While I disagree with places, like your local pound, that kill animals after three days or so, I think that, at a certain point, you know that certain dogs are not adoptable. Rather than keeping them chained up for years, I think it's more humane just to put them down in those cases. However, I think the "no-kill" designation can be a feel-good thing, like being "green", that some pursue without considering all of the implications.Some no-kill shelters have succeeded because they partner with other local facilities. But many no-kill shelters have no backup plan and hang onto animals for months, sometimes years, causing crowding and health problems for the animals.
"I've been to good no-kills, and I've been to bad no-kills," said Jef Hale, the San Antonio shelter's director. "I was at a no-kill in Louisiana and basically what they did is they just put animals in a cage and they just continued to add animals to a cage. ... If we put them in a cage and we don't interact with them, we slowly drive them crazy."
The practice of "warehousing" is a top concern for animal organizations. Animal advocates say they understand that killing the animals is sometimes the only humane way to ease overcrowding.
if our dog is kenneled for too long (due to a circumstance out of our control, etc.) then she is completely nuts when we let her out.
ReplyDeleteit's more humane to put animals down when they are "unadoptable."
i don't know what that criteria is, but it seems like a fair solution.