No Kill vs. Peta and HSUS

[krodriguez]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So I've been reading Redemption by Nathan Winograd- former director of the Tompkins County SPCA in Upstate NY and founder of the No Kill Advocacy center. I am almost done and I LOVED this book. The only question I have is why do PETA and HSUS, organizations that are supposed to protect animals, not support the No Kill movement? If there are at least two well known shelters that are No Kill (Tompkins and SFSPCA) then why don't they believe it can be done? Why do they highlight the bad "no-kill" shelters (http://www.peta.org/Living/AT-Fall2005/nokill.asp) But they don't talk about the good (http://www.spcaonline.com/nokill.htm)? Wouldn't they want to give the idea the benefit of the doubt even if in the end they are right and it can't be done? I just don't understand how can they picket animal research and slaughterhouses, where animals are being killed for a purpose (scientific advancement and food, obviously my own opinion) but support putting down dogs and cats for no reason other than they think that no-kill is a sham?

 

[pressmom]

I think there needs to be a change in the name after listening to shelter medicine doctors here at vet school. I think of them a limited intake vs. unlimited intake shelters.

No-kill shelters have to have a limited intake. There are simply too many unwanted animals in a lot of areas to support being all no kill. So they need unlimited intake (aka kill) shelters to take in those unwanted animals. Here in the South, dogs and cats breed year-round. There are even trucks that go up north to areas where there are no "Christmas" puppies and kittens to take our unwanted puppies and kittens to be adopted. Apparently there are lines around the block waiting for them. So I guess no-kill can work in some places, but not in NC, TN, or KY where I've lived. Raleigh/Wake Co was working towards no kill with unlimited intake by a certain date, but as of now, I believe, both the city and the county shelters are unlimited intake/kill. The best thing we can do is owner education--help people realize there are ways to keep most animals and that they are not disposable. Also, spay/neuter education and general responsible ownership.

This story will be framed in my office in every room. (Only read it if you're ready to cry.)

http://jimwillis0.tripod.com/tiergarten/id21.html

 

[krodriguez]

I agree that open admission/ limited admission should be included in the name. I think shelters who claim to be No-Kill should have their agenda (open vs limited admission) on display so there is no confusion. You are right Pressmom that there are No-Kill shelters that are limited admission like the one that PETA has a problem with in that article I included in my post. But I think you can be both open admission and No-Kill. Tompkins County is both. From what I understand SF is limited admission only directly to the public. In other words if the SF SPCA can't take your animal directly you go over a block to the Department of Animal Care and Control. They try to place the animal on their own but if they can't they are transfered to the SF SPCA and not euthanized. This includes sick animals and ones with behavioral problems that they feel they can help. Of course there are always animals who are terminally ill or so aggressive that they can't be helped. While this is technically limited admission, it's not really since the animals end up at the SF SPCA eventually anyway.

As for the southern argument. I don't think it's fair to the South to say that it's not possible there. There are people who care about animals in the South as well. The programs that have worked in the North can work in the South too, like foster homes, volunteer support, spay/neuter, TNR, as well as increase marketing of animals on sites like Petfinder. I saw one transport van like you referred to come up with dogs from the South and you are right, there was a group of 30 or so families to greet them (my sister got her dog got that way). It was so emotional, like new parents waiting for the arrival of their baby. These kinds of programs really help to move animals from areas with a surplus to those with a demand. My knowledge is definitely limited about all of this, so you may be right about there not being many No-Kill shelters in the South, but in the book I was referring to he sites the Charlotesville Va. SPCA as a No-Kill shelter. I know one isn't great but they have a 92% save rate and they are open admission, so this shows hope for the South as well.

I guess my main point from my earlier post was more why do these groups spend so much time fighting over whether No-Kill would even be possible, instead of just trying to make it work. I mean if there is the slightest possibility that it might work, why not try it? Why spend so much time putting it down and saying it will never work? (I am referring to the PETA and HSUS stances, not Pressmom's response.)

