a death sentence. It is a slow agonizing, first go insane, then just shut down and die. Kat and Vaporflowers is right. There will never be enough homes, foster or otherwise, for all the dogs and cats turned in. I know my dogs, and there is not one that I would prefer caged up for weeks on end with little to no human contact. It sucks for all the animals involved. And I understand your compassion Skyler. I really do. In my perfect world, every animal born and every child born would live out their lives with full stomachs and warm beds and someone to love and care for them.

 

We just each have to do what we can, for who we can, when we can, and hope others will do the same.

[Tranquilis]

I totally hear what you are trying to say and have looked at it from that view point. However, to me thats like a vegetarian working at a slaughter house.....It just doesnt work.

And why couldn't a vegitarian work at a slaughterhouse? No one is requiring the workers there to eat the product, and there are many reasons for being a vegitarian - it isn't always about the animals, it's quite often about the diet instead - there's no automatic discrepancy there. Frankly, I suspect that meat packing work might even *encourage* vegitarianism.

 

Or to put it another way: Euthanizing is a fact of life. It's a dirty job, but *someone* has to do it. If we go around despizing the people who do our dirty jobs, eventually we'll either not have the job done (and whither then, the stray animals and shelter resources?), or we'll have despicable people doing the job. Well, sometimes we *do* have dispicable people doing the job, as witnessed in this story. So why make it tougher for the honorable people, as also witnessed in this story, who do the dirty job? Looking down our 'superior' noses at them is in no way going to make them better, more caring people - but it might just have the opposite effect.

[phej]

This is such a sensitive topic, and it is so easy to understand all the different points of view. And of course, we all wish that we were living in a world where kill shelters were not needed. One thing I would add is that no-kill shelters are hardly ever accepting all animals that come to their door. They turn them away because they simply do not have the space. It is my understanding that whenever a shelter goes no-kill, the kill shelters around get busier by taking the animals that were turned down by the new no-kill shelter. Something to think about. BTW, a good book to look at is "Lost and Found" by Elizabeth Hess. Get a box of tissues ready, though.

[Liz P]

I worked as a tech at an animal hospital that contracted with the city pound to care of the medical needs of the animals, including euthanasia. I made sure every animal had a peaceful death and felt safe at the end. If we had them for more than a few minutes I gave them a last walk and last meal of stinky canned food, people food, etc. I felt it was the least I could do for them.

[MaryP]

Hear, hear, Kat's Dogs! It would be nice if all shelters could be no-kill, but that's just not reality, unfortunately. Some of the most caring people I've met work at kill shelters. I don't envy them for what they have to do, but I also don't condemn them for it. They are much braver that me.

 

I also want to echo the praise for the ACO that blew the whistle on the shelter director in IN. I don't know how her job could possibly be in jeopardy for doing the right thing.

[Shadows Mom]

OMG that story just made me feel sick.. those poor dogs! I wonder how many other animals ended up dying in that freezer. Now I'm crying.. arg I hope that shelter director gets what he deserves!!!

[Skyler]

Whew, what reactions!!! It goes to show how much we all love animals and in the end care about what happens to them on both sides of this issue.

 

I dont "despise" someone at all because they euthenize animals but I have a hard time coping with the ability someone has to do it - its different to pull the trigger yourself than justify it with logical argument. For me, logic cannot overide my heart.

 

I can understand putting a very sick animal down out of compassion but personally I could never do it to healthy ones. I understand all of the points made here over the last few days and have considered all of them before....and they all make totally logical sense! What it comes down to for me is that there is no way I could do it myself and I cant justify it no matter the ramifications or logic behind the reasons for doing so. My heart just wont let me and there is a moral "something" that cant justify it. So this is where I reasoned the point of the vegetarian not basing it off of diet but moral cause.

 

I certainly didnt intend for this thread to move down this path but I suppose its OK so long as it stays civil. The truth of the matter, regardless of kill or no-kill, is that we arent in a perfect world and we can all do more in whatever way we can. I encourage everyone this holiday season (and all year 'round!!!) to do something to help in some way. Adopt a puppy, make a donation or just go love on some puppies and kitties for a few hours. They really ask for no more and I think we can all agree on that.

[Tranquilis]

...personally I could never do it to healthy ones. I understand all of the points made here over the last few days and have considered all of them before....and they all make totally logical sense! What it comes down to for me is that there is no way I could do it myself and I cant justify it no matter the ramifications or logic behind the reasons for doing so. My heart just wont let me and there is a moral "something" that cant justify it. So this is where I reasoned the point of the vegetarian not basing it off of diet but moral cause.

