Euthanasia in shelters

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Habibti

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
143
Reaction score
1
Oooh... my first time starting a thread. I didn't want to derail the Eight Belles euthanasia discussion, but I took issue with one comment.

Sure it is an easy way out and done out of laziness. How else do you explain why thousands of unwanted dogs and cats are put down at animal shelters?

Every shelter vet out there feels guilty about euthanizing. It's not like they get into shelter med thinking 'Damn, I just want to euthanize some animals, because I'm too lazy to figure out what to do with them.' They get torn up about it, because those are hard decisions to make. The fact of the matter is that there are financial and other constraints within which these decisions are made. Spending $500 on one animal means that you won't have enough money to save 20 healthier animals. In an ideal world, money wouldn't be an issue, but money is an issue.

Another issue: Shelter med is a herd health situation. You can't ALWAYS do what's best for the individual animal because you've got hundreds of animals to think about. If you let one animal in with X, you risk getting hundreds of other animals sick. This isn't to say that you should euthanize for every treatable disease, but that herd health is paramount.

What do you suppose we should do with the animals then? I'm assuming that since you've got an opinion, you have a solution. Should we overcrowd the shelters that we already have? Overcrowding is terrible. You've got stressed out animals interacting with tons of other animals. What does that mean? If you get an infectious disease, it spreads like wildfire. High rates of infectious disease=high rates of medically necessary euthanasia, because, guess what? They don't want the infectious disease to spread (more).
Building new shelters: A great idea to save animals, but where is the funding going to come from?
Animals with severe behavior problems: There are some animals that are not rehabilitatible. What do we do with them?

This isn't to say that shelter med couldn't use some changes (nothing's perfect), but just that I disagree that euthanasia is done because it's an 'easy way out' and is done 'out of laziness'.
 
FOR A FEE

Every one imported kills an American dog


L.D. Witouski

4/21/2008


Recently, a letter was sent to the Editor in a Lancaster,Pennsylvania newspaper regarding the dishonesty of rescue organizations. The comment section was especially interesting since many did not believe the facts in the letter. (The original letter and link are in the sources at the end of this article)

Since the Oprah show, highlighting "puppy mills" - many people have questioned why the State has not done anything about the conditions that were shown. It could be that there is some type of arrangement between those that "rescue" dogs that are "no longer wanted or needed" and the facilities shown on the Oprah expose'. It was interesting to note that in an interview, the man that has been hailed a hero, by some, for bringing these dogs to Oprah's attention, stated that he was counting on the Amish that were featured in the Oprah show - not having televisions. Having made such a comment tends to lead one to believe that something is not exactly as originally stated and even moreso questionable particularly since the Pa. Dog Law Bureau is having a difficult time identifying those "kennels". However, that isn't the subject of this article and I only mention it because the Oprah show opened other doors related to the subject.

In reading the comments regarding the LTE mentioned above, the writer was asked to prove her allegations. Many of those that commented simply refused to believe that dogs were being imported into the United States by "rescue" groups. One particular individual asked why this phenomena would occur since there are, allegedly, so many homeless dogs available in shelters and rescues across the country. Another person commented that dogs had to sit for 6-8 weeks before entering U.S. soil. Rather than research the subjects themselves, to see just how duped they have been by animal rights activists, they accused the writer of misinformation.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has regulations on the importation of dogs and cats into the United States. In general, they require that dogs be vaccinated against rabies at least 30 days prior to entry, except for puppies younger than 3 months and dogs originated or located for 6 months in areas considered to be free of rabies. A dog with an unexpired health certificate meets these requirements. This information is verifiable at the CDC website. The US Department of Agriculture has certain restrictions on the importation of dogs imported from any part of the world except Canada, Mexico, and regions of Central America and the West Indies. Only those dogs that are to be used in the handling of livestock must be inspected and quarantined at the port of entry for a sufficient time to determine their freedom from tapeworm. Dogs that are imported into Hawaii are quarantined for 130 days. There are no quarantine regulations for "pets" or "strays". It is monetarily advantageous for groups with a "non-profit" status, who, at the same time, claim the country is "overpopulated," to import puppies for resale or "adoption" - for a nonreportable fee.

