Hobbit Animal Deaths

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atomicinchworm

I will go ahead and say that if fur or meat = murder then PeTA's 97% kill rate in their "animal shelter" should = murder too.

Of course, I tend not to trust, follow, or believe anything the big three (Humane Society of the US, ASPCA, and PeTA) spew, because while they certainly talk a big talk, their actions are significantly louder. Any 'animal rights' organization that believes that animals are better off dead than alive is an animal rights organization that doesn't need my money or my support. That being said, I really wish that they hadn't strayed so far from their roots, because I really want to believe they care about animals. It is obvious they don't, but they certainly do care about donations and money.

Back onto the topic, I can see The Hobbit as two movies. I think three movies is really stretching the source material (which apparently they thought so too, since they are including stuff from other sources.)

---

No one said it wasn't murder.

And because people don't fix their animals and are incredibly irresponsible there is an insane amount of over-population. Unfortunately, there just isn't enough money or room to go around. So when you have an older animal that has been around for months and months that no one wants to adopt and it's taking the place of six kittens that can be adopted quickly, what would you suggest they do?

Try doing a little research first or volunteering at an animal shelter before you make judgements. The situation isn't perfect but at least there are people who try instead of expecting someone else to do something about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shasta

No one said it wasn't murder.

And because people don't fix their animals and are incredibly irresponsible there is an insane amount of over-population. Unfortunately, there just isn't enough money or room to go around. So when you have an older animal that has been around for months and months that no one wants to adopt and it's taking the place of six kittens that can be adopted quickly, what would you suggest they do?

Try doing a little research first or volunteering at an animal shelter before you make judgements. The situation isn't perfect but at least there are people who try instead of expecting someone else to do something about it.

---

Simma down now, y'all! :smile2: Atomicinchworm is my niece, and so I can assure you that she knows the situation is not perfect because she really has done lots of work at shelters, etc., and is probably more concerned about the plight of animals in general than anyone else I know in meatspace. I know she might have come off a bit feisty, but I have to admit that substantively, I agree with her take on not only PETA but also the HSUS, but that's a quibble with the leadership, and not most of the members, who simply want to help animals and are choosing the best options available to them. Please let's not fight when we are pretty much on the same side. There are too many people who *don't* care to start infighting among those of us who do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todash

Simma down now, y'all! :smile2: Atomicinchworm is my niece, and so I can assure you that she knows the situation is not perfect because she really has done lots of work at shelters, etc., and is probably more concerned about the plight of animals in general than anyone else I know in meatspace.

---

Dang it, Atominchworm, why didn't you say something? I would have been MUCH nicer! :blush:

I may have come across as harsh but I AM essentially agreeing - it IS murder and it's horrible and I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY wish there were other options. Where we don't agree is that the leadership can do much about it, but yes there is room for improvement. As in most things. Like my knee-jerk reactions when discussing animals.

Sorry..... :down:

It's easy to get fired up when discussing something important to you. That's okay; it's intelligently deployed passion that makes the biggest real changes.

Aww. Sorry. I should have been a little bit less aggressive. ;) I have volunteered quite a bit in the past and am about to embark on another round of volunteer work at a local kill shelter/ animal control, who despite a massive intake of pit bulls and other large dogs is pretty damned close to being no kill. I've been on the front lines, as it were, and despite a short stint with a local retired racing greyhound group, have always volunteered at kill shelters to work specifically with pit bulls.

I get a little bit snippy when it comes down to PeTA and HSUS. Their leadership is broken; they no longer deserve the support of the good decent people who support them.

I would like to posit a scenario, as it were. Pet overpopulation isn't the problem. I know, I know. It sounds crazy. Some 20 million people look to add a new pet to their family every year. Only 3-4 million (which is still a terrible number) dogs and cats are killed every year in shelters. Shelter killing is still the number one cause of death of healthy dogs and cats. Communities, like Kansas City, for example, that work with the public and local rescues to move high risk animals out of shelters, have been successful in achieving pretty close to no kill. Overall, the American public loves pets. They want to help, and when they know there are good healthy stable pets available, they adopt them. Spay and neuter is important, but it's not the only piece. Shelters need to decide to stop killing. They need to hire compassionate people who care about the animals they are in charge of.

When HSUS and ASPCA stops fighting legislation that force animal control pounds to work with local rescues, and stops fighting legislation that helps animals in kill shelters, then I will respect that organization. When the HSUS doesn't give their 'shelter we love' award to a shelter that still literally gases 9 out of 10 animals that come through the doors and has been investigated for cruelty, I will respect them. As it stands, neither PeTA nor the HSUS nor the ASPCA deserve mine or anyone else's respect or support. I'd rather put my money, and my time, towards a local shelter to help local animals.