In your moral calculations, consider what would be the fate of these healthy animals if they were not put down. There is only so much shelter space. When they're full, that's it - they're full. What, then, is to be the fate of all the other animals out there? Left to starve and die lingering deaths... Left in the clutches of abusive and criminally neglectful owners... Dumped at roadsides, dumped in bags and left to die, thrown in rivers... We've all heard the horror stories. Now imagine what it would be like if there weren't people willing to put down unclaimed animals. Horrifying, isn't it? Compare, in your mind, the two different paths to the same outcome. Which would you prefer?

 

Yes, I know - you'd prefer that it never came to that at all. That's not a choice. You cannot have it that way; neither can I. There is not enough resource available. So... can you still not justify euthenasia? I think you can. You don't have to like it - I certainly don't! - but it is part of the Bad Facts that we all face.

 

 

When you say "But on the other side of the coin I cant go along with anyone who is able to euthenize dogs", that certainly sounds like despite to me - They've got a job to do, an unpleasant one, but a necessary one, and you can't "go along" with them? So what *should* they do? Cast the animals into the wilderness? Refuse new arrivals? Leave people with no alternative but to dispose of unwanted animals however they can? Yes, the animals still die, but they do not die horribly... Or at least that is the ideal. In fact, that is so much the ideal that people are shocked to their core when the people whom are *supposed* to make these animals last few hours as painless as possible fail in that trust.

 

That is the moral calculation that allows me to rationalize and justify it. I recognize the reality, and am at peace with the unpleasant necessity. I personally couldn't do the job, but am very grateful and appreciative that there are courageous people whom can handle our dirty work.

[gypsy84]

I recognize the reality, and am at peace with the unpleasant necessity. I personally couldn't do the job, but am very grateful and appreciative that there are courageous people whom can handle our dirty work.

 

Very well said.

[Sue R]

Tranquilis - I wanted to say something but couldn't come up with the words. Thank you for saying it so very well.

[Skyler]

That is the moral calculation that allows me to rationalize and justify it. I recognize the reality, and am at peace with the unpleasant necessity. I personally couldn't do the job, but am very grateful and appreciative that there are courageous people whom can handle our dirty work.

 

Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree and thats OK too.

 

According to the standards above we should euthenize children too because many are in the same situation. There is not enough money, not enough homes, not enough food, not enough health care, not enough love and so abuse, not enough, not enough not enough.... It absolutely floors me that on a site of this nature that there are so many that agree with euthenasia rather than speaking up and saying, "How about we build a few less bombs a year and provide shelter, food and awareness?" It isnt a perfect world but to accept it that way is just unacceptable.

 

One may say that people are not dogs and of course it would be correct. But why would one define one over the other? What is it that makes someone define a life over another or do we hold all life sacred ? So am I and the rest of the buddhists in the world just living in a dream or are we making a stand for what we hold most dear? Making a wrong to deal with the unwanted or difficult is a cop out. Why is it that we dont make laws and hold people accountable for their actions? Why is it that people get a small fine for abusing animals in the most horrible ways but a child and you are put away for life? Its wrong no matter how its looked at. And if one keeps accepting it its never going to change.

 

Why dont we put our foot down and stand up for what we say we hate because its wrong. If people keep accepting the option of euthenasia it will always be the way out rather than force society to find another cure. Its the same as oil - well burn it up until we are forced to find alternatives or people start making different decisions. If enough rally at what we both agree on, which is the sad reality of it all, then maybe there will be change. Suffering in the process?....yes, there will be. But there is terrible suffering now and we must start working through it without making a choice that supports the opposite of the desired outcome.

 

This is the last post I am making on this topic. I make my efforts elsewhere and I encourage everone to do the same regardless of postion. It seems we all agree that its terrible whether one agrees it should regretfully be done and or agree it shouldnt. Please, just help do something about it one way or the other.

[G Brady]

Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree and thats OK too.

 

According to the standards above we should euthenize children too because many are in the same situation. There is not enough money, not enough homes, not enough food, not enough health care, not enough love and so abuse, not enough, not enough not enough.... It absolutely floors me that on a site of this nature that there are so many that agree with euthenasia rather than speaking up and saying, "How about we build a few less bombs a year and provide shelter, food and awareness?" It isnt a perfect world but to accept it that way is just unacceptable.