There are some special circumstances regarding dogs imported from areas known to be infested with screwworms or foot and mouth disease, but the general rule is that all dogs are only subject to inspection at ports of entry for evidence of infectious diseases that can be transmitted to humans. As a result of this missing link in governmental importation regulation, statistics of imported dogs are estimated according to Port of Entry reporting.

On April 2, 2008, the Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases of the CDC, filed a report regarding Importation of Dogs into the United States and in the summary of that report it states:

"The importation of dogs into the United States poses a risk for the introduction of rabies and other zoonotic diseases. Federal regulations (42 CFR 71.51) currently require proof of valid rabies vaccination for imported dogs, but allow the importation of some unvaccinated dogs, including dogs less than 3 months of age, provided certain requirements for confinement are met until the dog is vaccinated. Although there are no accurate surveillance data on the number of dogs imported each year, it is estimated based on extrapolated data that over 287,000 dogs were imported into the United States during 2006. Of these, approximately 25% were either too young to be vaccinated or lacked proof of valid rabies vaccination. Import trends suggest that an increasing number of unvaccinated puppies are being imported into the United States, mostly through commercial resale or rescue operations."

Since 2006, that 287,000 per year has doubled. Importation from Canada,Mexico, Central America and the West Indies, where no regulations are required, continues on a daily basis. The majority of dogs imported are puppies and small breeds that are far more acceptable to the general public than large dogs and much easier to resale or adopt out - for a fee.

Not counted in the CDC's estimated number of imports are those dogs that are brought into the country by various groups, such as Compassion Without Borders (who partners with another organization in Albuquerque, New Mexico to bring MexiMutts into the U.S). United Hope for Animals in Southern California, Doglandia (a People's guide to Mexico, asks to adopt a dog during your trip to the country), Blue RoadRunner, and SAMM (Save a Mexican Mutt) are only a handful of such groups bringing dogs into the United States from Mexico. This doesn't include those groups bringing dogs in from Central America, Puerto Rico or the West Indies. These imported dogs are flown, driven, shipped, transported and sent to shelters throughout the United States. Shelter owners say the importation programs are safe, moral and in demand. Although the work that these people do is admirable, one has to ask - What are their definitions of safe and moral? Bringing in dogs of questionable background and health issues from other countries while our own American dogs are euthanized is NOT safe or moral nor humane for those dogs already in shelters across the U.S. Accusing American breeders of causing overpopulation and high shelter kill rates is not safe, moral, just or fair, especially when the problems exist all - for a fee.

Groups that convince the public that breeding should be restricted or banned should be looked at closely by legislators. Somebody has got to ask the question sooner or later. If all breeding is regulated, restricted or banned, how would these non profit groups continue to operate? The answer is simple. They don't need breeders here. They can continue to plead to the American public's emotions about some dog in BF Egypt while they pursue the removal of the American dog breeders and their Constitutional Rights. That's how big business works. In order to make more money, to get more orders or to increase the profit margin, they remove anything or anybody that could be remotely considered as competition while still keeping their sources in place. You won't see non profit importing groups pushing for the demise of all breeding or mandatory sterilization in those countries. It's not good sense to eliminate your sources if your intention is to continue in the business of filling shelters and rescue groups offering animals that were "rescued from a puppy mill" to the unsuspecting public to adopt - for a fee.

Now that you have access to verifiable facts, you can ask those who do the importing yourself. More than likely, you'll be told they do it "to save the dogs". You can then ask them why they aren't spending that money and time on the alleged "oversurplus" dogs that are already here. I wonder if any of them will be honest enough to tell you. The general public needs to learn to research issues and think for themselves prior to repeating comments that they have been spoon fed over the years. They need to stop listening to those whose intentions are less than honest and ask for facts and verifiable proof - or can you only get that information from those who lead you down their dishonest, profitable path - for a fee?


