Applying to med school and vet school...

[Pet of the Week]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Do you think that it would hurt my chances of gaining acceptance to a vet school if I was also applying to medical school?

I will be applying to med school, vet school, and mba school at the same time next summer. Med school is of course my top choice, but I will be a reapplicant who has already completed 2 years of med school in the past (above average grades, but dismissed for missing 4 labs due to a chronic illness, fought it for free and lost, can't afford a lawyer). I'm a realistic person, and I know it will be next to impossible to get back into another medical school. I would love to go to vet school, but the reason I pursued med school instead in the first place is that I am much more emotional when it comes to animals than people. I fear I would be more subject to burn-out/depression as a vet than a doctor. I am currently the operations manager of an animal rescue group. We are no-kill (part of maddie's project), but I have a difficult time interacting with the municipal animal shelter. They make up reasons to deem the animal unhealthy and therefore able to be euthanized without risking their maddie's funding. I have very strong opinions regarding euthanasia and even some common surgeries like declawing. It seems that most vets are capable of just accepting the way things are and performing these procedures when unnecessary or at least not for the benefit of the animal. Also, it seems most vets don't recommend important preventive care (heartworm meds, etc.). I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't know how well I would function in the human consumer driven reality that is veterinary medicine when it so often neglects what is truly best for the animals involved.
Wow. They will never let me in after all of that.

Anyway, back to my question. If I mention that I am also applying to med school, do you think admissions people will automatically reject me knowing vet med is more or less a back up plan? I don't know that I would blame them if they did.

 

[david594]

Anyway, back to my question. If I mention that I am also applying to med school, do you think admissions people will automatically reject me knowing vet med is more or less a back up plan? I don't know that I would blame them if they did.

You will have to list that you attended medical school on your vet school apps. So I would pretty much bet on the fact that the discussion of medical school will come up.

Do you have any veterinary experience? Or is all your experience limited to running the "no-kill" shelter?

 

[twelvetigers]

...knowing vet med is more or less a back up plan?

...is that how you plan on phrasing it?

Keep in mind that you would need veterinary experience to apply to vet school (the shelter rescue thing would probably be animal experience but not vet experience). If you were to shadow a vet over the coming year, you would experience some of the things you're concerned about - euthanasia for various reasons, and maybe some surgeries you don't approve of. Witnessing these things would let you know if you could handle it emotionally, if you would really enjoy being a vet, and would probably help strengthen you reasons for wanting to be a vet (if that's the case).

I don't think the previous med school stuff would rule you out as long as you explain it well (and you will have to explain it, otherwise where did those two years of your life go?)

However, you... might consider trying med school first and then applying for vet school... or just commit to vet school entirely. I understand thinking you might enjoy both things, but applying to both med and vet school is... a little cheesy, IMO.

 

[Adrift108]

Do you think that it would hurt my chances of gaining acceptance to a vet school if I was also applying to medical school?

I will be applying to med school, vet school, and mba school at the same time next summer. Med school is of course my top choice, but I will be a reapplicant who has already completed 2 years of med school in the past (above average grades, but dismissed for missing 4 labs due to a chronic illness, fought it for free and lost, can't afford a lawyer). I'm a realistic person, and I know it will be next to impossible to get back into another medical school. I would love to go to vet school, but the reason I pursued med school instead in the first place is that I am much more emotional when it comes to animals than people. I fear I would be more subject to burn-out/depression as a vet than a doctor. I am currently the operations manager of an animal rescue group. We are no-kill (part of maddie's project), but I have a difficult time interacting with the municipal animal shelter. They make up reasons to deem the animal unhealthy and therefore able to be euthanized without risking their maddie's funding. I have very strong opinions regarding euthanasia and even some common surgeries like declawing. It seems that most vets are capable of just accepting the way things are and performing these procedures when unnecessary or at least not for the benefit of the animal. Also, it seems most vets don't recommend important preventive care (heartworm meds, etc.). I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't know how well I would function in the human consumer driven reality that is veterinary medicine when it so often neglects what is truly best for the animals involved.
Wow. They will never let me in after all of that.

Anyway, back to my question. If I mention that I am also applying to med school, do you think admissions people will automatically reject me knowing vet med is more or less a back up plan? I don't know that I would blame them if they did.

If being a human doctor is what you really want, then go for it. Plenty of people who are trying to be human doctors or vets don't get in the grad schools even in their second, third, or even fourth try. That said, most people who are applying to vet school really have a strong passion for it and some might dislike that you're using it simply as a back up instead of doing what you really want to do, since that spot might be used for someone whose top choice is to be a vet. But then again I can understand where you're coming from, it's not like that possibility never crossed my mind before (trying to get into med school that is, but I don't think that'll ever happen - I want to be a veterinarian too badly). In any case, there's definitely some not so pretty sides of the Vet Med business I know, but there's a lot of good that comes from it too, but the same can be said for the human health industry (issues dealing with consumer-driven cosmetic surgery). However, from what you've written, it doesn't seem like being a vet is something you'd be happy with for the rest of your life. I'm not too sure how adcoms would look at it if they knew being a vet is just your backup.

 

[deleted266066]

Ha, my parents don't understand why I'm not going to apply to veterinary school *and* medical school, just in case I get rejected from vet school. Initially I told my dad I would consider that... but I changed my mind pretty quickly when I realized just how much I wanted to go to vet school more than med school.

My dad doesn't like that my "back up plan" is to just continue racking up experience and making savings ($$!!!) and apply again if a rejection is in my future; he thinks I need a more secure back up, ie med school, considering I used to be pre-med. He then asks "what if you get rejected twice?" ... well then, I would apply again. I'm fairly confident that my absolute worse case scenario would be acceptance on a third try... but at least by then I would get to pursue my dream job. I don't really care when I make it, so long as I know I'm doing what I can to make the dream a reality. And what's wrong with saving up some money during those years anyway?

Anyway, I don't think people should pursue one or the other "just because"... both paths are extremely difficult, stressful, and chew up more than a few years of your life. I really think people should only go through with them if they are CERTAIN this is what they want to do for the rest of their lives, or at least as certain as they could possibly be at a given time. I just think it would be so hard to keep pushing through the grueling med or vet school without a passion for the ultimate goal of becoming either an MD or DVM.

That being said, I do know a few people who are equally passionate for both fields and just aren't decided on which path they'd like to take, and will just rely on where they get accepted... but usually one passion will prevail and I hope they end up picking the right one.

Oh and just as an aside, people usually use med school as a backup FOR vet school... statistically speaking your chances are higher of gaining admittance into med school, although I am not sure how your circumstances will affect your admission. You might want to consider contacting some admissions offices of med schools you would be interested in before hurling yourself into applying *everywhere*... it might be difficult to spread yourself so thin, and decrease your overall chances of getting in anywhere which would be kind of a shame and counterproductive. Good luck!

