The No Kill movement proclaims they have a handful of shelters who are open admission shelters. So what is the No Kill definition of open admission?
Open admission, in my book, is the taking of pets at the time of presentation. No Kill tries to discourage owners from surrendering their pets, assuming an attitude toward the owner who has to surrender. Of course, shelters see those owners with excuses such as the cat doesn't match the new furniture, but for the most part, owners surrendering pets is a traumatic experience. These owners are making the best decision rather than just opening the door and putting the pet out. I, personally, am against surrender fees but can understand why we have them. But let's make sure that animals aren't turned away because the owner can't afford the surrender fees. Many times the reason for surrendering is a lack of funds.
Recently a facebook page was established with official responses to an inquire of these No Kill shelters on their admission policies. I want to share those with you. Another thing noted was that the hours of these No Kill shelters are such that working people are out of luck.
Manatee just became No Kill. And when you have hours that do not favor a working man, then appointments are a way to keep those owner surrenders in check. Currently this shelter only takes appointments for four hours one day a week. Plus the surrender fee is $100 and you can see how that discourages people as well.
We're playing games with animal lives when it comes to No Kill. What is humane about turning away an unaltered or pregnant pet to be dumped and have a litter under an abandoned house to die miserably? We need to encourage owners to surrender to shelters rather than discourage.
We need to paint a nice picture of shelters, not denying the truth, but educating people that it is in the pet's best interest to surrender it to a shelter and risk euthanasia rather than abandonment is in many instances the most humane option. I find no humanity in No Kill, and keep in mind, this is Nathan Winograd's No Kill, I speak of.
The term is considered “managed admissions” by many No-Kill shelters. What traditionally happens, when a pet owner has reached the heart-wrenching decision to relinquish their pet, is the pet owner is in a state of crisis or transition. Moving, being deployed for military service, heading off to college, possibly having to go to an extended care facility or nursing home, or in some of the more challenging situations, being evicted or finding themselves among the ranks of the homeless. The owner in many instances will not have the luxury of waiting weeks before they turn in the pet to a No-Kill “managed admissions” shelter. The No-Kill shelter is simply turning its back on the person and pet in need. Other open admission shelters will most likely have to take in the unwanted pet, since the No-Kill shelter is electing to deny services to the pet and pet owner. The No-Kill shelter will criticize the open admission shelter for euthanizing unwanted pets, when they are in many cases causing owners to bring the pets to the open admission shelter. Would you prefer to take a pet you find or can no longer keep to a kill shelter or a No-Kill shelter? If No-Kill was achievable and sustainable, the No-Kill shelters should be able to accept all of the unwanted pets from an area they serve. By deny services to pets and owners in need, is not deplorable on several levels, but calls for the question as to why the No-Kill shelter should even exist if they cannot provide services to pets in need.
ReplyDeleteVery well said, not all owner surrenders are because the pet doesn't match the furniture any more.
DeleteI have volunteered at my local shelter for several years. I have seen owners come in, in tears surrendering their pets.
ReplyDeleteA couple of stories that really stick out in my mind was a person who was about to be evicted. This person was going to be living in their car and knew that was not a proper life for their dog. They said they had tried all other options, but had no money left and did not know where their next meal was coming from. They just wanted to leave their pet somewhere where it would be fed and cared for and hopefully find another home. Now when this person came to our shelter, they were in tears about their decision.
But, as luck would have it, there were three rescue people in the lobby when this took place. Do you think they offered to help? No. Do you think they offered to take the dog? NO. What they did was to chastise the owner, telling them the dog would be dead as soon as they left, and how terrible the owner was for giving up their pet. How proud they must have felt to literally beat up a person who was already down and out, and trying to do the right thing for their pet.
Another instance was the father who brought his dog to the shelter, after it attacked his 8 year old child. He said the dog was good around him, but had bitten his wife before, and had tried to bite neighbors. He simply did not want to see any else get hurt by this 'unpredictable' dog.
Now a rescue person, who was at the shelter, asked the parent if he had taken the dog for training, worked with the dog, etc. The father said he had tried training, but the dog was 'unpredictable'. The rescue person countered that it must have been something the child had done, the wife had done, and the neighbors had done to cause the dog to try to bite them. The rescue person suggested the parent should take the dog back home and 'see what happened'. The parent, having been brow beaten by the rescue, took the dog back home.
A month later the dog and the parent were back at the shelter. The parent said this time, the dog had bit a 10 year old in the face after the child tried to get his ball out of the yard. The child was probably going to loose an eye due to the bite and would be disfigured for life (not to mention he was on the hook for the injuries).
The last thing I remember him saying was to tell the rescue person thank you for inflicting this injury on a helpless child, as if they had not interfered with his already very difficult decision to make, this incident would have never happened.
For the person living in their car, the shelter found a permanent home for the dog. For the dog that had bitten so many people already, it was humanely euthanized, exactly as the owner (who was doing the right thing) instructed the shelter to do.
Now if we had told either of them we could not take their pets, that they needed to make an appointment, what do you think they would have done? Dumped them out to fend for themselves, or to be hit by a car, to be attacked by another loose animal, to in the case of the last dog, to cause injury to some unsuspecting person or child?
These people had made the very difficult decision to surrender their pets and having barriers in the way only hurts the animals.
Joel Richmond and the No Kill lunatics should hang their heads in shame.
ReplyDeleteWhat Joel is saying is so that he and his fellows can create a con job and produce corrupt and fake statistics that give the appearance of lower euthanasia, what he and his fellows have in reality done is DENIED help to needy animals who will then be killed horribly by their owners or thrown in the street to die.
Animal control in Manatee County is SLOW KILLING the needy pets of the county.
Those animals have to go somewhere, and when animal control is not open much, refuses to take them, and charges extortionate fees, the animals get abandoned!
He also has condemned innocent citizens and their pets to attack before the abandoned dogs starve or are hit by cars or poisoned, as attacks and bites increase because abandonment increases.
Let's not forget that before they die horrible deaths because animal control refused to take them or set up ridiculous hurdles for admission, many of the abandoned pets will REPRODUCE before they die, resulting in still more unwanted and suffering pets.
Animal control in Manatee County looks also to be making money as they rip off "fees" from TAXPAYERS that are already shouldering the burden and paying bills for the animal control department and their ridiculous salaries and not even open decent hours, so the animal control flunkies can warehouse animals and tell lies.
Manatee County Animal control is now in the pet killing business. The slow, torturous pet killing business.
This is what happens when corrupt bureacrats cater to terrorists, the No Kill terrorists.
Joel Richmond is getting paid a large salary and luxurious benefits to DENY services to taxpayers that are paying for those services.
ReplyDeleteInstead of caring for the pets and addressing and resolving problems, he is catering to breeders who want the animals to die off the record so they can pretend there is no overpopulation problem.
That is working for PRIVATE business interests, not the citizens he is hired by and paid by!
I do not know Joel or the exact situation at the shelter there. Clearly they are not open admission. But keep in mind it may not be Joel who is makeing the rules. He maybe a victim of politics where the elected powers that be are wanting to play both sides of the fence and claim no kill status but appearing as a regular shelter! Seen it before!
ReplyDelete