Sources:

Lancaster New Era - LTE - http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/219982

Centers for Disease Control - Division of Viral & Rickettsial Disease - Summary http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1863-2378.2008.01117.x

Centers for Disease Control http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/animal.htm

Compassion Without Borders http://www.cwob.org/yend2007.html

United Hope for Animals http://www.hope4animals.org/about.html

Doglandia http://www.peoplesguide.com/1pages/chapts/pets/pets.html

Blueroadrunner http://www.blueroadrunner.com/animalrescue.htm

USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-21-dog-imports_N.htm

SAMM http://www.saveamexicanmutt.org/Home.html
 
great article! raised a lot of questions. similar (and i'm not even going to post an opinion here) are certain purebred "rescues" that are in fact fronts for puppymill organizations. I've read about this being a problem in wi/il, but maybe other parts of the country too? not that i think a purebred rescue is a bad idea -- it gets a lot of dogs out of high kill shelters. just that, like in all situations, we need to ask the right questions, and be well informed.

(looks like i posted an opinion. to reiterate, rescue is GOOD -- just that those who rescue need to be just as informed as those who purchase from breeders.)
 
I don't think euthanasia is the easy way out for those running the shelters. I think its an easy way out for irresponsible owners and breeders.
 
a completely different take on rescues, but i get so frustrated by the rescues that make potential applicants jump through hoops to get a dog. there is one here that wouldn't adopt out a dog to one of the techs i work with because she already had three and they just thought it was too many pets. long story short, several months later the dog is still in foster care.
 
I don't think euthanasia is the easy way out for those running the shelters. I think its an easy way out for irresponsible owners and breeders.

I agree 100%.
 
a completely different take on rescues, but i get so frustrated by the rescues that make potential applicants jump through hoops to get a dog. there is one here that wouldn't adopt out a dog to one of the techs i work with because she already had three and they just thought it was too many pets. long story short, several months later the dog is still in foster care.

Yeah, I can see it both ways. I find it highly irritating that certain rescue groups don't adopt out to people who have a fenced in yard when we don't have a fenced in yard, but we go to the trails or a nature area near my house and the dogs run off leash while I ride my bike. They get waaaaaay more exercise than most who just assume a backyard is a babysitter and a treadmill. My husky/Rottie mix (being half husky) wonders off, and so when we don't take our bikes, he gets to go on a long line. That surprises me that they wouldn't adopt out to a vet tech. We have four dogs, which is a decent number, but it's not like we're hoarding them. Everyone gets lots of attention.

On the other hand, having done rescue and fostering for a few years, I do know that a lot of rescue groups see a LOT of crazy folks who never ever should get an animal, but sometimes know how to say all the right things. Hard to do screening.
 
I get frustrated when some rescues (the minority) adopt out dogs with behavioral problems. I briefly walked dogs for a rescue that had one dog that was food and toy aggressive. It was also tough to take the leash off of her. Otherwise she was nice, but I feel that there are SO many other nice dogs without those problems, why risk adopting out ones that could seriously injure a person.

Overall I love rescue dogs, and I have acquired all of my animals with the exception of the horse through shelters/rescues 🙂
 
a completely different take on rescues, but i get so frustrated by the rescues that make potential applicants jump through hoops to get a dog. there is one here that wouldn't adopt out a dog to one of the techs i work with because she already had three and they just thought it was too many pets. long story short, several months later the dog is still in foster care.

As a vet tech that works for a non-profit low-cost/free spay and neuter clinic, and as a foster parent that works w/rescue groups, I do think that some rescues and shelters can make people jump through unreasonable hoops, but the requirements that I have seen used by most (that some people think are making them jump through hoops also) are in fact very reasonable... not implying that you are one of those people, just trying to make a point. I can't say that I agree with not adopting out a dog to someone automatically based on the number of dogs they have already. I know people who have 12 that are great pet parents, and some that have 1 or 2 and are not. So, it should be relative, not that cut and dry in that instance.