 

[ShelterGirl]

I live in the SF Bay area. SFSPCA is limited admission. Period. If an animal is too sick or too behaviorally unsound, then they do not take them - the muncipal shelter euthanizes them. By having two shelters, they have decreased the overall number of animals euthanized because they have increased shelter capacity, and because the SFSPCA can focus on adoptions and take more time to rehabilitate borderline animals. The same thing has happened where I live (San Jose area) - we now have 3 shelters, and the overall number of euths has decreased.

IMO, it's great to have limited admission shelters but completely unrealistic to think that the number of euths will ever go to zero. My pet peeve is people who think EVERYWHERE should be limited admission or no kill. What about the feral cats that people bring in? Sure, TNR helps - do you know how few people are willing to take on that responsibility? What about the dog who killed the neigbors dog and bit the neighbors too? etc. Having more limited admission shelters certainly helps, but to paraphrase Pressmom, supply still greatly outweighs demand and someone has to do the dirty work.

 

[VAgirl]

This story will be framed in my office in every room. (Only read it if you're ready to cry.)

http://jimwillis0.tripod.com/tiergarten/id21.html

Gah, I didn't heed the warning. :cry:

And that needs to go not only in exam rooms, but at adoption fairs, breeders places, and anywhere where people get pets. Along with the average life span (and maybe the upper limits of life spans) of different species. Ignorance should not be an excuse.

 

[krodriguez]

I live in the SF Bay area. SFSPCA is limited admission. Period. If an animal is too sick or too behaviorally unsound, then they do not take them - the muncipal shelter euthanizes them. By having two shelters, they have decreased the overall number of animals euthanized because they have increased shelter capacity, and because the SFSPCA can focus on adoptions and take more time to rehabilitate borderline animals. The same thing has happened where I live (San Jose area) - we now have 3 shelters, and the overall number of euths has decreased.

IMO, it's great to have limited admission shelters but completely unrealistic to think that the number of euths will ever go to zero. My pet peeve is people who think EVERYWHERE should be limited admission or no kill. What about the feral cats that people bring in? Sure, TNR helps - do you know how few people are willing to take on that responsibility? What about the dog who killed the neigbors dog and bit the neighbors too? etc. Having more limited admission shelters certainly helps, but to paraphrase Pressmom, supply still greatly outweighs demand and someone has to do the dirty work.

I think one of the problems we are all having in our discussion and that this topic in general have are these names, Kill/No-Kill, open/limited admission. So I think I should clarify what I mean. I meant shelters who do not kill healthy animals, or animals who are treatable for their illness and behavioral problems. I realize it gets fuzzy again when you talk about what is treatable for illness and behavioral problems. I certainly am not including violent dogs (like the example you gave) or animals with serious illnesses. So I agree that euthanasia will never be zero and that these "No-Kill" shelters will have to euthanize these specific animals. I'm just hoping it can be zero for the animals I specified.

 

[sofficat]

IMO, money is the number one thing that leads to so many euthanizations in humane societies. In the small local h.s. near me, we have a less than 20% adoption rate... that means >80% of the animals are euthanized! Why? Not enough space, not enough money. What else can we do?

 

[philomycus]

Our HS went 'no kill' almost two years ago. But now they take in MUCH fewer animals. I think less animals are helped each year now than before.

I want every shelter to be no-kill, unlimited intake. But soffi's right- it comes down to one thing. Money.

We can't save them all, but I feel education is the only way we'll make dents in the problem. But even then, you won't reach everyone. Trying to get the "good ole boy redneck" to neuter his dog is a HARD thing to do down here. No amount of education seems to fix attitude sometimes. I hope if I can eventually become a vet, I'd love to donate my weekends here and there for the lost cost/free spay neuter programs some places try to run. I won't read that article until later, but thx for posting it. I can't start crying during administering my final exam....the students will think i've lost it.