 

One may say that people are not dogs and of course it would be correct. But why would one define one over the other? What is it that makes someone define a life over another or do we hold all life sacred ? So am I and the rest of the buddhists in the world just living in a dream or are we making a stand for what we hold most dear? Making a wrong to deal with the unwanted or difficult is a cop out. Why is it that we dont make laws and hold people accountable for their actions? Why is it that people get a small fine for abusing animals in the most horrible ways but a child and you are put away for life? Its wrong no matter how its looked at. And if one keeps accepting it its never going to change.

 

Why dont we put our foot down and stand up for what we say we hate because its wrong. If people keep accepting the option of euthenasia it will always be the way out rather than force society to find another cure. Its the same as oil - well burn it up until we are forced to find alternatives or people start making different decisions. If enough rally at what we both agree on, which is the sad reality of it all, then maybe there will be change. Suffering in the process?....yes, there will be. But there is terrible suffering now and we must start working through it without making a choice that supports the opposite of the desired outcome.

 

This is the last post I am making on this topic. I make my efforts elsewhere and I encourage everone to do the same regardless of postion. It seems we all agree that its terrible whether one agrees it should regretfully be done and or agree it shouldnt. Please, just help do something about it one way or the other.

 

 

Kudos to you Skyler!

 

Very well said.

[Liz P]

Why dont we put our foot down and stand up for what we say we hate because its wrong. If people keep accepting the option of euthenasia it will always be the way out rather than force society to find another cure. Its the same as oil - well burn it up until we are forced to find alternatives or people start making different decisions. If enough rally at what we both agree on, which is the sad reality of it all, then maybe there will be change. Suffering in the process?....yes, there will be. But there is terrible suffering now and we must start working through it without making a choice that supports the opposite of the desired outcome.

 

No one is saying euthanasia is the cure for pet overpopulation. Responsible pet ownership is the cure. However, refusing to euthanize dogs isn't going to teach people to be responsible pet owners. The dogs I helped to euthanize were too aggressive to adopt out (mostly fighting Pit Bulls). What were we supposed to do with them, stick them in a cage for the rest of their lives so we didn't have to kill them? Would that have been more humane? What needs to happen is a drastic change in values in this USA. We don't value our dogs, or our kids for that matter, nearly as much as they deserve.

[MaggieDog]

I work at a shelter, actually had to help make a call about a seemingly nice dog that has some resource guarding issues - treatable? yes, in our situation? no. Do I like having to be honest about certain issues a dog presents when it means the dog may end up pts? Nope, but I do it for the good of the placeable, highly adoptable animals without issues that we can place - if one dog with major behavior issues leaves our shelter because I didn't speak up it could mean the loss of many other good homes due to bad publicity. Not all of them can, or should, be saved.

 

I'd really like to know where everyone who is anti-euth proposes we put the 18,000 animals we get annually in my county and the 20,000 from the humane society in our neighboring county. If you can place them somewhere where they don't lose their minds, then I'm all for it, but some how I doubt that there is a farm somewhere large enough for all of them, fighting pits, undersocialized yard dogs, and all the others.

 

I'm currently working on enrichment programming for our shelter - even for animals whose stays are relatively short (compared to years in a "no kill") it's a monumental task. I can't imagine multiplying it by a population 10 times, 100 times, or more larger.

 

I do really resent the comment earlier that an animal lover working in an open admission shelter is somehow "wrong" - I and everyone else I work with strive every day to educate and inform the people that walk in our doors about spay/neuter, responsible ownership, etc. in an effort to put ourselves out of a job. We are not somehow inferior to those who don't support open admission shelters that have to euth.

 

And to be honest, death isn't a huge welfare issue if it's done humanely, overcrowding is much more inhumane and detrimental to welfare imo (and from my studies btw). Doesn't mean I like it, but perhaps it might shed some light on the subject...

[Kat's Dogs]

I'd really like to know where everyone who is anti-euth proposes we put the 18,000 animals we get annually in my county and the 20,000 from the humane society in our neighboring county. If you can place them somewhere where they don't lose their minds, then I'm all for it, but some how I doubt that there is a farm somewhere large enough for all of them, fighting pits, under socialized yard dogs, and all the others.

 

The not loosing their minds part is very key. Our county doesn't have any kill-shelters, so the one I volunteer at is no-kill. There is a border collie (mix?) in there that has been there for about a month or so now. At first he was just fine, a very nice dog. Now he is going crazy. He spends most of his day jumping up and spinning off of his kennel walls while barking madly. Many others that have been there for months now are becoming very dog-aggressive just because of frustration. Not to mention the crap food they are all fed which doesn't help the situation, and the fact that they are overfed and overweight. Personally, I think sometimes the no-kills can be just as bad or worse for the well-being of the animals. If there was a place to put them all where they could be happy and not go insane, great! But there are just not that many foster home-type places. So I really think we need to ask ourselves what is worse before jumping to the "never kill an animal!" solution.