As for myself and most of the others I work with, things like the family's history of how well they take care of their current animals, if they have ever given up an animal to a shelter, left one behind when moving, if the dog will be primarily outside (a definite deal breaker), whether they can afford the cost (especially w/puppies and special needs), whether they are adopting the dog for their child and what they'll do if said child loses interest as a teenager, the living environment, if they have thought ahead regarding having children in the future or moving and making the lifelong commitment to the animal irregardless, etc. For the most part people are okay with these requirements, but some seem to think they have to jump through hoops. After having to deal with seeing the number of adoptable animals day in and day out that are to be euthanized, and seeing all kinds of reasons why people give up their animals, I think these are pretty fair.

As for euthanizing adoptable animals, I don't agree with it ethically but I don't think the vets or other people that work at kill shelters feel any less concern and remorse for these animals than others. All of the people I know or have known that work at these places care very deeply and are also active in the community to work toward a no-kill city. However, I don't have any easy answers in this regard. It's tough to have to deal with the confines of a budget and not be able to do what one feels is ethically right most of the time. The vet that started the non-profit I work for now was at one time one of those vets, and she started this clinic because of her experiences there. The above-mentioned people are all also foster parents, and a lot of those techs I also work with at this clinic (some on a volunteer basis, and all of us on a lower pay scale than those in private practice), because they want to see the numbers go down. While this may not be true for everyone that works in kill shelters, this is my experience.

The ASPCA's Mission: Orange is a terrific program, and we were fortunate enough to be one of the recipients of funds and training through this program. We perform low-cost and free spays and neuters as well as immunizations and flea/heartworm meds to low-income communities. Five days per week we work out of a mobile unit in targeted areas that have been shown statistically to contribute a high number of animals to the shelters, as well as a stationary clinic. Many times we have clients that can afford to pay the higher fees but come to us anyway and donate the difference because they believe in what we do, or in some cases they just feel like it costs them less in taxes than the existence of the current system, which is actually true also (if only lawmakers would open their eyes to that). We have lowered our kill rate by 10% in the last 2 years. It's not 100% like we want, but it's a start. Many of our vets are not employees, but private practice vets that donate their time, and we also work w/ the vet school here to provide services. I've heard stories of vets that are against this practice, but in my experience that's not so. The truth is, after having worked in these communities, many of our clients would either a) not obtain the services anyway due to cost, or lack of education about the benefits of spay/neuter, b) give up the puppies and kittens to the kill shelter and/or c) use inhumane methods of "disposing" of litters.

We recently also implemented a Pets on Wheels program together with other local organizations, and Meals on Wheels, as well as a "intervention" type program where we offer free and low-cost clinics on how to address behavior and similar problems before they result in owner surrender, both of which I think are great programs that work.

The spay/neuter programs, education, law reform, contributions from the veterinary community and education are all things that can help lower these numbers, and hopefully eradicate them. Here is some information about the first and only (that I know of) US city to achieve the goal of not euthanizing any adoptable animals: http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=missionorange_richmondbg These methods are all successful ways of doing away with euthanizing adoptable animals, and although not perfect or quick, they do work and I wish they would be used more often and by more cities.

Sorry for the long post but I get soap-boxy over these topics, since I'm very passionate about them. 😉 For those of you that don't already know some or all of this, I hope it helps in some way.
 
I don't think euthanasia is the easy way out for those running the shelters. I think its an easy way out for irresponsible owners and breeders.

That's what I was implying... It's rediculous how many people drop off their dogs at the vet clinic I work at and don't ever come back to get them. They think that we'll just euthanize them or send them to animal control where they'll get adopted or get eutahanized...either way, they obviously don't care.
 
