Monday, November 1, 2010

Let Them Die Inhumanly - The New Tactic in the "No Kill" War

This article set me off this morning. I knew that these nonprofit shelters in Delaware were trying to screw over the cities and counties. I want to explain how this works.

Seems the latest tactic is to "blackmail" cities and counties and force the "No Kill" philosophy onto them. Withdraw services, knowing full well that these cities have depended on these nonprofit shelters for years and years to take their strays. They know that the cities don't have their own shelter and in this economy, the cities can't afford to build a new shelter. So the nonprofits are threatening to withdraw. What are the cities to do other than accept and pay for the "No Kill" philosophy or the animals will run wild in the streets.

"Plus, nonprofit shelters find it easier to get donations if they call themselves "no kill."
All about the money.

""And then there is the toll that euthanasia takes on staffers.

Karel Minor remembers the days his employees at the Humane Society of Berks County would be sobbing in corners after they had to euthanize more than 100 healthy cats in one day just to make room for more strays.

"I can't ask the staff to go back to that. It is just not right," said Minor, executive director. The shelter dropped animal-control contracts from the state and municipalities in 2008.""

Maybe those staffers would feel better picking up the dead ones off the road, or the ones starved to death in a foreclosed home, or the ones pucking their guts out from poison. They should be forced to do that so they would realize that what they are doing is much more humane. When these staffers see a dead dog or cat on the roadway, they can thank themselves for being the cowards they are and accept that it is there because of their actions.

Just imagine a poor dog or cat lying in the roadway, can't move from the injuries, just waiting for the next car to end the suffering. Picture the dog or cat waiting by the door for the master than never returns, dying a long and lingering death from starvation. This is what these shelters want to happen because they have to know what their decision to take a philosophy over reality does to animals. These aren't humane people, these are the despicable. This is what "No Kill" is creating, a monster. They should be condemned not praised.



Anonymous said...

"So the nonprofits are threatening to withdraw."

Because the non-profits KNOW that No Kill is a failure, and that animals will have to be euthanized because there are TOO MANY and NOT ENOUGH HOMES.

So they want to force animal control to do the dirty work, so these provate shelters can LIE and PRETEND and claim to their donors that they are No Kill to con more donations for their directors salaries and perks, when all they have done is shifted the dirty work to others and are hiding it.

The fact is that animal control SHOULD be getting run by government employees, because it is a public health and public safety position, and No Kill gets people killed too by doing things like giving out dangerous dogs and refusing to pick up strays.

I think it is a good thing that towns and cities divorce themselves from these crooked private shelters that hurt animals and people.

Karel Minor said...

Hi, did a vanity search and found myself mentioned. You imply that my organization is No Kill. In fact, we are not, don't claim to be and publish our numbers (unlike any other shelter in our region). We dropped our contract because the government wasn't paying us evough to do animal control well and were actually ONLY looking for a euthansia contract rather than a true animal control contract. While I'm sypmathetic with the whole No Kill philosophy, I have been very public and vocal that the strident wing, including Nathan Winograd, base their claims on a clearly faulty premise.

I agree that there are worse deaths than euthanasia in shelters. I also agree that the government, many shelters and many advocates of all stripes use contracts as a way to make decisions they aren't honest enough to own up to on their own. But I also think that organizations get to decide what they will do with their resources and missions (no one tells a Golden Retriever rescue they have to take cats or they are responsible for dead cats on the road) and as long as they are honest with their supporters, more power to them. We decided that we shouldn't have our charitable donors pay for city services and decided to focus on vet services. Other say they want to be No Kill. It's up to the place- but Nathan doesn't get to tell us what to do, neither does the government and, I guess I'm about to get my new one, neither do you.

HonestyHelps said...

Sorry, but the shoe fits, wear it. You know exactly why this is happening. It ain't because you want to spare staff. To withdraw services means animals have to suffer and your staff should be forced to see this suffering because they can't bring themselves to relieve it with a needle. No, I think people like yourself are the scum of the earth when it comes to helping animals. You think only of yourselves.