 

[bakaduin]

I live in Gainesville, Fl and volunteer at a No Kill rescue. Basically the way we have it set up here there are 4 No kill rescue groups (1 is the Humane Society, and the other 3 are just run by wonderful people whose lives missions are giving back to animals). What makes it work is that at the center of this is Animal Control that runs a Kill shelter. Instead of turning people away this allows all the No Kill shelters to send them to the Animal Control center. From there animals can either be adopted or if they stay for a few weeks they are put in the "New Hope" section where the 4 No kill shelters can go get them and adopt them out rather than watch them be euthanised. Wow that sounded a lot more confusing than I meant it to!

 

[ShelterGirl]

No, you made sense. It sounds like a similar setup to what's out here - one municipal shelter that does euths with other rescues/no kills/etc. that take from the municipal (kill) shelter. It's a decent system and overall saves more lives per year.

My shelter is weird - we still have a contract with one city, but the bulk of our incoming animals now are owner surrenders or rescues from other shelters.

Even if we didn't have the contract for strays with that city I doubt our kill rate would be super low because many of the owner surrenders are for a reason that makes it difficult to rehome the animal. Since there's not unlimited time, space, or money to rehabilitate and find a home for, say, the hyperthyroid cat or the dog with severe separation anxiety, those animals get put down.

It sucks, but the general population who adopts from us is not willing to take on a less than perfect animal. We've had animals returned for things as simple as an upper respiratory infection 😡

 

[krodriguez]

IMO, money is the number one thing that leads to so many euthanizations in humane societies. In the small local h.s. near me, we have a less than 20% adoption rate... that means >80% of the animals are euthanized! Why? Not enough space, not enough money. What else can we do?

Well I think a good start would be implementing most if not all of programs in the "No Kill Equation”. Here is the website if you want to read about each more in depth.

http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/nokillequation.html

1. TNR
2. High Volume/Low cost Spay and Neuter
3. Collaboration with Rescue groups
4. Foster Care programs
5. Comprehensive adoption programs- properly screening homes and promoting shelters as a place to get animals (only 15% of animals adopted come from shelters)
6. Pet retention programs
7. Medical and Behavioral rehabilitation
8. Public relations/community involvement
9. Volunteers
10. Most importantly a director who is committed to these programs and to saving as many healthy and treatable animals as possible.

I understand what you are all saying that it's expensive, there are too many animals, and the public is irresponsible with their animals. I just don't think we should let these reasons prevent us from moving toward No Kill. I think as veterinarians especially (or future veterinarians) we should be the ones leading the charge, not letting ourselves be defeated by these roadblocks. That's why I criticize PETA and HSUS, they say there are too many pets and it's not possible to fully be No Kill, so euthanasia is the only answer. I just think that's such a defeatist attitude. I don't understand why the two most powerful animal rights organizations can't do better than saying it is inevitable. PETA is trying to get people to stop eating meat and wearing fur coats, so why is it ok to euthanize healthy and treatable animals?

 

[VAgirl]

I would also add that not all places are open to people doing a foster to adopt situation. I think this would be a big help. People could foster an animal for a few weeks to be sure that adopting that animal is right for them. Maybe would result in fewer animals returned and more people willing to take the plunge.

 

[Electrophile]

That's why I criticize PETA and HSUS, they say there are too many pets and it's not possible to fully be No Kill, so euthanasia is the only answer. I just think that's such a defeatist attitude. I don't understand why the two most powerful animal rights organizations can't do better than saying it is inevitable. PETA is trying to get people to stop eating meat and wearing fur coats, so why is it ok to euthanize healthy and treatable animals?

That's because PETA (and HSUS, who is in bed with them) wants to completely eliminate all pets (oh, I'm sorry, "companion animals"). They'd just rather kill them, as well as support BSL and all the rest of that crap. And that, my friends, is why animal welfare is better than animal rights.

 

[krodriguez]

That's because PETA (and HSUS, who is in bed with them) wants to completely eliminate all pets (oh, I'm sorry, "companion animals"). They'd just rather kill them, as well as support BSL and all the rest of that crap. And that, my friends, is why animal welfare is better than animal rights.

