potsherds from the forum
anonymous
February 20 2009, 22:02:16 UTC
I'm going to have to agree with their decision. It's terrible, yes, but if contagious diseases were positive in a number of the cats that were tested, it's a safe assumption that all have one or more of these diseases and to euthanize them to prevent them spreading those diseases to other shelter cats. It's spectacularly awful to have to kill so many cats. And it's a fact of life -- many many more domesticated animals die than are saved. I would rather they die in a humane fashion than miserably and slowly from disease and ill-treatment. Small consolation, but it's all I have.
On a side note: I'm terribly attached to my current foster cat, Tims, and I'm not sure I can give him up. :/ It's even worse that he is special needs, and the last thing I want to do is give him up to someone who won't know how to deal with a one-eyed, club-footed, mischievous, clumsy thing.
Re: potsherds from the forumlitechickFebruary 21 2009, 00:19:20 UTC
Is that the same foster you mentioned on the board some time ago?
It would be easier to accept if the diseases weren't treatable but 3 of the 4 diseases they cite in the articles are treatable. I've had fosters with roundworm, eye herpes and URI (practically every cat who spends time in the shelter ends up with the URI, you give them medicine for a week and that's that.)
It would be expensive, a strain on the staff and maybe some would fail to become adoptable even with treatment but they do have the resources and they didn't even try.
I'm willing to admit that I may be falling into the bleeding heart trap and failing to see the forest for the trees but everything I've read today along with my own experiences has left me...troubled.
Thanks for taking the time to read and post. It's appreciated.
That's a tough decision, and a tough situation all around. I'm not even sure what I would do in the same place. It's a pity that they didn't try to save at least a few of them.
You have to go with what makes you the most comfortable, and if you feel that you can't in good faith work with the Humane Society anymore, then so be it.
Sometimes I just suck it up around the self-righteous (like the no-kill shelter guy) because sometimes an idea is more important than the fallible humans associated. But gods, do I want to punch people sometimes.
"Sometimes I just suck it up around the self-righteous (like the no-kill shelter guy) because sometimes an idea is more important than the fallible humans associated. But gods, do I want to punch people sometimes."
I took in a cat off the street, 3 years ago july. I put up flyers, We took it to get scanned for a chip, I walked the neighborhood looking for lost cat poster, but no one came forth
( ... )
hard choicesmetzheadFebruary 21 2009, 16:51:55 UTC
awful news to hear, lite. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt where possible however. 160 sick kitties all needing daily care is a pretty tall order, even for animal lovers.
Out of curiosity, do they have spay/ neuter programs for strays there, and do they charge for them? How does that work?
Re: hard choiceslitechickFebruary 21 2009, 17:25:42 UTC
That's one of the political issues. They used to have spay-a-thons so people without much money could still do right by the pet population but the vets succeeded in lobbying for legislation to prevent it.
Now the Humane Society spends money lobbying to change the law and the no-kill shelters use a portion of their funds to give coupons for spaying.
The Humane Society has more money/political clout than the no-kills but not as much as the vets. The no-kills are benefitting the greedy vets but they are at least getting more results than the Humane Society.
Re: hard choicesmetzheadFebruary 21 2009, 17:32:36 UTC
odd, I wonder why the vets would be against spaying. I never thought of my local vet having any ulterior motives before. Maybe I'm naive.
reason I ask is in AZ, feral cats, while they have a decreased standard of living (a debatable point in any event) can live year round without ever coming indoors. second, work has a population of about ten of them who are fed by some of the guys there. While ten cats is a lot, a hundred starts to get unmanagable, which is what they'll have if they keep feeding momma and her kittens.
Comments 10
It's spectacularly awful to have to kill so many cats. And it's a fact of life -- many many more domesticated animals die than are saved. I would rather they die in a humane fashion than miserably and slowly from disease and ill-treatment. Small consolation, but it's all I have.
On a side note: I'm terribly attached to my current foster cat, Tims, and I'm not sure I can give him up. :/ It's even worse that he is special needs, and the last thing I want to do is give him up to someone who won't know how to deal with a one-eyed, club-footed, mischievous, clumsy thing.
Reply
It would be easier to accept if the diseases weren't treatable but 3 of the 4 diseases they cite in the articles are treatable. I've had fosters with roundworm, eye herpes and URI (practically every cat who spends time in the shelter ends up with the URI, you give them medicine for a week and that's that.)
It would be expensive, a strain on the staff and maybe some would fail to become adoptable even with treatment but they do have the resources and they didn't even try.
I'm willing to admit that I may be falling into the bleeding heart trap and failing to see the forest for the trees but everything I've read today along with my own experiences has left me...troubled.
Thanks for taking the time to read and post. It's appreciated.
Good luck with your own fosterling.
Reply
You have to go with what makes you the most comfortable, and if you feel that you can't in good faith work with the Humane Society anymore, then so be it.
Sometimes I just suck it up around the self-righteous (like the no-kill shelter guy) because sometimes an idea is more important than the fallible humans associated. But gods, do I want to punch people sometimes.
I am sure that Gabriel found a good home. :)
Reply
This is probably a skill I need to learn.
Reply
Reply
"Did AHS take the easy way out? Yeah. but sometimes thats still the most feasable way."
Thanks for putting it so succinctly. That's what I'm trying to wrap my mind around.
Reply
Out of curiosity, do they have spay/ neuter programs for strays there, and do they charge for them? How does that work?
Reply
Now the Humane Society spends money lobbying to change the law and the no-kill shelters use a portion of their funds to give coupons for spaying.
The Humane Society has more money/political clout than the no-kills but not as much as the vets. The no-kills are benefitting the greedy vets but they are at least getting more results than the Humane Society.
Reply
reason I ask is in AZ, feral cats, while they have a decreased standard of living (a debatable point in any event) can live year round without ever coming indoors. second, work has a population of about ten of them who are fed by some of the guys there. While ten cats is a lot, a hundred starts to get unmanagable, which is what they'll have if they keep feeding momma and her kittens.
Reply
I've heard of catch/spay/release programs to combat the situation you're seeing but I'm not sure how it works.
Reply
Leave a comment