 

[Pet of the Week]

Vet school was actually my original plan. Working with vets (when I was still in hs) who seemed to really not have a passion for animals at all is what changed my mind.
I actually worked animal care before being promoted to operations manager. From January through May, I worked with dvm's and vet tech's assisting with spays/neuters and other minor procedures along with general stuff like giving meds, educating the public, and picking up poop. In May, I was promoted to operations manager because I also have a background in human resources and office management. I manage all of the animal care employees. It's definitely less hands-on, though only management staff deal with cases of parvo and other illnesses that we are not sure the general animal care staff has enough experience to treat properly.
I think I'm going to need to get in a vet's office again and see if my perspective changes. I'm not sure I could make a career out of something I care so much about. It's like someone who loves writing until it becomes his career and he has to deal with deadlines and critics. So he loses his love of writing. I think I'm less likely to burnout in medicine. When it comes to humans, they made their choices. It's much easier to be emotionally detached when necessary. Of course, I would have trouble when it comes to kids and old people.

And no, I wouldn't phrase it as back up plan. It's more like another possibility. There are lots of things I could do well that would make me happy.

 

[Pet of the Week]

By the way, you guys are nicer than the pre-meds. If I posted the same question in reverse in their forum, they'd have torn me a new one. 🙂

 

[twelvetigers]

Um... yeah. They're pretty critical over there on the allo boards... can only imagine what they would have said about being a veterinarian. Maybe that we're all softies. 🙄

No, probably something much worse than that. Lol!

 

[nyanko]

You take that back, I can be every bit as caustic and elitist as those pre-allos!

watch:

OP, you need to quit being so god damn wishy washy and commit to something. FFS, you are drifting along on the river of life like a fat-laden indestructible turd that somehow managed to escape the sewage plant. Go ahead and try to tell an adcom that you originally backed out of wanting to be a vet because you just care about the animals too much. 🙄 I dare you.

 

[Pet of the Week]

You take that back, I can be every bit as caustic and elitist as those pre-allos!

watch:

OP, you need to quit being so god damn wishy washy and commit to something. FFS, you are drifting along on the river of life like a fat-laden indestructible turd that somehow managed to escape the sewage plant. Go ahead and try to tell an adcom that you originally backed out of wanting to be a vet because you just care about the animals too much. 🙄 I dare you.

Shoot. I'll do it. =)

 

[sunshinevet]

I would love to go to vet school, but the reason I pursued med school instead in the first place is that I am much more emotional when it comes to animals than people. I fear I would be more subject to burn-out/depression as a vet than a doctor. I am currently the operations manager of an animal rescue group. We are no-kill (part of maddie's project), but I have a difficult time interacting with the municipal animal shelter. They make up reasons to deem the animal unhealthy and therefore able to be euthanized without risking their maddie's funding. I have very strong opinions regarding euthanasia and even some common surgeries like declawing. It seems that most vets are capable of just accepting the way things are and performing these procedures when unnecessary or at least not for the benefit of the animal. Also, it seems most vets don't recommend important preventive care (heartworm meds, etc.).

I would strongly recommend getting some experience with other veterinarians. I feel you may get a perspective change. It's not that the majority of vets "accept the way things are" - but they can see alternative benefits to the animal. If it comes between a good owner who is at the end of their wits because the cat just wont stop clawing the couch and the next step is taking that cat to the shelter, yeah, i will declaw the cat, because there is great benefit to the cat in that procedure. There is often merit in euthanaising behavioural cases if the owners are not willing to undergo behaviour modification therapy, as shelters and rescue societies are already stretched to the limits, this dog MAY be dangerous, and sometimes the way that dog may be treated if you send it back home would be far worse than euthanaising. Though, of course, I would express my disappointment at the situation, and make sure they recieved counselling before they got another dog.

So yeah, I would strongly recommend getting some more experience. While its nice that you are so passionate about animal welfare, the save anything and everything mentality doesn't go down well with adcoms, because its way too utopian for this industry. Maybe you just need to temper these emotions and work out how they can work for you in the veterinary world.

 

[twelvetigers]

Oh shoot, I forgot about nyan.

 

[Adrift108]

Oh shoot, I forgot about nyan.

haha

 

[Pointer1330]

By the way, you guys are nicer than the pre-meds. If I posted the same question in reverse in their forum, they'd have torn me a new one. 🙂

You may have spoken too soon. I'll try to not to be too negative here, but realistic. I'm only going by the information you've provided in your posts, but I feel that you should definitely not pursue veterinary medicine. If you have that strong of a stance on euthanasia and no kill shelters then I feel like you'll be doing a disservice to as many animals as you would help as a veterinarian. I don't want to start an argument on no kill shelters or trying to keep an animal alive when it shouldn't be, but it seems like you need to spend some time in a clinic to deal with some of the issues you'll run into. Oh, and remember that these animals we have as pets were domesticated by us and the owners are responsible for making decisions for these animals. As a veterinarian you are most times carrying out the will of the owner, not the animal.

Besides that, it shouldn't be a back-up plan. Either you want to be a Veterinarian or an MD. I would think it would be awful difficult to get into vet school anyway if they knew you also applied to med school and your stances on the issues you've mentioned.

 

[dgm]

Although I have a tough time with the "I just care too much about animals to be a vet" line of reasoning, it's a reality that we don't all get our fairy-tale ending. I don't think it's fair to tell someone that just because vet med wasn't their first choice in life, they shouldn't pursue it. There are lots of idealists who say that if they couldn't be a vet they'd just keep trying and trying and trying, but I think after 10 rejections (random number chosen to prove a point) probably even the most hardcore would find a Plan B.

Regarding euthanasias - private practice is not the same as shelter med. You're generally dealing with animals who are someone's pet. You don't have to do "convenience euthanasias", and it sounds like you understand that there are times that euthanasia IS in the best interests of the animal. On declawing: There are vets who refuse to do declawing altogether, and some who will only do it after the client has made a real attempt at resolving the issue by other means. (I'm not a fan of declawing, but if the choices are declawing or a homeless kitty, the declawing could be the lesser of two evils.)

And I haven't met a vet who DOESN'T recommend heartworm meds and other preventive care (if you want to be cynical about it, why wouldn't a vet recommend that stuff - it would bring in more money).

OP, if you do your homework and find that vet med is something you'll be happy doing, definitely apply! I have no magical insight to the admissions committees' thoughts, but I'd think that 2 years of "above average" grades in medical school should prove you can hack it academically. Just make sure you're making the right choice for you, and that you can explain your interest in veterinary medicine in a logical way.

 

[sunshinevet]

Regarding euthanasias - private practice is not the same as shelter med. You're generally dealing with animals who are someone's pet. You don't have to do "convenience euthanasias", and it sounds like you understand that there are times that euthanasia IS in the best interests of the animal.

Are you kidding? Private practice vets do a large amount of conveniance euth's - I've seen countless in my 4 years as a tech. I honestly think it makes it even harder than shelter euths, because you actually have to deal with the owners who don't give a **** in a professional manner. I mean, you don't have to undertake these euth's, you can refuse as a vet, but there are many loopholes they can use to influence you, most shelters are full, and do you really want this animal going home with these people?

 

[dgm]

Are you kidding? Private practice vets do a large amount of conveniance euth's - I've seen countless in my 4 years as a tech. I honestly think it makes it even harder than shelter euths, because you actually have to deal with the owners who don't give a **** in a professional manner. I mean, you don't have to undertake these euth's, you can refuse as a vet, but there are many loopholes they can use to influence you, most shelters are full, and do you really want this animal going home with these people?