Probably. Their Pit Bull policy is another problem I have with Peta. I watched HBO's documentary about Ingrid Newkirk and Peta last night. Disturbing stuff. I feel like while some of her intentions are good she is just too extreme. (side note: if you want to read something creepy, check out what she wants to do with her body when she is dead.... http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html )

I'm really not sure what the ultimate goal is. No animal research, no animals for food or clothing, and no pets? What exactly does she think these animals will be doing if we have no connection to them? Even if we stop killing animals, it doesn't mean they would stop killing each other... I just wish they would focus their money and resources on fixing the current systems for how we treat animals instead of trying to bring them down completely.

 

[PiddlingFish]

I'm really not sure what the ultimate goal is. No animal research, no animals for food or clothing, and no pets? What exactly does she think these animals will be doing if we have no connection to them?

While I don't necessarily agree with all of what PeTA believes, wild animals were doing fine without us. They don't need some magical connection to people.

 

[Poke]

What about the current generation of pets, that are dependent on their owners? How could it be proposed that we go about "freeing" these animals? Do you phase out ownership over generations? Do you wipe out current pets? Do we let them roam the cities, or send them out to what's left of nature, possibly upsetting the ecology, only to await habitat destruction? Perhaps they were wild and content without us, once.. but now?

Edit: I'd post more, but my ride will be pissed if I make him wait any longer. 🙂

 

[VAgirl]

(side note: if you want to read something creepy, check out what she wants to do with her body when she is dead.... http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html )

An excerpt from the site...
"That one of my thumbs be removed, mounted upwards on a plaque, and sent to the person or institution that, in the year of my death or thereabouts, PETA decides has done the most to promote alternatives to the use and abuse of animals in any area of their exploitation;"

I find it hard to believe that anyone would think receiving this item was a good thing...

 

[dyachei]

While I don't necessarily agree with all of what PeTA believes, wild animals were doing fine without us. They don't need some magical connection to people.

Maybe they don't need some magical connection to people, but I feel that people need some connection to animals. Maybe that's just the animal lover in me, but I'd be sad if the only animals we had were wild.

 

[PlantersPunch]

(Only read it if you're ready to cry.)

http://jimwillis0.tripod.com/tiergarten/id21.html

OH MY GOD, I didn't really think I would cry from reading that, but boy was I wrong.

 

[PiddlingFish]

Maybe they don't need some magical connection to people, but I feel that people need some connection to animals. Maybe that's just the animal lover in me, but I'd be sad if the only animals we had were wild.

Oh trust me, I wouldn't be a happy person at all without animal friends to share my life with.

 

[krodriguez]

While I don't necessarily agree with all of what PeTA believes, wild animals were doing fine without us. They don't need some magical connection to people.

Oh I agree that wild animals are fine without us. I was more talking about the animals currently connected to us, like dogs, cats, and animals we use for food, like cows and chickens etc. I think it's unrealistic to get people to give any of these up. Like one day we'll all come to our senses and open the doors to our homes and slaughterhouses setting them all free. I'm sure eventually they would be fine because ultimately you are right, animals don't really need us. But I guess I'm just picturing cows and dogs and cats wandering the streets and it seems unrealistic. Especially considering Peta's policy towards feral cats. They think it is wrong to simply spay and neuter these animals and then let them be wild animals. They say that if you aren't willing to feed them, provide them with shelter, and provide them with regular medical care then they are better off euthanized. So what does Peta think will happen to these dogs, cats, cows and chickens we should be freeing? They think we should not keep them as companions or eat them, but we should still provide them with food, shelter and medical care?

http://www.helpinganimals.com/Factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=120

I don't think Peta is all bad. They have helped to expose a lot of cruelty towards animals. I just wish they would put all that energy into reforming these institutions instead of trying to eliminate them.

I also have to give them credit for being hilarious sometimes....

http://www.peta2.com/Trollsens/

 

[PiddlingFish]

Oh I agree that wild animals are fine without us. I was more talking about the animals currently connected to us, like dogs, cats, and animals we use for food, like cows and chickens etc. I think it's unrealistic to get people to give any of these up. Like one day we'll all come to our senses and open the doors to our homes and slaughterhouses setting them all free. I'm sure eventually they would be fine because ultimately you are right, animals don't really need us. But I guess I'm just picturing cows and dogs and cats wandering the streets and it seems unrealistic.

