I think that until we as a society are able to eliminate the need for shelters and the so-called 'unwanted pet', we need veternarians to oversee the euthanization of these animals to ensure that it goes smoothly, painlessly, with dignity and in general properly. I'd much rather seen it be done at the hands of a trained professional than by shoving animals in a chamber in the animal version of Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Shannon April 9th, 2009 09:41:40 AM

i have a problem with the word.

It's not euthanasia.  Not even "euthanasia."

Euthanasia is a death that is welcomed by the dying being, or would be if the dying being had the cognitive capacity to grasp what is happening -- and it is welcomed because of suffering that is not caused or enabled by the people doing the killing.

Killing for space is killing for space.  Killing for convenience is killing for convenience.  Even killing for safety -- killing an animal that is dangerous to others because of behavior or disease vector -- is killing for safety.  None of them are euthanasia.

Killing an animal "kindly" because the pound you've locked him up in is such a horrible crap-hole and is making him sick and crazy is killing for laziness, lack of will, complacency.

The words are important.

I not only eat meat, I kill some of my own -- at a distance, with a rifle, and near at hand, with a knife.  While those deaths are as stress-free and painless as I can reasonably make them (one big reason why I'm willing to do this myself), this is not euthanasia.  Because I've got my own reasons for doing it -- I'm not doing it for the benefit of the animal.  (Even though, when hunting, I am doing it partly for the benefit of all the animals and plants in the community.)

We all make choices about the deaths that we can justify -- killing for food, killing to protect an ecosystem, killing for disease control, killing for pest control, killing for "population control," killing for research.

Whenever we rely on a euphemism -- culling, sacrifice, euthanasia, put-to-sleep, process, or my personal least-favorite, harvest -- we had better be damned ready to justify that euphemism as more accurate than the simple four-letter verb that describes what we actually do.

I cannot see how to justify shelter killing of healthy animals with the euphemism "euthanasia."  The mental gymnastics and self-excusals are too contorted and improbable.

If I help my nervous neighbor kill a chicken so that it happens quickly and painlessly, I justify it to myself as A Good Thing.  Others may disagree, though they shouldn't do so with McNuggets in their mouths.

If a vet, or anyone else, participates in order to make the animals' unnecessary deaths less painful and distressing, then that may indeed make it a mitzvah in some circumstances.  But it does not make the killing a euthanasia.

H. Houlahan April 9th, 2009 10:09:58 AM

We will never be able to "eliminate the need for shelters" because no matter how enlightened and perfect we become, there will always be some pets in transition from a lost home to their new home.

That doesn't mean that we have to kill (not "euthanize", no matter how humane the method) healthy, adoptable pets because that's easier than devoting the time and resources to get them to that next home.

Lis April 9th, 2009 10:15:18 AM

A FWIW--my first job as a vet was a nightmarish experience for many reasons, but one of the things I was allowed to do by my employer was to go to the county humane society once a week and kill everything that had been there too long.  Before I was hired, my employer did this himself.  The reason we did it was that no one in the shelter had the correct permit/license (this was in upstate NY in 1997) to perform the deed themselves.  We stopped doing it the second they had the correct paperwork.

I have no idea what the rules are region to region, but that may be a reason why a vet ends up with this duty.

DrSteggy April 9th, 2009 10:33:41 AM

H. Houlahan: Interesting perspective. Very well said.

Dr. Patty Khuly April 9th, 2009 10:34:22 AM

I'm part of two communities that have gone from high-kill (96% and 80% of animals that came in the door died) to low kill (kill only for aggression/severe health issues). So I firmly believe that where there's a will, there's a way. OTOH, those animals that are killed because they're so sick or injured that they're dying should be seen to by a vet. And those animals that either have bitten, or are likely to bite, should also be killed by a vet IMO. All it takes in one bite to a family's child to not only destroy that dog and teach everyone in that family to no longer keep dogs, but to also shut down the shelter they got him from should they choose to sue. So, I don't think we should be killing animals for space to begin with, but I do think a vet should be performing the euths that are done.

lindabcs April 9th, 2009 11:05:33 AM

The animal doesn't care what WE call it.  Dead is dead, whether it's a "good death" or a "bad death".  The biggest problem I have with the "no kill" movement (whose goals I completely support) is that proponents say "words matter" and then play games with words. "No kill" does NOT mean that no animals get dead.  Winograd estimates that a 90-95% save rate is the best we can achieve (and it would be a remarkable achievement) because there will always be animals we will kill for reasons of health or temperament.  It's a "high save" movement, not a "no kill" movement or even a "euthanisia" movement.  Ask 100 members of the general public what they think "no kill" means and they will say it means that the shelter doesn't kill animals.  Heck, ask 100 member of the rescue community what it means and they'll say the same and that's why they don't support it... their understanding is that "no kill" means crazy hoarders and abusive warehousing of animals.  NOT AT ALL what Winograd's vision is about.