I'm not kidding. The key word was "have". You don't have to do it (but if you don't have your own practice you'll need to make sure to work for someone who supports your choice). It is possible to show some conviction and you don't always have to do what the client wants.

 

[BlacKAT33]

Are you kidding? Private practice vets do a large amount of conveniance euth's - I've seen countless in my 4 years as a tech. I honestly think it makes it even harder than shelter euths, because you actually have to deal with the owners who don't give a **** in a professional manner. I mean, you don't have to undertake these euth's, you can refuse as a vet, but there are many loopholes they can use to influence you, most shelters are full, and do you really want this animal going home with these people?

This is a good point. If you HAD to choose between euth or going home with a potential abuser i would chose euth. Of course, these would never be the only 2 options but if it were, a short happy loving life is better than a long abused/tortured one.
My vet will keep the animals dropped off to him until we can find someone to adopt them, but i have also seen cases where the owner wants to put their pet to sleep for a stupid reason (ex. their cat was old and not using the litter box anymore) and he will put the pet to sleep because he knows the animal will never be adopted by anyone, and even if they were, they would not last longer than a couple yrs so it would just bring pain to someone else. As much as this hurts me, i just try to think of how much love the pet received up until this point.

 

[bunnity]

So you're saying that you were dismissed from med school after two years, right? Not sure if I'm reading that right.

I know that your vet experience so far has been with vets that may have been burned out or less than enthusiastic about their jobs, and that experience is coloring a lot of what you are seeing. I think, though, that you really need to get away from the "I love animals too much" line of thinking, because it is insulting to vets and other people that work in the field. I work in an animal shelter right now and I hear it all the time - I love animals so much that I would never be able to work here. Well, if you love animals so much you should be here every day volunteering, fostering, and donating your money - not sitting at home loving your breeder dog. I'm not talking at you specifically, since you do work in the field, but that particular line is really annoying to hear as a shelter worker and I'm sure it is equally annoying to a vet. There is a difference between how much you love animals and how much you can emotionally control yourself in not taking your job home with you. This absolutely happens in human medicine too - wait until you have an entire room full of family members in the room crying as their awesome mom is dying. That sucks too. You will learn in either field that you can't get upset about every sick animal or person because you'll never be able to do your job. You have to learn to care enough to be a good doctor and to separate yourself enough to be an equally good doctor to the next patient that day.

The other thing is that if you're interested in shelter medicine you need to get exposure to more than one kind of shelter. It is very easy to sit there is your no kill shelter feeling like the high volume shelter down the road just doesn't care enough and if they did they wouldn't euthanize, but in most areas I think that is just hiding from reality. Right now I work in one of the biggest shelters on the east coast. You have to understand that when you have a shelter that takes in everything from animal control and everything from cruelty investigations around the entire state, and everything that the millions of poverty-striken and uneducated citizens of a struggling city manage to breed and neglect and dump at your door, you can't put up all those animals for adoption. When you're having hoarder raids and getting in 50 animals in a day, all sick and feral, how do you think the shelter can possibly rehabilitate them all, pay for it, and get them adopted? We take in everything that the no kill shelters reject and then we have to pay for the euthanasia while they feel good about themselves. It's easy to think that the big shelters don't care but they do. I have been present for many euthanasias and several mass euthanasias where we did 20 animals in a row and it is terrible and it makes you sad and it sucks. I have seen the vet techs treat an animal for months and months and grow to love it, only to have to euthanize it when it snaps at someone and becomes a danger to the public, and they sit there and pet the dog and cry as much as any owner would. I have taken care of a sick dog all day only to have it start coughing blood, have a vet realize that it has strep zoo which could kill every dog in the shelter, and held that dog on my lap while it was euthanized. Don't think for a second that I didn't care or that it didn't tear me up to see that sweet dog die like that. But it was either that dog die or all our dogs die. I'm telling you this because if you get in an interview and say this kind of thing to a high volume shelter vet or probably any vet, they will react like me and think, "He doesn't understand the reality of the situation" and not accept you. Your actual opinion matters less than how informed you are, and I think you need to get exposure to the shelters you are condemning before you speak so strongly about it.

 

[Pointer1330]

but i have also seen cases where the owner wants to put their pet to sleep for a stupid reason (ex. their cat was old and not using the litter box anymore) and he will put the pet to sleep because he knows the animal will never be adopted by anyone, and even if they were, they would not last longer than a couple yrs so it would just bring pain to someone else. As much as this hurts me, i just try to think of how much love the pet received up until this point.

This is why I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a euthanasia argument. Who's to say that this is a stupid reason for humane euthanasia? I know if I had an older cat that was peeing all over my house and if nothing else worked I would would be doing. I also know that my wife, a veterinarian, understands this type of a situation and that she would do the same thing. What's better, confine the cat to a small room in the basement like it's in prison, destroy your house, or humane euthanasia? Anyway, sorry to the OP for sidetracking the thread.

 

[sunshinevet]

I'm not kidding. The key word was "have". You don't have to do it (but if you don't have your own practice you'll need to make sure to work for someone who supports your choice). It is possible to show some conviction and you don't always have to do what the client wants.

The conviction to do what? Where I am, most shelters won't take them, and those that do have ridiculously high euth rates to keep turning them over. So what, the conviction to send them there and subject them to overcrowded, underexercised, stressful situation with the same endgame? Or refuse and send them back home to be disposed of by "other means"? And while I admire BlackKAT's vet for doing what they do, it is NOT a feasible reality for most vets. I mean, of course we all make an effort to avoid the situation and rehome them, and no vet wants to euth them, but i sleep easy at night knowing I have done the best thing I could by those animals in that situation.

 

[Pointer1330]

Thank you for providing a dose of reality Bunnity.

 

[sunshinevet]

Thank you for providing a dose of reality Bunnity.

+1👍

Great post.

 

[bunnity]

I know I just wrote a giant post but I just have to say that there are a lot worse things than euthanasia for an animal to endure.

 

[dgm]

The conviction to do what? Where I am, most shelters won't take them, and those that do have ridiculously high euth rates to keep turning them over. So what, the conviction to send them there and subject them to overcrowded, underexercised, stressful situation with the same endgame? Or refuse and send them back home to be disposed of by "other means"? And while I admire BlackKAT's vet for doing what they do, it is NOT a feasible reality for most vets. I mean, of course we all make an effort to avoid the situation and rehome them, and no vet wants to euth them, but i sleep easy at night knowing I have done the best thing I could by those animals in that situation.

sunshine, I'm not here to argue with you or tell you that you're right or wrong to do euthanasias in various circumstances! I'm not arguing about whose views on euthanasias are right (I'm not taking either side), I'm just saying that each person CAN make up their own mind and act according to their own convictions. The OP expressed concern about euthanasia, and I just stated the fact that she can choose to do or not to do "convenience euthanasias".

 

[sumstorm]

Med school is of course my top choice, but I will be a reapplicant who has already completed 2 years of med school in the past (above average grades, but dismissed for missing 4 labs due to a chronic illness, fought it for free and lost, can't afford a lawyer).

ok, so the first question is 'how has the chronic illness been resolved so that these issues won't be a problem if we admit you?' If this is the reason you couldn't make it the first time, then it is fair game to ask how this time is different (especially with a chronic illness.)