I'm personally just talking about "food" animals, because I love my animal companions too much and I definitely don't agree with their companion animal ideas.

The goal would be for less consumption of animal "products", leading to a decline in the animals raised and killed. I don't think anyone really expects something like that to happen overnight. But a gradual phaseout would be simple. It's not as though all the cows in this country were randomly found; humans breed them to be the numbers they are today and if humans slowly stopped mass breeding them for muscle foods, etc, it would be an easy decline in number. Cows and other animals would continue to exist as the companions they deserve to be.

And honestly, I know it won't ever happen to that extent (I'm not that crazy ), but any decline would be a welcome change for me and the animals who didn't have to be brought into this world to be eaten.

 

[krodriguez]

I see what you mean. That is a much more realistic approach. I also agree that I could not live without my companion animals (of course I'm sure that's true for all of us considering we are on the pre-vet forum.) After reading about shelters I think I'm going to try and read about the food animal industry next. Anyone have any good book suggestions?

 

[chris03333]

While I don't necessarily agree with all of what PeTA believes, wild animals were doing fine without us. They don't need some magical connection to people.

Totally innocent question, so please try not to get offended, but if you think that animals don't need a connection to people, why go to vet school?

 

[bunnygirl]

Gah, I didn't heed the warning. :cry:

And that needs to go not only in exam rooms, but at adoption fairs, breeders places, and anywhere where people get pets. Along with the average life span (and maybe the upper limits of life spans) of different species. Ignorance should not be an excuse.

Agreed!!!!

 

[Kara31191]

That's because PETA (and HSUS, who is in bed with them) wants to completely eliminate all pets (oh, I'm sorry, "companion animals"). They'd just rather kill them, as well as support BSL and all the rest of that crap. And that, my friends, is why animal welfare is better than animal rights.

Exactly!

My family owns macaws, and I've seen wildcaught parrots who love their owners also. I HATE the term "animal rights". Rights imply that they are people. Welfare simply says they should NOT be abused.

I did a whole research paper on animal rights versus animal welfare. Peta believes we should just open our doors and say goodbye to all of our pets and let them fend for themselves.

Another thing about Peta. I support their main purpose: help animals. HOWEVER, there is a place where I draw the line. They attract all of this negative attention... people streaking, what she wants done to herself when she's dead, and I really think their point would be much better taken if it were a little less drastic.

And they shouldn't scrutinize people just for not being vegan. I'm sorry, but I eat meat. I think we, as humans, could stop consuming MORE than we need. I think a serving of something is fine, but we, as a society, are eating 52 times the amount of meat in a year than we did in the 1950's. Is that many more Ibs of meat really needed? 😕

I could go on all day.

 

[Electrophile]

Just cause it's finals week and we need some humor, here's some great "coverage" courtesy of The Onion.

"Heroic PETA Commandos Kill 49, Save Rabbit"

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39180

"Animal-Rights Activists Release 71,000 Cows Into the Wild"

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28724

 

[bakaduin]

I'm personally just talking about "food" animals, because I love my animal companions too much and I definitely don't agree with their companion animal ideas.

The goal would be for less consumption of animal "products", leading to a decline in the animals raised and killed. I don't think anyone really expects something like that to happen overnight. But a gradual phaseout would be simple. It's not as though all the cows in this country were randomly found; humans breed them to be the numbers they are today and if humans slowly stopped mass breeding them for muscle foods, etc, it would be an easy decline in number. Cows and other animals would continue to exist as the companions they deserve to be.

And honestly, I know it won't ever happen to that extent (I'm not that crazy ), but any decline would be a welcome change for me and the animals who didn't have to be brought into this world to be eaten.