Along the same lines of the article about Lancaster county puppy mills, I was driving along to PA turnpike with my best friend (she lives in PA and we went on a road trip last weekend), and we saw a billboard about puppy mills. Apparently in PA it's legal to use ground-up dog corpses left over from puppy mills to fertilize fields? All of the Amish people with their puppy mills and how they mistreat their horses already upsets me, but that got me pretty riled up. I just don't understand how an entire state could allow all these terrible things to happen. I used to want to move to PA, but now I'm not so sure anymore.

Of course, I'm not sure how much validity this billboard has. There was a website on it, but I didn't have a chance to write it down. But I do know that Lancaster county is infamous for puppy mills and that the Amish don't treat their animals well.
 
the Amish don't treat their animals well.

Careful there. I'm not offended, but just wanted to point out that you might want to be careful when grouping people together like that. I've lived amongst Amish farms my entire life and while many of them do not treat their animals in a way that most of us would approve of, there are also many who take wonderful care of their horses, dogs, etc.
 
a completely different take on rescues, but i get so frustrated by the rescues that make potential applicants jump through hoops to get a dog. there is one here that wouldn't adopt out a dog to one of the techs i work with because she already had three and they just thought it was too many pets. long story short, several months later the dog is still in foster care.

I hear you on that. It is true that some rescuers are completely delusional about what minimum requirements ought to be met for a "good home." I work in screening adopters for more 'mild' organizations and even I, at times, feel like they really don't cut people enough slack.

Still though, as much as I personally love certain breeds of dogs and cats, there is NO WAY that I would purchase a pet (no matter how well bred), when there are millions in shelters across the nation who are hoping for someone to give them a second chance. I just could not do it.
 
Still though, as much as I personally love certain breeds of dogs and cats, there is NO WAY that I would purchase a pet (no matter how well bred), when there are millions in shelters across the nation who are hoping for someone to give them a second chance. I just could not do it.

Surely you understand why some people would though? I always hesitate when I read statements like this.
 
I get frustrated when some rescues (the minority) adopt out dogs with behavioral problems. I briefly walked dogs for a rescue that had one dog that was food and toy aggressive. It was also tough to take the leash off of her.

A dog isn't less deserving of a home because it doesn't have a perfect temperament. 😎 Food and toy aggression are very manageable and curable problems.

why risk adopting out ones that could seriously injure a person.

Human aggressive dogs should be euthed. I agree with you there. I guess I just have a hard time seeing how people can say "the ones with problems should be bumped to the bottom of the list" because of my own rescue dog - hyper, fear aggressive towards unfamiliar dogs, throw in some seperation anxiety....but she positively made my life worth living. She wasn't ANY less deserving of a home who would love her and work with her problems than a dog with a perfect behavior record. Maybe I am biased, but that is how I see it.
 
edit: when I say human aggressive dogs, I don't mean dogs that may bite a man who wears a big hat because they are afraid of men or big hats - I mean dogs that are people aggressive as a trait.
 
I get frustrated when some rescues (the minority) adopt out dogs with behavioral problems. I briefly walked dogs for a rescue that had one dog that was food and toy aggressive. It was also tough to take the leash off of her.

A dog isn't less deserving of a home because it doesn't have a perfect temperament. 😎 Food and toy aggression are very manageable and curable problems.

why risk adopting out ones that could seriously injure a person.

Human aggressive dogs should be euthed. I agree with you there. I guess I just have a hard time seeing how people can say "the ones with problems should be bumped to the bottom of the list" because of my own rescue dog - hyper, fear aggressive towards unfamiliar dogs, throw in some seperation anxiety....but she positively made my life worth living. She wasn't ANY less deserving of a home who would love her and work with her problems than a dog with a perfect behavior record. Maybe I am biased, but that is how I see it.

I can deal with problems too, this dog was pretty bad though. I had trouble taking off her leash without getting bit. Certainly one problem shouldn't spell the end though.
 
Top