I have very strong opinions regarding euthanasia and even some common surgeries like declawing. It seems that most vets are capable of just accepting the way things are and performing these procedures when unnecessary or at least not for the benefit of the animal. Also, it seems most vets don't recommend important preventive care (heartworm meds, etc.)

Why would you want to work in a field that you seem to have a fair amount of disregard for? Some vets do declaws...some don't. Some limit it to young kittens, some perform a precise procedure, some do a quick (and possibly cheaper) procedure. some do it because the cat will be homeless or euthanized otherwise. Also, how are you going to handle learning aspects of the field where animals are raised to die? At some schools, whether you agree or not, you will learn procedures like debudding a goat. Is it necessary? Depends on who you ask. I think you have ALOT of negative presumptions about veterinarians, which suggests, to me, a significant lack of experience in the vet field.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't know how well I would function in the human consumer driven reality that is veterinary medicine when it so often neglects what is truly best for the animals involved.
Wow. They will never let me in after all of that.

The same argument can be made for human medicine...unless you are willing to cover the costs for uninsured and underinsured clients. Every field has problems; go to the field that you are most interested in and feel you can perform well in with a satisfactory result for yourself.

Based on the other stuff you mentioned, I personally don't think you should bother with vet med, but my opinion doesn't really matter. Another huge difference is that vet med is a shockingly small field; you can fit every vet in the country in a large stadium. That means, better or not, individual vets have the ability to influence the field and the perception of the field. If you do apply, I hope you explore the field more before applying, including the food production aspects and the laws on things like horse slaughter. Explore these ideas with vets. Something I am realizing in vet school is that most vets have very good reasons for their perceptions and opinions (whether I agree or not); but they may not be able to articulate the background of those perceptions and opinions because it took semesters of material to develop the conclusion...vs a weekend seminar, or a chat over coffee, or a 2 minute commercial or an easily perused web site. I am not saying that such discussions will change fundamental beliefs....but it may modify them...or make more sense on why some vets do what they do.

 

[BlacKAT33]

This is why I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a euthanasia argument. Who's to say that this is a stupid reason for humane euthanasia? I know if I had an older cat that was peeing all over my house and if nothing else worked I would would be doing. I also know that my wife, a veterinarian, understands this type of a situation and that she would do the same thing. What's better, confine the cat to a small room in the basement like it's in prison, destroy your house, or humane euthanasia? Anyway, sorry to the OP for sidetracking the thread.

Pointer, i was not trying to start an euth. argument and i hope my words did not come out that way. I was simply trying to give an example of euth animals at vet offices too as well as shelters like the OP was talking about. Even though i said "stupid reason" i guess you could replace that for "silly, simple, one reason" I never said my opinion about what I would do and if there was no solution to my pet doing this maybe i would euth. I wasn't trying to say the owners or anyone else was stupid, please don't misinterpret my post.

 

[Pointer1330]

Pointer, i was not trying to start an euth. argument and i hope my words did not come out that way. I was simply trying to give an example of euth animals at vet offices too as well as shelters like the OP was talking about. Even though i said "stupid reason" i guess you could replace that for "silly, simple, one reason" I never said my opinion about what I would do and if there was no solution to my pet doing this maybe i would euth. I wasn't trying to say the owners or anyone else was stupid, please don't misinterpret my post.

Sounds good - fair enough.

 

[Pet of the Week]

So you're saying that you were dismissed from med school after two years, right? Not sure if I'm reading that right.

I know that your vet experience so far has been with vets that may have been burned out or less than enthusiastic about their jobs, and that experience is coloring a lot of what you are seeing. I think, though, that you really need to get away from the "I love animals too much" line of thinking, because it is insulting to vets and other people that work in the field. I work in an animal shelter right now and I hear it all the time - I love animals so much that I would never be able to work here. Well, if you love animals so much you should be here every day volunteering, fostering, and donating your money - not sitting at home loving your breeder dog. I'm not talking at you specifically, since you do work in the field, but that particular line is really annoying to hear as a shelter worker and I'm sure it is equally annoying to a vet. There is a difference between how much you love animals and how much you can emotionally control yourself in not taking your job home with you. This absolutely happens in human medicine too - wait until you have an entire room full of family members in the room crying as their awesome mom is dying. That sucks too. You will learn in either field that you can't get upset about every sick animal or person because you'll never be able to do your job. You have to learn to care enough to be a good doctor and to separate yourself enough to be an equally good doctor to the next patient that day.

The other thing is that if you're interested in shelter medicine you need to get exposure to more than one kind of shelter. It is very easy to sit there is your no kill shelter feeling like the high volume shelter down the road just doesn't care enough and if they did they wouldn't euthanize, but in most areas I think that is just hiding from reality. Right now I work in one of the biggest shelters on the east coast. You have to understand that when you have a shelter that takes in everything from animal control and everything from cruelty investigations around the entire state, and everything that the millions of poverty-striken and uneducated citizens of a struggling city manage to breed and neglect and dump at your door, you can't put up all those animals for adoption. When you're having hoarder raids and getting in 50 animals in a day, all sick and feral, how do you think the shelter can possibly rehabilitate them all, pay for it, and get them adopted? We take in everything that the no kill shelters reject and then we have to pay for the euthanasia while they feel good about themselves. It's easy to think that the big shelters don't care but they do. I have been present for many euthanasias and several mass euthanasias where we did 20 animals in a row and it is terrible and it makes you sad and it sucks. I have seen the vet techs treat an animal for months and months and grow to love it, only to have to euthanize it when it snaps at someone and becomes a danger to the public, and they sit there and pet the dog and cry as much as any owner would. I have taken care of a sick dog all day only to have it start coughing blood, have a vet realize that it has strep zoo which could kill every dog in the shelter, and held that dog on my lap while it was euthanized. Don't think for a second that I didn't care or that it didn't tear me up to see that sweet dog die like that. But it was either that dog die or all our dogs die. I'm telling you this because if you get in an interview and say this kind of thing to a high volume shelter vet or probably any vet, they will react like me and think, "He doesn't understand the reality of the situation" and not accept you. Your actual opinion matters less than how informed you are, and I think you need to get exposure to the shelters you are condemning before you speak so strongly about it.

We work very closely with the municipal shelter as coalition partners. We do not take public intakes at all. All of our animals are chosen for us by the municipal shelter. I have seen them euthanize kittens because they are not cute enough while keeping their cuter littermates. They euthanize pitt bulls at 8 days despite their temperaments or health status. Maddie's project has a very clear rubric of when it is okay to euthanize and when it is not depending on the year of the project. Currently, we are not to have any healthy animals euthanized in the county. They lie to continue to receive funding despite the fact that healthy animals are being put down daily. That is my problem with their practices. I realize they are under a lot of pressure. There were days in the summer when they received over 100 animals a day. Over the summer months, we took over 300 animals from them. There are two other animal rescue organizations in our county as well. There is no need to euthanize healthy animals. Next year, we will step up to the level of not being allowed to have any healthy or any rehabilitatable animals euthanized within the county. I'm not sure how we are going to pull it off, if they can't even keep from euthanizing healthy ones now.

