“Unfortunately, it seems like the no-kill movement has evolved
from noble into the no-kill people on one side and the shelters
on the other,” says Stacy Smith, vice president of Animal
Advocacy, Humane Society of Flower Mound. “It’s a shame
considering one was created to help the other. No-kill was out
there before Nathan Winograd grabbed onto it, but what no-kill
meant was you save the ones you could save. There was a
whole plan laid out as to what was considered adoptable. There
was logic and reasoning to it, and it was manageable and
doable for any shelter to get started on it. I hate what it has
become,” Smith continues. “Now it’s accusatory toward the
shelters. These are the people who are putting in 60-70 hours a
week. A lot of times they’re the only ones working in some of
these rural shelters. It breaks their heart when they have to
euthanize an animal. Then, you’re going to come along with the
no-kill movement and accuse them of being murderers. It’s
demoralizing.”
The above is an excerpt from this article, an excellent article, that describes the pitfalls of the No Kill movement by Nathan Winograd.
http://www.fwtx.com/articles/fwtxmag/features/state-sheltering
No comments:
Post a Comment
Remember no accusations without proof. Rant if you will, it won't be published.