If all vets refused to kill healthy, basically sound animals given up by their owners to shelters, then would no animals be killed?  Sadly, the more likely result is that which occurs in some places, where OTHER people (less well trained) kill them in less humane ways.  Is this issue like the debate over whether practitioners of human medicine can refuse to participate in procedures to which they are personally opposed?  Can doctors refuse to perform abortions?  Can pharmacists refuse to dispense birth control pills?

I think we all would agree that healthy, sound animals should not die at our hands (except pit bulls of course, according to HSUS).  Until we achieve that, what is the manner in which these animals die?

EmilyS April 9th, 2009 12:05:23 PM

Ok, so lets just say we can change the world here (or at least your little corner of it) and poof, now no adoptable animals are put down. So now your shelters are full. What are you going to do with the next batch of kittens or the next stray dog that comes in? Ok, so you find room for it somewhere. Then what? There is always another one coming in the door.

So now what? Do you turn pets away? Put a higher price on the cost of surrendering them? That is just going to cause people to open up their car doors and these pets are going to now be living on the side of the road to *hopefully* be picked up by animal control. What is the A/C going to do with them?

OK, so you lower the cost of adoptions. What does that get you? Well it might get people in to take home the pets you already have, but it lowers the amount of money you now have to care for the next set of animals coming in your door. Because there is always another set of animals coming in the door.

Another side effect of lowering the cost of adoptions is you lower the preserved value of these pets. Frankly they are low enough as it is... but when people see that these pets are being "given away" or "discounted" what kind of investment is that to people. Maybe they'll go down and get one on a whim cause of the discount, and figure if it doesn't work out then they didn't loose much of anything. Where does that leave the pet?

I hate that adoptable animals are put down. I hate it. I know that each life has value and deserves a good and loving home. At this point in time that can't happen. There are too many of them, and too few of us to adopt them. (I've done my part, I've got seven). I think the bigger argument is why more isn't being done to curb this problem before it starts as in neutering more pets and strays. (and yes, you are doing your part Dr. Khuly - and I thank you over and over for that)

Maine has a state wide spay/neuter program that is funded by donations that are right on our state income tax form. We are now selling spay/neuter license plates. But still the program only has enough funds to run about 90 days out of the year. The need is great. The funding needs to follow.

Connie April 9th, 2009 12:45:52 PM

As much as I hate the thought of any healthy, adoptable animals being put down, I would rather see that happen (by a veterinarian) than watch an animal go crazy from being in a shelter cage long-term.  Allowing that to happen is in itself is a form of cruelty. 

Daniela April 9th, 2009 01:16:37 PM

I don't care whether it is called no-kill or low-kill, anyone who drinks the kool-aid that this means "hoarding" and "warehousing" is just ignorant. The answer to ignorance is education.

Of course some animals will have to be put down as unadoptable. The term "no kill" means that adoptable animals are not destroyed. As I understand it, it also means that some effort is made to rehabilitate animals which come in to the system in a less than optimum condition --- physically or temperamentally. The goal is finding an adoptive home for as many animals as possible.

It requires community support. It requires financial support. It requires a positive attitude. It requires work. It requires dedication and love of animals. But one community after another has shown that it IS possible.

No more excuses.

Susan April 9th, 2009 01:25:00 PM

Connie and Daniela, No Kill, i.e., no killing of healthy or treatable animals for space, convenience, or population control, has been successfully adopted in urban areas and rural areas, in rich communities and poor ones, in communities with both high and low percentages of transient/seasonal residents.

When an animal goes crazy from being in a shelter cage too long, that is cruelty indeed. In well-run shelters this doens't happen. Well-run shelters boost their adoption rates by making themselves more accessible to working families, work with rescues and with shelters in other areas to get sensitive animals into better situations and to move out animals who will be more adoptable elsewhere and, where appropriate, move in animals who will be more adoptable there. They ameliorate the conditions in the shelter to make them more attractive to potential adopters, and less stressful for the animals.