 

[Pet of the Week]

00000000000000

 

[Sophie10]

We work very closely with the municipal shelter as coalition partners. We do not take public intakes at all. All of our animals are chosen for us by the municipal shelter. I have seen them euthanize kittens because they are not cute enough while keeping their cuter littermates. They euthanize pitt bulls at 8 days despite their temperaments or health status. Maddie's project has a very clear rubric of when it is okay to euthanize and when it is not depending on the year of the project. Currently, we are not to have any healthy animals euthanized in the county. They lie to continue to receive funding despite the fact that healthy animals are being put down daily. That is my problem with their practices. I realize they are under a lot of pressure. There were days in the summer when they received over 100 animals a day. Over the summer months, we took over 300 animals from them. There are two other animal rescue organizations in our county as well. There is no need to euthanize healthy animals. Next year, we will step up to the level of not being allowed to have any healthy or any rehabilitatable animals euthanized within the county. I'm not sure how we are going to pull it off, if they can't even keep from euthanizing healthy ones now.

I don't really understand what you think the solution to this problem should be. Should these animals be running around on the street having litters of puppies and kittens and spreading disease? I guess the problem is that they are taking money as a no-kill shelter but they are not no-kill. That's wrong, but the problem is deeper than the source of funding. Your no-kill shelter gets the pick of the litter, so to speak, and they are left with all the animals that aren't so easy to adopt all the while constantly taking animals from the public. If they are getting 100 animals/day over the summer and you take 3 days worth, how are they NOT supposed to euthanize healthy animals due to space concerns? What would you have them do?

I think no-kill is sort of like the ban on horse slaughter-- a nice idea that agrees with how we would ideally like to treat animals, but not really feasible.

 

[BlacKAT33]

I don't really understand what you think the solution to this problem should be. Should these animals be running around on the street having litters of puppies and kittens and spreading disease? I guess the problem is that they are taking money as a no-kill shelter but they are not no-kill. That's wrong, but the problem is deeper than the source of funding. Your no-kill shelter gets the pick of the litter, so to speak, and they are left with all the animals that aren't so easy to adopt all the while constantly taking animals from the public. If they are getting 100 animals/day over the summer and you take 3 days worth, how are they NOT supposed to euthanize healthy animals due to space concerns? What would you have them do?

I think no-kill is sort of like the ban on horse slaughter-- a nice idea that agrees with how we would ideally like to treat animals, but not really feasible.

You wrote this really well. I agree completely. Especially with the horse slaughter issue, its a tough subject. My animal rights and welfare course had to do a final project which was a debate about the issue. 90% of the students started off for the ban on slaughter, by the end of the week debate, 90% were against the ban on slaughter. I'll stop before giving detail because i dont want this to become a horse slaughter debate page! 😀

 

[PrimalMU]

2. I trim my kitty's nails. It's not complicated. If your children are constantly slapping each other or picking their noses, do you have their hands surgically removed?

Consider this scenario: a pet owner comes in to have his cat declawed because he was recently diagnosed with a bleeding disorder and his cat isn't the sweetest feline in the world. Do you refuse to declaw? Considering the alternatives (the owner sending the cat to the animal shelter, which due to its age will probably not be adopted and ultimately will be euthanized), do you really think that declawing is the worst possible outcome?

As far as trimming cats' nails, surely you don't think all cats are sweet, well-behaved kitties that will just sit there while you trim them do you? Some may be, but for most cats its probably a two person job in the best situations. In the worst situations you have a fractious cat on your hands, in which case trimming its nails becomes a liability (especially if you are the aforementioned client with a clotting disorder).

If there's one thing I've learned, its that there are no absolutes. There are cases when declawing is acceptable given the alternatives. There are cases where you'll probably have to perform a euthanasia that you are uncomfortable with.

A few weeks ago we had an elderly woman bring in a black kitten to have it euthanized. We debated whether or not to try to rehome it or send it to the shelter. The kitten was VERY nervous and wild, so rehoming would have been difficult. It was also a black cat, and coming up to Halloween the shelters around here do not adopt out black cats, so if we had sent it to the shelter it probably would have been euthanized anyway. I wasn't particularly comfortable with the situation, but after we discussed the alternatives we all felt that euthanasia was the best option.

 

[Minnerbelle]

We work very closely with the municipal shelter as coalition partners. We do not take public intakes at all. All of our animals are chosen for us by the municipal shelter. I have seen them euthanize kittens because they are not cute enough while keeping their cuter littermates. They euthanize pitt bulls at 8 days despite their temperaments or health status. Maddie's project has a very clear rubric of when it is okay to euthanize and when it is not depending on the year of the project. Currently, we are not to have any healthy animals euthanized in the county. They lie to continue to receive funding despite the fact that healthy animals are being put down daily. That is my problem with their practices. I realize they are under a lot of pressure. There were days in the summer when they received over 100 animals a day. Over the summer months, we took over 300 animals from them. There are two other animal rescue organizations in our county as well. There is no need to euthanize healthy animals. Next year, we will step up to the level of not being allowed to have any healthy or any rehabilitatable animals euthanized within the county. I'm not sure how we are going to pull it off, if they can't even keep from euthanizing healthy ones now.

I'm sorry, but I take a lot of offense to what you say here. I help run a no-kill animal rescue right now, and I hear things like this all the time. I understand that it's wrong of the shelter to manipulate Maddie's Fund, but I really find your attitude about how they operate very VERY offensive.

As far as I understand it (sorry if this is wrong), but Maddie's Fund's whole county wide no-kill initiative thing involves multiple orgs within a community. I'm guessing that your no-kill shelter is also a part of it. This means that your shelter is just as culpable for all of those euthanasias. If you were begging the municipal shelter to hand over kittens so you could adopt them out, but they refused, that would be a whole different matter. But realistically, could your organization have taken in EVERY animal that the municipal shelter had to put down?

You make it seem like the municipal shelter is this evil thing not trying hard enough to save animals in your community, while your org is awesome because it's "no-kill." What comes in MUST come out in one way or another. If it's that the community doesn't have enough adoptive homes, then the only other way these animals can come out is dead.

I don't think it's fair for either a no-kill shelter or an open shelter to say they're better than the other. They both have very crucial roles in ending the suffering of domestic animals. Open shelters are NECESSARY, and no-kill shelters are an invaluable resource for many of these open shelters.

Think about who you're criticizing. At least these people have the guts to hug that "one too many" animal goodbye, and hold them close while they're put to sleep. As a no-kill shelter you can harbor animals FOREVER until a home is found and feel good about yourself and pat yourself in the back, while hundreds of other animals are being dumped at the municipal shelter with nowhere to go.

You say how deplorable it is that the municipal shelter "picks" the cute kittens and puts the not as cute kittens to sleep from the same litter. Think of it this way. Without enough adoptive homes, ALL of these kittens would be euthanized. It's more like the shelter is "saving" the couple kittens from the litter that may have a chance. It's not the shelter that's discriminating... it's the general public who only wants to adopt the "cute" kittens.

Sorry about the rant. I don't mean to be condescending, but I take it as a personal attack when people criticize high volume shelters. I might be one of these holier than thou no-kill shelter manager who will give these semi-feral cats the "chance that they deserve" now, but I have also been a vet tech at a high volume shelter. I don't think I have any more compassion now than I did when I was at the "kill" shelter. In fact, I felt like I helped so many more animals back then.

