tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5284766606860228880.post631236675583710991..comments2023-03-24T07:35:39.742-07:00Comments on DEVORE SHELTER FRIENDS: OWNER TURNAWAYS BECOME PUBLIC SURRENDERS AND PETS END UP WITH NO NAMEUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5284766606860228880.post-9158276502514284002012-10-03T09:18:14.360-07:002012-10-03T09:18:14.360-07:00This story was meant as an example of how wrong it...This story was meant as an example of how wrong it is to leave a pet without a name or a history. This dog suffered as a result of no one knowing it's name. That makes a world of difference to a dog in strange surroundings, separate from all it has known. That's what is wrong with what No Kill is forcing on owners, to surrender their pets as a stray. These owners are doing no wrong, they are doing the right thing by bringing their pets to the shelter rather than dumping them on the mean streets. <br /><br />It is a form of cruelty to both human and animal to "punish" owners for relinquishing their pets. No Kill does this "punishment" in the form of dirty looks, hateful attitudes, brochures, lectures, waiting lists, evaluation for admission. We need to encourage people to bring pets to shelters, give their name, their history. It can only help the pet and the staff to find another home.Friends Administratorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04186180027314619778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5284766606860228880.post-20097141699981016832012-10-03T09:05:03.562-07:002012-10-03T09:05:03.562-07:00I am not a fan of the no-kill agenda, but I can...I am not a fan of the no-kill agenda, but I can't see anything they did wrong in this case. What did I miss? (The owner is the one who changed the name.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5284766606860228880.post-2996871007190925002012-09-19T17:32:42.639-07:002012-09-19T17:32:42.639-07:00There is a growing trend within the “No-Kill” move...There is a growing trend within the “No-Kill” movement to encourage the managed intake of owner surrendered animals. This concept basically requires shelters to turn away owner surrendered animals like Reggie or Tank, if another animal may have to be euthanized. The key here is there may be animals in the shelter that are clearly deemed “unadoptable” due to behavioral or other traits which simply make those animals less desirable to the general public. Many shelters will evaluate the animals within their care and then determine after a given period of time if the animal should be euthanized. “No-Kill” insists that all animals be warehoused indefinitely and shelters should turn away other animals in need. In many cases, a managed intake program is simply unrealistic due to the never ending supply of animals arriving at the shelter’s doors daily. Shelters that already have a high euthanasia rate will not benefit by simply turning away owner surrendered animals. As indicated in this post, when open admission shelters turn away owner surrendered animals, in many cases, the number of stray animals simply increases. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com