A no-kill shelter local to me recently had in a Chinese Crested who was highly stressed by the shelter environment--typical for Chinese Cresteds. They didn't keep in in a cage until he went crazy from it and then "had to" be put down. First they tried office fostering him; it works for a lot of animals, helping them stay stable and adoptable. When it was clear they still weren't providing him what he needed, they transferred him to a Crested rescue group, who placed him in a foster home--and in his foster home, he's thriving, gaining some badly needed weight, and learning that he likes kids, cats, and other dogs. That is how No Kill works. Not one shelter on its own, but a community working together, with some leadership to show the way.

It's the high-kill shelters, where they philosophically have the freedom to kill their screw-ups, that have animals going crazy from kennel stress.

Lis April 9th, 2009 02:25:01 PM

today H. Houlahan said it all for me.

LorriM April 9th, 2009 02:36:12 PM

I've been employed as a vet assistant for several years in a rural, poorer area. My vet's policy was always first to try to talk to owner into surrendering their pet if they seemed adoptable and try to place them in homes before euthanasia becomes an option.

However, being in a rural area (where many people are hunters-)-if we refuse to provide euthanasia services, it's very possible that the owner will choose to shoot their animal at home, or just dump the animal, where starvation or getting hit by a car are also possibilities.

Obviously we don't want to euthanize healthy animals. But when refusing your services may result in the animal having a more painful outcome, it's a less black and white situation.

Leah April 9th, 2009 02:55:13 PM

I wish the people who are so rabbid about "no kill" would spend their time finding homes for the animals instead of trying to stop the problem the shelters have with being over run with animals. The people that just drop the box of puppies/kittens etc off at the shelter so it is no longer "their problem" are the ones I have issue with. I do understand in the current economic conditions the people that have to walk away from their homes and drop their pets at the shelter since they can't even afford to feed their kids any more, but there are far too many animals that end up in the shelters simply as a matter of convenience. When we take an animal into our house, they are there until end of life (and not the end of convenience - you should see the handicapped dog ramp I built on our house so our female can get up and down from the back yard). The shelters are not the problem, they are the visible end of the problem - the problem is how those animals got there in the first place. Something about "responsible pet ownership" comes to mind.

mikey April 9th, 2009 04:29:34 PM

My number one reason for giving up on becoming a veterinarian is that I can't emotionally handle the constant convenience euthanasia and choices made by clients simply because of money. I'm not saying that I'm rich or that I could spare any expense for my pets, don't get me wrong. However, money was a determining factor much more than I would have guessed before working in a vet clinic--for treatments big and small. I took home a cute little parakeet who needed cheap (~$10) oral meds to cure her fungal infection after the vet talked the owners into signing her over to us instead of needlessly euthanizing her. I hear vet med has one of the highest suicide rates of any profession and I'm certain forcing vets to euthanize hundreds of shelter pets would increase it! However, if they want to "help", feeling like they are providing a kinder death than the gas chamber, I can respect that...after all, they aren't at fault for the tragic widespread belief that animals are disposable. Just count me out-I volunteer as a vet assistant at a shelter here and I made it clear to them that I could not be part of that...

Sarah April 9th, 2009 04:51:49 PM

Dr Khuly, I'm honored you felt my teeny comment over on PetConnection quote worthy. It is wonderful to read so many comments here from people who are rabbid (sic) about saving the lives of savable animals and reserving euthanasia in shelters for the times where it meets the actual definition of the word. My personal feeling is - that's not a word game. But that's just my personal belief.  Thanks for a great post.

Sue Cosby April 9th, 2009 05:21:13 PM

Italy is dealiing with 2000 homeless pets now from the quake.  This world is heartbreaking at times.

Evet April 9th, 2009 05:32:30 PM

Our local 'no kill' shelter is a mess. Personally I wouldn't adopt an animal from there if I were looking to add one to my home. They are overcrowded, the animals are frequently ill, and they periodically have to shut the adoptions down entirely because of a rampent disease.

While I understand their effort for 'no kill' they have some animals there that have diabetes, and other cronic health conditions. Those animals are very unlikely to get adopted in our area and those animals are taking up much of the funds that could be used for keeping the healthier animals adoptable.