I think its unrealistic to believe their will be any change in the numbers of animals eaten, except perhaps an increase. Perhaps their will be changes in the way animals are kept up until death, more of a switch to farm raised animals and such, but the number of eaten animals will continue to grow. Why? Because meat is delicious and products like leather are wonderful. As much as PETA clamors for a change, people aren't going to stop eating meat and become vegetarians. Its been our way of life to eat meat since the days of cavemen. We've always utilized the animals of the land for clothing and shelter.

 

[LuckyMutt]

I see what you mean. That is a much more realistic approach. I also agree that I could not live without my companion animals (of course I'm sure that's true for all of us considering we are on the pre-vet forum.) After reading about shelters I think I'm going to try and read about the food animal industry next. Anyone have any good book suggestions?

The Omnivore's Dilemma. It's case studies, so not statistically significant, but very eye-opening.

As far as kill-shelters go, I helped with animal behavior research at a city shelter here in Austin, TX. I was at first (and am still) disturbed by the fact that they take in about 24,000 animals a year, and kill about 12,000 of them. Of course, animals with major health problems or animals that have a bite record are automatically headed for euthanasia. The rest of the animals are considered by a panel of people who look at their behavior. They do put considerable effort - from what I saw - into choosing animals that will have the best chance at adoption. As was said before, it all comes down to money. Save all the animals, and let them suffer with no medical treatment, etc.? Set them free into a world that has been highly modified by humans, which is nothing like what they were evolved for? Or save the ones you can afford to, so they can have hopefully healthy, decent lives?

Personally, I think the last answer is the only reasonable one. And right now our city is helping to decrease the number they have to put down by pushing low-cost spay/neuters that will help decrease populations. The answer isn't easy, because it involves mostly education.

 

[PiddlingFish]

"Heroic PETA Commandos Kill 49, Save Rabbit"

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39180

Sorry Onion, I know that you're attempting to make fun of PeTA, but I still don't find cruel animal tests funny. 🙁

(And neither does the bunny)

 

[VAgirl]

Sorry Onion, I know that you're attempting to make fun of PeTA, but I still don't find cruel animal tests funny. 🙁

(And neither does the bunny)

Actually, in lab animal medicine, the humane treatment of animals is a HUGE issue. So to assume that animals are treated cruelly simply because they are test subjects is misguided.

 

[PiddlingFish]

I personally find testing on animals cruel to begin with.

 

[VAgirl]

I personally find testing on animals cruel to begin with.

Well, I figured that was probably part of our disconnect. How would you propose to handle essential drug safety testing instead, though? Computer simulations are currently nowhere near robust enough to take over this critical task. We wouldn't have the drugs that we depend upon in human as well as veterinary medicine without animal testing.

(I think it's worth noting that I disagree with frivolous animal testing, such as for cosmetic products, etc.)

 

[DrKsomeday]

An interesting thread to read. It makes me feel better to see so many concerned pre-vet majors out there and vet students. I find from time to time through observing practicing vets how they distance themselves from humane society activities. I am sure money and over use of their services is the cause. Still it bothers me b/c I want to be a vet to addresses issues like this and I guess I feel others should share that mission (it’s a ridicules expectation I realize).

As far as my thoughts on the question posed, I have to say you picked a good topic to discuss. The problem with activists groups and the good thing about them is they are extreme. You have to be to do what they do. Do I agree with their message? Rarely. However, they draw attention to issues and that is good because more rational folks like (all of us) get a chance to make an impact.

On a side note: My favorite move scene involving PETA is from ARMAGEDAN and has Bruce Wills on a oil rig hitting golf balls at a PETA boat who is protesting his drilling rig. I find it comical b/c the boat they are using is consuming the oil he is drilling for. Irony. I love the ONION as well for humor and so I don't get too wrapped up in things. It is just satire so take it for what it is.

My other comments would be to take your ideas (original poster) and try to make an impact in your local community. You have a good grasp of the situation but there is a lot to be said for getting into the deep end of the pool. It gives you a chance to see how your ideals stack up in the real world. It also gives you a chance to save a life now/make an impact.