 

[BlacKAT33]

3. There are problems associated with any career path. I am posting my opinions for discussion because they are real concerns that a person should consider before going into veterinary medicine. I could be all cliche, oh I just love taking care of animals, and science, and cutting things, so I should be a vet, but I'd much rather gain insight into the factors that lead to burnout and depression in so many individuals working within this field so I can decide whether I think it's worth it. Obviously, there are benefits and enjoyable things about the job. They just are not really relevant to my current question.

Do you have any vet experience? I think you should spend a good amount of time in a clinic. You may encounter some emotional times depending on what emergencies you see, but i think it would be good to see the different type of scenarios that come out. Its not always black and white.
(I was kind of personally offended by the declawing/surgically removing kids hands comment, but ill let it slide because i know you're just trying to find more information about this career field)

 

[Sophie10]

You wrote this really well. I agree completely. Especially with the horse slaughter issue, its a tough subject. My animal rights and welfare course had to do a final project which was a debate about the issue. 90% of the students started off for the ban on slaughter, by the end of the week debate, 90% were against the ban on slaughter. I'll stop before giving detail because i dont want this to become a horse slaughter debate page! 😀

Thank you! 😀

 

[bunnity]

I'm with Sophie on this one.

So the municipal shelter takes 100 animals a day in the summer, so 9000 animals in a summer. Your rescue takes 300. That's 3%. That's nice, but you're not dealing with anywhere near the numbers they are, and you don't do intake. So you are getting healthy adoptable animals at a manageable rate, and they are getting everything off the streets at an unmanageable rate. Surely you can see the difference here.

My shelter sends animals to a pet boutique that does adoptions for us. Everything going there has to be spayed/neutered, microchipped, fiv/felv negative, no health problems, no behavioral problems, and not come from a cruelty situation (a large percentage of our intakes are cruelty). In other words they are getting our best animals, after we put a significant amount of time and money into them. Sounds like a similar situation to your rescue. We are grateful for their help, because it opens up cages for us, but the situations they deal with have very little in common to the situations we deal with. I also volunteer with a rabbit rescue that spent over $1200 on a single bunny's medical care recently. It is absolutely awesome when small rescues can do that, and since no rabbits were turned away as a result in this situation, more power to them. The problem is when the small rescues think they can judge what high volume shelters do and don't do, because the situations are totally different.

The thing with the pit bulls and the cuter kittens sucks, but you have to understand that it's not the shelter's fault. Say you have three kittens and two cages. You're going to get more kittens in two days. Two of your kittens are super cute and friendly. On average it takes kittens like this two days to be adopted. The third kitten is shy and scrawny and has a URI. On average it takes kittens like this ten days to get adopted. Assume your foster homes are full. If you keep the most desirable kittens and euth the shy kitten, you will have two empty cages in two days. If you keep the shy kitten and euth one of the cuties, you'll have to euth another incoming kitten when it arrives in two days. Oh, and if you cram them all in cages together they all get sick and you have to treat them all and since they are sneezing snot everywhere it takes longer for them to get adopted. Now when your new kittens come in you have to euth them all because you tried to save the sickly shy kitten. You have to understand that the reasoning behind these decisions is to minimize lives lost. Yeah, you can put animals in foster, and you can add cages, but there comes a point when you can't just save one more without compromising everyone. That's how people end up as hoarders, when they can't say no to one more animal and end up hurting lots of animals as a result.

I'm not really familiar with this Maddie's fund that you're talking about, but it sounds like your county has made a deal with them and outlawed the euthanasia of certain animals. Like Sophie said, what else do you want them to do? It's not like they're saying, oh we don't really feel like working today, let's just euthanize a bunch of pit bulls instead. I agree that they shouldn't be lying, but it sounds like they have little choice in the matter and that they've been backed into a corner. If you have 500 animals and 200 cages and 50 foster homes what else are you supposed to do? Yes, ideally no healthy adoptable animal would be euthanized. But the world is not ideal and the situation is not ideal and I think it's unfair when the big money granting organizations reward the organizations that are helping a small amount of animals inefficiently rather than the ones that help a lot of animals by being realistic about what they are dealing with.

I do think that the attitude of "But I can save them ALLLLLL" is naive and will reflect poorly on your application. I'm not saying that a world where no healthy adoptable animal is ever euthanized is impossible, but I think it's impossible right now. The best steps toward that world need to start with a realistic understanding of where we are now, and then look at new ways to solve the problem - like through community education, reduction of breeding, and s/n programs - rather than simply reacting to the problem at hand, or worse ignoring it. Blaming the shelter is totally backwards - you should realize that this is a problem our entire society has created, and that every person who abandons an animal, fails to s/n an animal, buys from a breeder when they could get an equally satisfactory pet from a shelter, abuses an animal, treats an animal as a disposable commodity, or fails to teach their children respect for an animal is the cause of this problem. And every vet who fails to properly educate about overpopulation, breeding, testing for communicable disease, and the proper time for euthanasia is a part of the problem as well. Every single person who cares about animals should be volunteering, fostering, and donating to shelters as well.

In most cities the shelter is like a tourniquet on a gaping wound and a no kill rescue is like a bandaid. Neither is going to solve the problem, and for the bandaid to sit there making judgements is going to help even less.

 

[cowgirla]

I do think that the attitude of "But I can save them ALLLLLL" is naive and will reflect poorly on your application.

Well said!
I actually had a similar point in one of my app essays. Can't for the life of me remember which school it was, maybe Virginia-Maryland?
any-who, the question had to do with a two year old golden retriever being brought in to your clinic for euthanasia. I actually enjoyed that question--really made me think and put my feelings on the subject into words.

 

[BlacKAT33]

Well said!
I actually had a similar point in one of my app essays. Can't for the life of me remember which school it was, maybe Virginia-Maryland?
any-who, the question had to do with a two year old golden retriever being brought in to your clinic for euthanasia. I actually enjoyed that question--really made me think and put my feelings on the subject into words.

That sounds like VA-MD's ethical questions. I wrote about the use of animals in research and mistreatment by a technician. I also enjoyed this question. It was one of the few essays where you could respond to real life dilemmas that vets go through

 

[Minnerbelle]

In most cities the shelter is like a tourniquet on a gaping wound and a no kill rescue is like a bandaid. Neither is going to solve the problem, and for the bandaid to sit there making judgements is going to help even less.

so true. bunnity, i totally admire how you can be so thoughtful in a non-judgmental way.

 

[Electrophile]

Excellent points...shifting the topic back to veterinary medicine more directly, almost everyone would LOVE to work in a high end, high tech practice where the clients just ask where do I sign before they give you a fat check, compliance is almost perfect, and everyone leaves with a smile and dies of old age. While that is where I'd like to work, you also have to realize that those over priced, poorly bred little mixed breed cockadoodle doos from puppy mills and irresponsible breeders in the pet store and the chickens crammed into battery cages and the dairy cows staggering around with lameness because no one can be bothered to treat her feet because all they see is making a bottom line...they ALL need medical attention too!