They have many long term pets there. There is one cat that was dropped off as a tiny kitten that has now lived for 7 YEARS entirely in a cage environment. The shelter refuses to turn away any pet for any reason and it just compounds the problem.

Personally I'd rather that the less adoptable ones be euthanized by a competent vet so that others may remain healthy and the shelter has more funds to take care of the adoptable ones.

And if the animal has been a long term resident, I think euthanasia is preferred to 7 years of living in a small cage. I can't imagine what that cat's life is like. No running through the house, no napping in a lap, no sitting looking at birds through the window, no sunbeams. That's not a life, that's a prison.

FWIW I donate all my cats unneeded toys, beds, and treats/food that didn't work out to the shelter. Every year for Christmas I donate new toys and treats for every animal they have and personally hand them out with a few head scratches to boot. I recommend people give them a look see if they ask about getting a cat/dog, and if I have extra towels, blankets or newspapers I also donate those as well. I support the animals as best I can, however the shelter is badly managed and the facilites poorly lacking, and I can't do much about that. Our community seems very apathetic to changing the system.

It's a sad thing to have to euthanize a pet simply because it's unwanted. If that means that resources are freed up to manage the more adoptable ones, or to maintain better facilities, or eliminate overcrowding/long term residents, then I'd rather a vet do it.

cl April 9th, 2009 05:44:49 PM

I suppose it's like declawing or docking - the problem with vets having an ethical policy of non-participation risks not stopping the practice but just having it done by untrained people who may cause more suffering. Maybe the answer is that shelter vets should be more assertive that they will only consider killing animals for non-medical reasons as an element of their job IF the shelter also uses their skills to reduce the need for killing - low cost spay/neuter/chip/vaccinate sessions for low-income owners at the shelter so fewer pets need to be given up & so on?

Rosemary April 9th, 2009 06:20:35 PM

Wow, Dr. K: I feel like we came full circle...did you have this in mind?

Sue Cosby: A great quote to repeat! A belief starts as that, may be an uphill battle that takes perseverance, patience, defeats, but a stronghold on that original belief, will make it happen.

Dr. Steggy: As you aptly pointed out, a lot of states, including my own "require" a DEA & state licensed veterinarian to administer euthanasia solution. There appears to be only a handful of states that will license shelters and/or special "euthanasia technicians"

Connie: from ME., NH too has had low cost s/n, funded out of canine license fees (no license required for ANY other species/companion pet), and not sure if proposal for vehicle license plates went through...but goodness, every plate & annual renewal would bring in enough revenue for one s/n !

Agree 100% with above comments regarding death of adoptable animals. I know how badly I felt put in the position of euthanasia of the unadoptable terminally sick and/or hopelessly aggressive. And we had a few go into loving hospice care in our regional club.

Barbara A. Albright/NH

Pocket's Story from New Hampshir April 9th, 2009 06:24:25 PM

Dr. Patty Khuly April 9th, 2009 09:23:12 PM

I'm okay with euthanasia in most situations, as long as it's done well. I don't even begrudge the owner of a pet with a chronic but treatable condition who just isn't willing or is unable to commit to further treatment the option to humanely euthanize their pet. Every pet deserves a good death - and every owner deserves that as an option. I don't believe animals are capable of existential thought - I believe they know fear, hunger, discomfort, etc., and a primary goal of the veterinary community should be to alleviate those condtions...humane euthanasia does that. I don't like the idea of mass shelter killings any more than anyone else...but I'll back the vets who do it compassionately.

anna April 9th, 2009 11:21:04 PM

On one hand many vets don't want to help with no/low cost spay/neuter programs,and on the other hand they don't want to euthanize the results of not having enough affordable programs. I for one am confused doesn't one reduce the need for the other and over time solve the dilemma?

Robert Garnett April 10th, 2009 08:54:48 AM

unenlightened...

Thats a pleasant way of saying that killing places dont know any better.

I have to disagree with you on this one. They do know that these animals can find new homes but prefer to continue collecting cash from local government with each murder. Its easier , faster and more convenient for these murderers than to work at saving the animals.

In my area, the pound refuses to allow assistance from resues on a continuing basis. Because they collect cash twice for each animal they bring in as long as they kill it, its a very effective way to get rich and all with governments blessing. The Animals for Research Act in Canada protects them.

As for the vet that does the killing...they dont do it. The pound staff does  it , again with the govenments blessing.The only time a vet is involved is if an animal has been injured . Then the vet either treats or kills, according to the wishes of the Dog Cops.

