These are excerpts from a letter writer in Texas. I know her frustration. She tried to do the right thing and "No Kill" forced her into doing the wrong thing. Has anyone noticed that "No Kill" doesn't want to blame the public for a pet overpopulation problem (because there isn't one) and that results in their living in a make believe world where everyone loves pets and will sacrifice anything to help them.
This letter writer has found a cat with kittens in her yard. Not unusual these days at all. Although the cat could be termed "feral", the woman felt the kittens could be saved from being "feral". She goes to a "No Kill" shelter and they fed her all the standard fare. They told her to do their work basically and sent her away.
Ask these questions. What if this woman was allergic to cats or her family members were? What if this woman couldn't have cats where she lived? What if this woman was not physically able to take care of these cats? That doesn't occur to those "No Kill" shelters that use waiting lists, brochures to send people away only because they want to save their numbers rather than save the cats.
The results of this was that the woman put the cat and kittens back outside to fend for themselves. http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2012/mar/01/letter-kittens-are-worth-saving/
Now here comes the rebuttal from the "No Kill" rescue/shelter. They admit to getting about 300 calls a month for similar situations and "unfortunately" they can't help them all. Okay, then what happens to those they can't help? They offer to supply food if this woman will foster the cat and kittens, bottle feeding them every 2-4 hours, blah, blah, blah. What if this woman has a job?
The most telling of this is how they blame the woman for trying to help these cats. Keep in mind that this is a RESCUE telling a person to do their job. Plus they admit what happens to pets abandoned yet they are the very cause of the abandonment because they turn away these cases.
Releasing those cats to "the streets" was the most irresponsible thing the writer could have done. She, perhaps unintentionally, has now become a part of the problem because these infant animals she "turned loose" are now at risk for disease or may become prey for other animals — a death far worse than euthanasia. At best, they will all survive and reproduce, resulting in more homeless cats
"No Kill" is a major part of the problem, not the solution. Animals are suffering under "No Kill" but as long as they don't have to see it, it doesn't exist in their minds.