I hate feedlots and I buy just about all my meat, eggs, and milk from either the local producers at the farmers market if I can help it. I disagree with them on an animal welfare perspective and I don't think it's a good system for small family farmers. But those feedlot calves still need medical care. Just because you're not doing it doesn't mean someone else doesn't need to. I don't blame a vet who works on feedlot medicine with 10,000 animals in a CAFO. I blame society who demands we have the cheapest meat in the developed world, no matter what the cost is to small family farms who can't stay in the business, food safety, and public health. Sucks, but that's how it is...just like with the shelter scenarios, don't just blame the other folks, educate and motivate the public. That will bring about the most change.

 

[Pet of the Week]

I'm with Sophie on this one.

So the municipal shelter takes 100 animals a day in the summer, so 9000 animals in a summer. Your rescue takes 300. That's 3%. That's nice, but you're not dealing with anywhere near the numbers they are, and you don't do intake. So you are getting healthy adoptable animals at a manageable rate, and they are getting everything off the streets at an unmanageable rate. Surely you can see the difference here.

My shelter sends animals to a pet boutique that does adoptions for us. Everything going there has to be spayed/neutered, microchipped, fiv/felv negative, no health problems, no behavioral problems, and not come from a cruelty situation (a large percentage of our intakes are cruelty). In other words they are getting our best animals, after we put a significant amount of time and money into them. Sounds like a similar situation to your rescue. We are grateful for their help, because it opens up cages for us, but the situations they deal with have very little in common to the situations we deal with. I also volunteer with a rabbit rescue that spent over $1200 on a single bunny's medical care recently. It is absolutely awesome when small rescues can do that, and since no rabbits were turned away as a result in this situation, more power to them. The problem is when the small rescues think they can judge what high volume shelters do and don't do, because the situations are totally different.

The thing with the pit bulls and the cuter kittens sucks, but you have to understand that it's not the shelter's fault. Say you have three kittens and two cages. You're going to get more kittens in two days. Two of your kittens are super cute and friendly. On average it takes kittens like this two days to be adopted. The third kitten is shy and scrawny and has a URI. On average it takes kittens like this ten days to get adopted. Assume your foster homes are full. If you keep the most desirable kittens and euth the shy kitten, you will have two empty cages in two days. If you keep the shy kitten and euth one of the cuties, you'll have to euth another incoming kitten when it arrives in two days. Oh, and if you cram them all in cages together they all get sick and you have to treat them all and since they are sneezing snot everywhere it takes longer for them to get adopted. Now when your new kittens come in you have to euth them all because you tried to save the sickly shy kitten. You have to understand that the reasoning behind these decisions is to minimize lives lost. Yeah, you can put animals in foster, and you can add cages, but there comes a point when you can't just save one more without compromising everyone. That's how people end up as hoarders, when they can't say no to one more animal and end up hurting lots of animals as a result.

I'm not really familiar with this Maddie's fund that you're talking about, but it sounds like your county has made a deal with them and outlawed the euthanasia of certain animals. Like Sophie said, what else do you want them to do? It's not like they're saying, oh we don't really feel like working today, let's just euthanize a bunch of pit bulls instead. I agree that they shouldn't be lying, but it sounds like they have little choice in the matter and that they've been backed into a corner. If you have 500 animals and 200 cages and 50 foster homes what else are you supposed to do? Yes, ideally no healthy adoptable animal would be euthanized. But the world is not ideal and the situation is not ideal and I think it's unfair when the big money granting organizations reward the organizations that are helping a small amount of animals inefficiently rather than the ones that help a lot of animals by being realistic about what they are dealing with.

I do think that the attitude of "But I can save them ALLLLLL" is naive and will reflect poorly on your application. I'm not saying that a world where no healthy adoptable animal is ever euthanized is impossible, but I think it's impossible right now. The best steps toward that world need to start with a realistic understanding of where we are now, and then look at new ways to solve the problem - like through community education, reduction of breeding, and s/n programs - rather than simply reacting to the problem at hand, or worse ignoring it. Blaming the shelter is totally backwards - you should realize that this is a problem our entire society has created, and that every person who abandons an animal, fails to s/n an animal, buys from a breeder when they could get an equally satisfactory pet from a shelter, abuses an animal, treats an animal as a disposable commodity, or fails to teach their children respect for an animal is the cause of this problem. And every vet who fails to properly educate about overpopulation, breeding, testing for communicable disease, and the proper time for euthanasia is a part of the problem as well. Every single person who cares about animals should be volunteering, fostering, and donating to shelters as well.

In most cities the shelter is like a tourniquet on a gaping wound and a no kill rescue is like a bandaid. Neither is going to solve the problem, and for the bandaid to sit there making judgements is going to help even less.

Not 100 each day. On one day in June, they got 101. They received 1200 animals between May and July. And no, we do not get healthy, adoptable animals. Those are adopted out by the municipal shelter as soon as they get them. They don't even spay/neuter or update their shots first. We get the ones they don't want to deal with, but for whatever reason, they decide not to kill. None of them come to us spay/neutered with appropriate tests/vaccinations. We do all of this. They do behavioral assessments before they send them to us, but that's it.

Sorry, I assumed everyone knew what Maddie's fund is. I've lived in three states in the past 6 years, and each one had a Maddie's project. I just assumed everyone would know of it since it's national. Here is a link to their website: http://www.maddiesfund.org/

It's definitely not a "we can save everything" organization. There is a clear goal with clear guidelines. It steps up each year, but it never gets to a point of not being able to euthanize untreatable, suffering animals or those with nearly impossible to treat behavioral problems (i.e. feral cats, dogs trained to fight).

Five of my six pets would have been euthanized by the municipal shelter. Richard and Kasumi are gray cats (not cute enough) and from an unwanted litter. Clarence and Sammy are black kitties (even less cute apparently). Sammy started out feral (I can understand the need to euthanize feral cats if causing a problem though catch, fix, and release would be ideal.). Clarence was thrown out behind our old location, and got himself hung up in a chain link fence. His foot was bigger than the rest of his body when we found him. I worried he'd end up with a reperfusion injury and lose the foot. I was told to take him to shelter to be euthanized, but that his 3 adorable siblings were quite adoptable. I took him home instead. Only spent 30 dollars on anti-inflammatories and antibiotics to get him well. Thankfully, the foot is great now. Liza, my lab/cocker spaniel, had a submissive peeing issue, and was scared to death of pretty much everyone. It took 2 years to get her over these issues. Do you really think these animals should die? Why is it so wrong to support a program that would end the senseless killing of healthy and treatable animals?

 

[Shanomong]

.

 

[Minnerbelle]

Do you really think these animals should die? Why is it so wrong to support a program that would end the senseless killing of healthy and treatable animals?

No absolutely not. The point is, a huge majority of the animals euthanized at shelters SHOULD NOT die. NOBODY WANTS THAT. Not even the evil people at the municipal shelter.

It's not wrong to support a program that would end the senseless killing of healthy and treatable animals. I don't think anyone here disagrees. However:

IT'S WRONG TO CALL WHAT THE MUNICIPAL SHELTER DOES SENSELESS KILLING.

So yeah, maybe they ONLY got 1200 animals. I dunno how many they ended up euthanizing, and kudos to your org for taking in 300, but could your org have been able to take in all 1200???