We have a helluva fight on our hands up here . Between the BSL and money hungry pound owners, we cant get help fast enough.

I am so very grateful to vets like you who have a straight moral compass .

Heather April 10th, 2009 10:30:51 AM

anna: 99% of pet-owners are appalled at the mass-killings, I agree that if done, must be with ultimate kindness

Robert G: that's exactly what I meant by coming full circle, low cost s/n programs will surely make a vast difference

Heather: Don't be so sure that the money issue is "exclusive" to Canada

Pocket's Story from New Hampshire

Barbara A. Albright April 10th, 2009 05:55:26 PM

The insinuations made here that anyone taking an animal to a shelter where they know it will probably be killed is some kind of brute are unfair at best. I've taken stray/feral cats to the local shelter and I'm almost sure they were killed. It makes me very sad, and I deeply hope their deaths were as fear- and suffering-free as possible, but I'll be damned if anyone gets to make me feel like I'm evil because I took them there. I still think I did the right thing, and I still think they are better off dying quickly than facing a life on their own in a world that is alien to their survival abilities. I'm not in charge of this world. I wish every person who has taken responsibility for an animal would really follow through so there would be no unwanted ones. I wish I had the time and resources to do way more than take a suffering stray to the pound, but I just don't. The nearest "no kill" shelter is an hour's drive away and MOST of the time is NOT taking any animals. Easy to claim "no kill" if you just stop taking in any animals when you are "full" (but I'm not sure that makes those folks morally superior to public shelters which must take any and all animals brought in, regardless). But during such times (and again, that's MOST of the time--I've yet to figure out how on earth one ever gets to leave an animal there), there are still bazillions of strays out there being wounded, starving, and catching & transmitting diseases. I've done what I can; I've got five cats. I can't afford any more. These days, I can barely afford the ones I have, having acquired them before the economy tanked. If I took on more than I could handle, wouldn't THAT make ME an irresponsible owner? As in, a hoarder? Given the unpleasant realities--I'd rather see animals put down humanely by a veterinarian than not, even if they are theoretically adoptable. I'm sure it would be a really sad, sucky duty for any decent person, but that doesn't make that person a bad guy. He/she is not the one responsible for the animals' being there. Such a person would of course feel sad, even dismayed, but in my view has no reason to feel guilty. Just as I won't feel guilty that I can't save every cat out there. Would that I could. I'm not going to say that the people who might think or imply that I should have adopted those strays before taking them to the pound (how else would I avoid it if I know no one who is looking to adopt a cat) are the very same people who would judge me an uncaring owner if I decided I couldn't afford to have, say, a heart transplant, for one of the cats I AM responsible for. But I'd bet the rent there's a lot of overlap. I deeply admire people who are doing more than I can personally do to change the situation; two of my cats come directly from such a person, and the other three would have ended up there (or at the pound) had I not adopted them before they even hit the system. And let's keep our outrage in perspective. Parts of the world are full of feral CHILDREN who are not being saved. It is definitely very sad about stray animals. But there are things way more horrible in this world.

Judy April 11th, 2009 11:23:45 AM

Sorry about the lack of paragraphs there--they were present when I typed it. I don't know why the formatting was lost.

Judy April 11th, 2009 11:25:27 AM

Judy, if you are using Internet Explorer, you need to use html tags to format your text. To break your text into paragraphs, what you do is:

line of text

< br >

< br >

line of text

If you do that (removing the extraneous spaces within the brackets, you'll have your paragraph breaks. Or else use Firefox, and things get much easier.

As for taking animals to shelters--I certainly don't blame the person who picks up the homeless animal and takes it to the shelter. I also don't blame the person who cannot care for an animal any longer and takes it to the shelter. That's what shelters are supposed to be for. When a "shelter," so-called, takes in a healthy or treatable animal with no behavior problems that aren't correctable with training, and kills it, I blame the "shelter." When they take in a basically well-adjusted animal, and reduce it over a few weeks to a kennel-crazed mess that "needs" to be "euthanized," I blame the "shelter."