I think sometimes shelter workers get burnt out. Kind of like my comment in that thread about the cop who bought that homeless guy shoes ... Shelter workers see abused animals all the time and can, I think, forget that really, REALLY, most people love their pets and would never ever think of abusing them. So they get this mentality that they can only adopt an animal out to a perfect home, when really, any normal home is better than euthanasia or a life in a cage.

Atominchworm - I would love to look into your claims a little further. I am a big advocate of being educated on both sides of an argument! Do you have any places I should look for info on this?

"Some 20 million people look to add a new pet to their family every year. Only 3-4 million (which is still a terrible number) dogs and cats are killed every year in shelters. Shelter killing is still the number one cause of death of healthy dogs and cats. Communities, like Kansas City, for example, that work with the public and local rescues to move high risk animals out of shelters, have been successful in achieving pretty close to no kill."

Terminator T - You might be right about that. My intense distaste for people has come from volunteering at shelters, and knowing that plenty of people still buy purebreds. (Well that, and driving on the 405 in LA.) And you know I agree that shelters/rescues need to loosen the reigns and let more people adopt, as well as make it easier.

I think there is burnout. It's hard, watching animals come in in bad shape, just to be killed by the shelter that promises to take care of them.

But I think there is less burnout in shelters run by compassionate directors, who care enough to try, who work with rescue groups, foster homes, who advertise their animals, and who foster good relationships with volunteers. It is sad when a very sick or aggressive dog is euthanized, but it is a tragedy when a happy, healthy dog or cat is killed because someone didn't care enough. The shelters that continue to spew propaganda, and blame the public for the shelter's choice to kill, and refuse to change are the shelters with the highest level of burnout.

Of course the cruelties that some animal control pounds get up to can't just be blamed on burnout. It is the responsibility of management to create and enforce a good, healthy working environment. Directors that require clean, sanitary facilities and pay attention to what is going on with the kennel staff have good healthy environments to work in. Poor management equals more death, higher burnout, and higher strain in relationships with outside groups (if there are any relationships at all).

I got a little off topic. ;)

Of course, as far as adoption policies are concerned, I feel that open policies are better than closed policies. I would trust the public over the average animal control facility. If you have a high adoption rate with a low animal death rate, then fine, be as strict as you want to be. If you are killing 9 out of 10 animals or even 4 out of 10 animals, an open policy should be adopted. You'll get bounceback and maybe some abuse, but less bounceback and abuse than the 9 or 4 out of 10.

Also, feral cats should be trapped, neutered, vaccinated, and returned to their colonies. They typically do just fine by themselves, aren't too much a nuisance, and deserve better than to die terrified at the end of a catch pole with a needle in their heart.

Ok. Maybe I'll scoot the soapbox over to someone else to use it. I obviously can't be trusted with it. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atomicinchworm

Also, feral cats should be trapped, neutered, vaccinated, and returned to their colonies. They typically do just fine by themselves, aren't too much a nuisance, and deserve better than to die terrified at the end of a catch pole with a needle in their heart.

Ok. Maybe I'll scoot the soapbox over to someone else to use it. I obviously can't be trusted with it. :P

---

I used to work with an organization that did this but they ran out of money and closed. :down:

You're doing just fine on your soapbox. (Though that it no way means I agree with all you're saying! :biggrin2:)

The research done by the company Draftcb (which is a marketing firm). It was projected for the year 2011 that 17-22 (low to high estimation) or so million people would be bringing a new pet into their household. This specifically is an article http://www.maddiesfund.org/Maddies_I...e_Numbers.html via the Maddie's Fund website. Even if that number is off by 5 or 6 million people, that is still a large number of people considering all sources for pets. Obviously some people will go through a breeder or other sources, but with good advertising, a lot can be convinced to go to a shelter.

If you want a little bit more force in your reading, http://www.nathanwinograd.com/ or http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/. Winograd, especially, is pretty unbending in his beliefs and the way he goes about it; No Kill Advocacy Center is his organization. I don't necessarily take his stuff as gospel, but most of his claims are pretty well backed up by research and numbers. He also has experience with reforming high kill shelters into shelters that kill 90% of their animals or less.

Knowing all sides, is definitely the best way to see the truth. It really gets easy to forget that most people are essential ok. Not amazing, but definitely not evil.