I served as the Executive President of a local Humane Society. Let me tell you it opened my eyes to the no kill/kill issue. It also made me a firm believer in the limited intake concept and how a group presents itself to the public. The group I worked with claimed to NOT be no kill however all animals went into foster homes until they got adopted. To this day none have been euthanized and they wave this as their banner.

However, this limited the number of animals that could come into the shelter and some dogs stayed in the program for over 6 months. As a result overflow went to the next town’s shelter that had to do the dirty work and couldn’t wave the banner. I don’t think this is fair. I also had to deal with dogs that IMO should have been euthanized as they posed a risk due to behavior issues. Unfortunately/Fortunately just being the President doesn't allow you with unlimited control of such decisions. I still had a board and advisory board to work with and many were adamant that these dogs could be "fixed". Two of my board members went to the No-Kill sanctuary training offered by Best Friends. A great concept if you can find the funding to support it.

I eventually had to part ways with the group b/c I felt their method was flawed and would lead to litigation, a risk as a hopeful vet student I couldn’t take. Serving on the board also took me away from my studies and consumed my life a bit too much.

However, I think helping a humane society in a more reduced capacity is a great thing to-do. Plus being younger, having a new approach can help with brining a new solution into practice. Never underestimate the impact you can have just by diving in.
Sorry so long… I can’t seem to type short messages!

 

[nyanko]

I personally find testing on animals cruel to begin with.

At what level do you find it cruel? Without animal research there would be very little new advances in medicine, either veterinary or human. How are you supposed to test efficacy in a living system without a living system? You know that physiology is very complex, or at least you should if you are applying to vet school, and at least as of right now a machine cannot begin to approximate every nuance of the body's reaction to something that's never been used before, or discover new things about physiology certainly.

 

[Ecdysone]

I go to school at Cornell, and in my freshman year I took a class highlighting the roles of animals in human society, and part of this class was taking field trips to observe farms, research facilities, and the Tompkins Co SPCA. Now, I'm not saying that the Tompkins Co SPCA wasn't amazing, because it was. They have cageless rooms that cats and dogs can socialize in, and all their healthy animals are perfectly happy and I'm sure that pays off for their adoption rates. However, they are not an absolutely No-Kill shelter, even when I was there they were showing us that animals with behavioral problems get worked with as much as possible, but sometimes you can't feasibly do this.
From their site:
"No Kill, however, never means that a shelter never kills, least of all if it's bold enough to be Open Admission. But we only euthanize when it is in the best interests of the animal - as when animals suffer from untreatable medical conditions or severe and intractable behavioral issues. In other words, we euthanize only when it's the most humane course for the animal, never when it's the most expedient course for the shelter."

So, as stated earlier, I think the issue is in making more informative, less biased labels for these groups. Although this SPCA does have to euthanize animals, the emphasis is that it does not do so to make space. Just thought I'd add my own personal experience of the Tompkins Co SPCA in case it helps anyone's understanding.

Oh, and while talking about this with some friends of mine, PETA came up, and so did this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mwV3925TiOQ

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_wqGp9yJ-d0

http://youtube.com/watch?v=964QDvJFhvc

 

[clawsbeatskin]

I helped with animal behavior research at a city shelter here in Austin, TX. I was at first (and am still) disturbed by the fact that they take in about 24,000 animals a year, and kill about 12,000 of them. ...And right now our city is helping to decrease the number they have to put down by pushing low-cost spay/neuters that will help decrease populations. The answer isn't easy, because it involves mostly education.

Hey Lucky Mutt, I'm also from Austin! 😀 Did you research at Town Lake? I volunteer with Emancipet.

I'm assuming you applied to A&M??

 

[Tiraka]

Ha, I was just about to ask if TLAC was the shelter she mentioned - I was a volunteer there for several years. One thing to say for them is that they do work hard for the animals put in their adoption program, but it's unfortunate that so many do not get that chance due to overcrowding

 

[ri23]

Actually, in lab animal medicine, the humane treatment of animals is a HUGE issue. So to assume that animals are treated cruelly simply because they are test subjects is misguided.

I personally thought the article was hilarious. It is the ONION, it's not meant to be taken seriously!