 

As I said before, I am not really for it because I DON'T like it, but until there is actually some kind of solution for the problem, I am not really against it either.

[Tranquilis]

According to the standards above we should euthenize children too because many are in the same situation. There is not enough money, not enough homes, not enough food, not enough health care, not enough love and so abuse, not enough, not enough not enough....

That's a logical argument fallacy, variously called "Digression," "Red Herring," "Misdirection," or "False Emphasis." IOW, it's an attempt to distract from the subject at hand by making an irrelevent (and in this case, totally false) argument. In addition, considering the inflamitory nature of the assertion, it could also be considered a subset of the "Appeal to Emotion" fallacy, as well as being reductio ad absurdum, or Fallacy of the General Rule. Argument in that form is intrinsically dishonest. If you're going to disagree with me, fine. But don't follow with this sort of a counter-argument; it poisons the discussion. Instead, tell me how you plan to handle the shelter problem in line with your beliefs. I don't think it can be done. Show me where I'm wrong.

[Tranquilis]

Skyler, let me give you a head start on your argument - I'm going to give you some numbers and assumptions. I'd like you to tell me from where the numbers will be supplied.

 

The ASPCA extimates that there are roughly 9.6 million animals destroyed by shelters in the US each year. This is above and beyond those animals which are reclaimed by owners, adopted, or placed in rescue or no-kill shelters.

 

Let us presume that each animal needs a minimum of one man hour per day of time and attention from staff to provide basic humane care - That's including feeding, walking, cleaning, cage or kennel cleaning, and records keeping. IOW, not much personal contact, but sufficient to keep the animal in acceptable health. So, that's 9.6 million man-hours per year... for the first year. Since we're not putting these animals down, we can presume that shelter population is only going to increase.

 

Let us presume, not unreasonably I think, that animals left in shelters will have an average lifespan of five years.

 

Let us further presume that we are going to pay full time workers to care for the animals (I'll get to the Volunteer Option shortly). Let us presume, again, not unreasonably, that every ten workers needs a supervisor, and every ten supervisors will also need a supervisor, all the way up to a director level.

 

That means that one year's population will need 4800 individual staff, 480 first line supervisors, 48 mid line supervisors, and 4 executive level supervisors, or 5332 people. This is NOT counting veterinary care, transport and collection, admin and HR support people. This is just people looking after the animals, or people making sure the caretakers are doing their jobs and are properly trained.

 

Since I'm presuming a five year lifespan, let's just cut straight to the steady-state situation: Warehousing 48 million animals, and the 26, 660 caretakers and supervisors necessary. I'm not even going to ATTEMPT to address the cost of such warehousing facilities, or their maintenance and operational (utilities, computers, equipment, cleaning supplies, so on, and so forth) costs. Just trust that it will be substantial. Instead, I'm sticking to the Personnel.

 

Let us presume that on average, our work force is getting paid an average of US$20K per year. That means that the line troops are being paid fast-food wages, and the executives are being paid fast-food manager wages. I'll submit that that's not likely to work, but I'll go with it for now. That means that direct salary/wages are on the order of US$53.3M per year. Administrative costs associated with salary (HR support, medical benfits, and the like) cost about an additional 50% of base salary, or another US$26.6M. In short, US$80M in salary and related costs alone, and this only for the "direct line" employees.

 

Who has the $80 million? Well, I suppose a lot of people do. Who has the 26K-27K employees? I work for a MAJOR multinational, and we barely clear that number of employees in the world. Who has the facilities for 48 million animals? Not even Huntingdon does. And we still haven't discussed facilities costs.

 

Now, let us presume that we can meet 100% of first line care with volunteers. I'm going to make a guess that the average volunteer typically has no more than 10 hours per week to spare. Some will have more of course, many will have less, but picking a number out of the air, I'm going to use '10.' That means 96000 vounteers - New volunteers above and beyond those of us already active in no-kill shelters and rescue. That's twice the size of the active duty US Coast Guard. Plus there'll still need to be professional staff to coordinate, monitor, train, administer, and so on.

 

Also, I haven't discussed organizing the standing up of such an organizatin, nor have I discussed competing causes, nor any of a host of other complicating issues.

 

That, I submit, is an organization and structure that is simply not going to happen. Can you show me how it might realistically be brought to life?