First I hear that shelters should turn away owner surrenders. Give those folks stern looks, a nice lecture and some brochures and send them merrily on their way to live happily ever after with their pet. Now I hear that shelters should not turn owners who are in foreclosures away and to stop blaming the public for being irresponsible. This follows on the heels of saying that one should sacrifice everything in order to keep their pets and anything less is being irresponsible.
It's so confusing. Okay, let me see if I am reading this correctly. Now you are saying that shelters should be there to help in these times of need with foreclosures. I agree with that. But when shelters are full and more coming in all day, every day, and they need space to accommodate strays to be held in case they have an owner, it only stands to reason that owners would be told that their pets are subject to euthanasia. Taxpayers cannot bear the burden of boarding animals for people who are in crisis.
So, yes, information can be given to people in foreclosure about re-homing their pets. But you and I know that there are thousands, nay, tens and hundreds of thousands of pets out there looking for homes. Of course, according to Winograd, there are plenty of homes, so one has to ask, why so many pets are still looking? Adoption groups are always full unless, of course, you have a nice donation to go along with the relinquishment of your pet. I doubt that people who are in foreclosure have nice donations to give. And the limited admission shelters are always full. So what does that leave? The open door shelters and abandonment.
The realty industry is reporting finding more and more pets left to die in foreclosed homes. This is a result of certain lines of thinking that have left the public with a bad image of open door shelters. So bad that people will actually leave a pet to die a long, lingering death rather than take their pet to the bad "pound". This new way of thinking is now killing pets by leading people to think the shelter is a bad place, worst than the fate of starvation, alone, abandoned.
I don't know about you but this is not right. I read the article by Christy Keith at http://www.sfgate.com/ and Winograd's blog and just had to say, "Make up your minds". Either the shelters turn away owner surrenders or they don't. And if they don't, with the state of budgets, the economy, and the housing market, then something has to give and that is usually in the form of euthanasia. When Keith and Winograd come back to this planet, maybe they can tell us what are they thinking or are they thinking?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
zdsudbcvcubkoix
Christie always puddles through a line of c*** before going into her Wino spiel. These people cannot make up their minds because they don't live in the real world. Your article says it best. All they can do is talk. Keep up the great work.
Christie Keith is a breeder and a breeder lobbyist.
She deceives the public and doesn't acknowledge her business interests and activities.
The real shame is that a newspaper allows her to deceive, and allows her to write propaganda that represents the financial interests of the breeder community
and that includes the puppy mills that fund the AKC
The breeders don't want things like licensing because they are running profitable, illegal businesses and not reporting their income nor paying taxes.
So Winograd is promoted because Winograd protects the breeder's financial interests by opposing things like licensing.
It's all about the money.
Again, that a newspaper would let this con go on is disgusting.
Post a Comment