If your org has such a huge problem with the way the municipal shelter deals with their animals, why don't you all start doing intake? Advertise it to the public as "we'll take all of your unwanted animals, but we'll never senselessly kill them." I'm sure the general public will stop taking animals to the municipal shelter.

 

[Shanomong]

.

 

[Pet of the Week]

Bunnity and Minnerbelle, very well said 👍

OP, you seem very educated on many things, but intentionally ignorant when it comes to homeless animals. I mean you have to see that your plan not to declaw or do "convenience" euths will undoubtedly add to the homeless pet population, yet you then say that euthanasia in a shelter situation is inherently wrong. What's the answer then?

In the long run, like Bunnity said, education of the public, s/n programs, and a shut down of large scale breeding operations is key. But until then, those shelters you despise and the vets you look down on are doing the dirty work that people like you create when you take the easy way out.

And saying that you want to become an MD because you like animals too much is ludicrous. You're both offensive and extremely naive. And I think you have no shot at getting into vet school with that attitude.

I am neither offensive nor naive. It's your choice to be offended. Maybe you should consider why you, personally, find my viewpoint so offensive. I have mentioned problems that I have seen and experienced not only in my current position with an animal rescue organization, but also as a pet owner (a consumer of veterinary medicine if you choose to see it that way), and also working at veterinary clinics. The attitude that I somehow don't know what I am talking about or don't have enough experience is absolutely ridiculous.
And if you don't agree that senseless killing is a problem, you are entitled to that opinion. But don't say it is impossible to stop. Education, S/N programs...we, concerned animal rescue workers, are on the front lines of this movement. Veterinarians are NOT. They are not pushing owners to spay/neuter or keep their animals up to date on vaccinations and important preventives. A person should not have to ask the veterinarian for things like heartworm preventive. Veterinarians should be educating their patients' owners, rather than simply fulfilling whatever that person has asked and nothing more. How many animals are surrendered and euthanized because they have an illness that could have been prevented? A lot. Go ahead and say that veterinarians are offering adequate care to their patients, but I know better. Veterinary medicine is nothing more than a commercial industry working for selfish people rather than serving animals. Thank you for preventing me from making a huge mistake.

 

[Pet of the Week]

No absolutely not. The point is, a huge majority of the animals euthanized at shelters SHOULD NOT die. NOBODY WANTS THAT. Not even the evil people at the municipal shelter.

It's not wrong to support a program that would end the senseless killing of healthy and treatable animals. I don't think anyone here disagrees. However:

IT'S WRONG TO CALL WHAT THE MUNICIPAL SHELTER DOES SENSELESS KILLING.

So yeah, maybe they ONLY got 1200 animals. I dunno how many they ended up euthanizing, and kudos to your org for taking in 300, but could your org have been able to take in all 1200???

If your org has such a huge problem with the way the municipal shelter deals with their animals, why don't you all start doing intake? Advertise it to the public as "we'll take all of your unwanted animals, but we'll never senselessly kill them." I'm sure the general public will stop taking animals to the municipal shelter.

The shelter actually makes that claim. Upon intake, people are told that a healthy animal will not be killed, but it's a lie. My problem is with the deceit.

It's unfortunate, but even in the public's eye, the shelter has a negative reputation, more so than I've seen in other cities. We get countless calls to take in unwanted animals. But the project will fail unless we are all working together. If we took public intakes, none (besides ferals and strays) would go to the shelter at all. They wouldn't be able to support themselves without gov and maddie's stipends and adoption fees.

Like I said, there are three animal rescue groups plus the city shelter all working together supposedly for a common goal. The actions of this shelter are undermining this project. I really did give the shelter the benefit of the doubt until I spent time working there. Kittens come in, the verdict is "nah, we don't want it, can't get a good adoption fee for that one." It's dead three hours later. This is not the way the project is set up, and it is definitely not something they have to do.

 

[quantized]

lol

But really, I'd argue the points but they've already been beaten to death. However, I do think that your perspective on vets is more than a bit skewed. I mean I work in shelter medicine too, and while the occasional shelter vet couldn't give a ****, most care a lot about the animals. They sure aren't in it for the money.

And for patient education, now I'm biased from working in shelter medicine, but people are bleeping(i wish i could curse on this forum) CHEAP. They don't even want to pay for booster vaxx, much less a heartworm test/heartworm meds/sterilization/fecal. Yeah a lot of stuff is preventable, but a good portion of pet owners are not going to even attempt to prevent these things because they are cheap and they honestly don't care. And then when fluffy gets parvo/dystocia/etc, they will come crying to the animal shelter to unload it because they were unwilling to do any preventative maintenance. It's frustrating as hell to work in shelter medicine, and I could never be a vet who does it because I would get really pissed off. You might still consider looking into following private practice around. It's a change to see people who actually spend money on animals without crying about money for the baby momma or the old "I'm a senior on a fixed income" person who is barely 40.

edited to add: "Senseless killing" is a loaded phrase, and not something that should be used in a scientific context. It is anthropomorphizing the animals and is something they are doing from a customer service side of things, not a vet side of things.

 

[DVMDream]

It took 2 years to get her over these issues. Do you really think these animals should die? Why is it so wrong to support a program that would end the senseless killing of healthy and treatable animals?

I also adopted a dog from a no-kill shelter with similar problems. 2 years later she is doing much better. She is happy and much more outgoing than she had been. But, if you really think about it a large shelter that takes in every animal brought to them can not possibly spend 2 years on one dog. The amount of time, money, and energy spent on that one dog could have given 35 or more dogs good homes. I absolutely love my dog, and to think if she had been brought to a large shelter she would have been euthanized breaks my heart. But, when I look at the bigger picture I can completely understand. It does not seem “fair” or “right”, but it is better to euthanize one highly unadoptable animal then 10 highly adoptable animals. The large shelters do as much as they can. They care about the animals just as much as no-kill shelters. It is just not feasible for a large shelter to spend the time and resources on animals that could eventually be adopted with some work.



As far as declawing cats goes, I can see how this could be considered cruelty or just plain wrong. But, I have to agree with PrimalMU. Are you going to refuse to declaw a cat whose owner has hemophilia? Trimming nails may help some but it is not going to prevent a cat from scratching things. Not all cats are going to let you trim their nails either. I have always hated the thought of declawing cats and I still do not agree with it 100%, but I do not disagree with it either. When my mom told me that she wanted our cat declawed, I was so mad. I told her that I would not let them do it, but it was either declaw or no cat. So, I told her she had to do the laser declaw. The laser declaw is absolutely AMAZING. My cat had virtually NO bleeding and acted as though nothing happened. Advancements in medicine have made declawing a much simpler procedure, with minimal bleeding and hardly any pain. All of the clients who had their cats declawed with the laser were absolutely thrilled with the outcomes and surprised by how well their cats did. Another thing to think about, if declawing were to become banned would people attempt to do it on their own? I would hope not, but then there are people who crop their own dogs’ ears and cut off the tails and dewclaws on their own puppies so it is possible that somebody could be crazy enough to attempt to declaw their cat. If it really comes down to: declaw the cat or let it go to a shelter where it could be euthanized I would have to declaw the cat. It is better for the cat to have a home than no home.

 

[georgie339]

...