I blame the "shelter," and I blame the "shelter" industry that refuses to learn from the shelters and communities that have successfully adopted No Kill polices and programs that produce live exit rates of over 90%. That's not "90% of adoptables"; that's 90% of all animals that come in the door. They euthanize for the same reasons a loving, responsible owner would; they don't kill for population control, or space, or convenience, or to teach a lesson to the Bad Public. They recruit the public, as adopters, as fosterers, as volunteers who are valued rather than treated with suspicion, as donors and contributors who are far more willing to contribute to saving healthy animals, rather than killing them for convenience and calling it "euthanasia."

Lis April 11th, 2009 01:01:45 PM

And, on the formatting thing, remove the extraneous spaces between the lines too; I forgot that Firefox would do that.

Lis April 11th, 2009 01:03:21 PM

I know of a couple local "no kill" shelters.  These shelters are very very picky about what animals they will take.  They don't take strays from local communities, they don't take aggressive animals, they don't take animals that may otherwise be suffering...they don't do any of this, because it might make their numbers look bad.

On the other hand, I know of local shelters that have a pretty high euthanasia rate, but it's because they have a very well run shelter, but lack for space...and take any animal that's in need.  They have programs set up to help with problem behavior, they have nutrition programs set up to help families in need feed their animals.  They have very reduced cost vaccine clinics..  They have all of this, and they are still lacking space.  There isn't a plethora of free money available to build larger shelters, and the volunteers are already giving it all they've got.  They just happen to be in the middle of the nations largest unemployement rate...when it comes down to the choice of feeding my child, or my dog, I'm picking my child every time. 

As for euth technicians able to administer euthanasia solutions without valid vet/client/patient relationship, around 20 of 50 states do not allow it.  Since more allow than disallow, it's hardly fair to say a handful allow it.  I'm pretty uncomfortable with those that don't allow it as well.  I know the consequences.  I know the consequences of a small shelter that can't afford the training and $390 (or simply don't hvave the interest) to get the limited dea license...companion animals are killed with guns, or even in some situations, a shovel or a 2x4.  Hardly the painless death I'd love to see for them.  Not to mention the countless shelters that still use CO gas.

Whether or not you want to call it a euthanasia, I could care less.  I've personally got issues with knowing that by not performing a procedure, the animal will otherwise face a very painful death.

It's great to have ethics, it's great to strive towards a no kill goal, but to ignore the fact that in the process of doing so, animals are otherwise going to be abused, tortured, and have to endure a very painful death is ignorant at best.

Finding homes for all animals is a pain in the ass, no other way to put it...but right now I've got 7 dogs, 2 of them are mine.  The rest are freeloaders, that are well advertised, well cared for, and waiting for the right home.  I'm at my limit (beyond actually), my friends are at their limit, and the local shelters are beyond their limit...so if it means pulling a dog from a situation where it would otherwise suffer a painful death to give it one that is painless, I will gladly give that animal it's final meal and push the plunger with no regret.

I will do so, with much anger directed my way from armchair activisits, who are too busy to go to their local shelter and walk dogs, so that they are less stressed when potential adopters come in.  I will do so with judgement passed down by peoople who have moral problems with killing a healthy animal.  I will treat an animal with dignity and give it a painless death, so that it not have to suffer a slow painful death by blunt trauma.

Jackson April 12th, 2009 03:11:20 PM

The no-kill situation is not about taking money from children and giving it to the dogs because resources are so incredibly limited. Even (especially) in these recessionary times, cities are moving towards building and improving infrastructure.

Example: Even Miami (where I live), despite being at the epicenter of the US foreclosure crisis, has just decided to dedicate $600 million in municipal funds to build a ball park. It's a money-loser. We all know it's about j-o-b-s (and the fact that politicians who voted for it will be long gone by the time the fiasco-factor hits the presses).

The problem is that few municipalities believe that no-kill can be done in a way that benefits the entire system--pet license holders, animal welfare activists, shelter workers and the rest of the community. Too many municipalities believe animal death is inexpensive and expedient--and it is neither. 

Dr. Patty Khuly April 12th, 2009 06:20:50 PM

If you are looking for a situation that benefits the entire system, I doubt you will find it having anything to do with a municipality.  Too much beaucracy.  Take your previous post on TNR programs for feral cats.

When you have the city veterinarians being the first to say, "no, this isn't going to work"...how is the beauracracy going to react?  The example I can give is the local open admission shelter that while working towards no kill, is very honest in that they have to euthanize.  Rescues can take only so many, and space IS limited.  On top of that, some of the local veterinarians HATE this shelter.  They hate it because they can undercut their prices, and supposedly take away business.  I can pay this shelter $100 for a spay or a neuter of a dog.  The cheapest I can find from a private vet is around $180, for a procedure that I would hold in the same light (sterile pack, sterile gloves and fresh gown).  The vets argue that the $100 procedure takes money out of their pockets and that the shelter can do it tax free blah blah blah.  I won't begin to argue the logic in this, because there isn't any...if you compare prices for any other procedure, you'll find that you are MUCH better going with a private vet.  They subsidize the prices for alterations through fundraising, grants, etc.  My point is, even when you look at well organized efficient open admission shelters, no kill is only a goal.  They unfortunately HAVE to euthanize healthy dogs.

I don't think you are wrong, but I don't see anything changing any time soon....and I hardly think the answer is refusing to perform a euthanasia.  How many vets try to educate before they declaw, suggest behavioral therapy prior to euthanizing, etc.  Unfortunately, not many.  How many vets participate in spay day?  How many vets are willing to take time and volunteer their services for vaccine clinics?  I'm not even allowed to volunteer at the local animal shelters clinic because it presents "a conflict of interests" (again, the logic doesn't make sense).

Jackson April 12th, 2009 08:39:51 PM

I would be fine with vets not participating in shelter euthanasia IF AND ONLY IF they would provide more low cost spay/neuter to the public so the animals don't end up in the shelters. Just what do the vets think will happen if the shelters don't euthanize? Maybe they will all end up such as the Philly shelter with overcrowding, disease so rampant that they named it the PACCA flu, and the list goes on. Does this sort of situation appeal to those who don't want to do harm to the animals? Allowing animals to be kept until they are kennel crazed and then unadoptable might appeal to those who don't want to do harm. Vets are part of the problem anyway, by making their services too costly to many pet owners. Thus, the pet ends up at the shelters and then is put down due to medical problems. Don't see vets come running to treat those animals in the shelters so no harm comes to them. Please, if vets want to do the right thing, then let them participate in the way that can stop the influx into the shelters, by offering spay/neuter so everyone can afford it.

Pat April 16th, 2009 07:00:22 AM

Pat, instead of killing healthy, adoptable dogs under the guise of being "kind," OR keeping them caged until they go crazy so that killing them is then "justified," kill centers like the Philly "shelter" could become REAL shelters and adopt the policies real shelters have adopted, which produce live-exit rates of 90% or better. This is not by handing out dogs and cats like free candy, but by actually making adoption attractive and accessible for working families, ameliorating shelter conditions so that dogs and cats don't go crazy, working with rescues and with foster family volunteers to get more of the dogs into home settings while waiting for adoption, and working with shelters in other areas to move out the kinds of dogs for which there is an over-supply locally but a high demand elsewhere.

But that would involve admitting that what they're doing now isn't working, and never has worked.

Lis April 16th, 2009 01:21:39 PM

We supply the Newest of abercrombie fitch, Ed hardy Clothing, Ed Hardy Jeans from abercrombie and fitch.

DIDI August 5th, 2009 08:34:57 PM

The only ones ghd hair iron among you who will be really happy ghd mk4 iron are those who will have sought and foundhow to serve. When the fight begins ghd iv dark styler within ghd iv kiss styler himself, a man's worth something ghd hair iron .

GHD Hair Iron September 12th, 2009 04:57:55 AM

Keno Online con Bonus

xvbvzb October 28th, 2009 05:07:18 PM

Rolex Submariner watches

Rolex Explorer watches

Rolex GMT watches

Rolex Sea-Dweller watches

Bell & Ross watch for sale

Rolex Submariner watches November 10th, 2009 09:49:54 AM

Burberry watch for sale

replica Cartier (watches)

A.Lange & Sohne watches November 10th, 2009 11:52:40 AM

<a href="Tag'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Tag-Heuer/">Tag Heuer replica</a>

<a href="chopard'>http://www.iwcwatches.us/Chopard/">chopard replica</a>

xxx (watches) replica November 11th, 2009 12:31:51 PM

Jaquet droz watch for sale

Lady Watch for sale

Longines watch for sale

Louis Vuitton watch for sale

Jaquet droz watch for sale November 19th, 2009 09:09:23 AM

oris watch for sale

Panerai watch for sale

Piaget watch for sale

Tudor watch for sale

U-boat watch for sale

omega watch for sale November 20th, 2009 11:06:35 AM