The big question about animal shelters these days seems to be “Kill or no-kill?” In some cases, people cite “no-kill” as if it’s the only right way to go and every shelter could and should be like that all the time.
The last post here referred to how SAVE, in Princeton Township, cannot be described as “no-kill.” Instead, presumably to avoid having to euthanize animals who prove unadoptable or unsocial or even dangerous, SAVE is “a limited admission shelter” – if there’s space, animals are welcome there if they seem likely to be adopted.
On the other hand, Piper Huggins, executive director, says that if a SAVE animal proves un-adoptable, s/he is not “destroyed” for that reason.
Discussing euthanasia, she said that on average, one or two animals a year are euthanized at SAVE. One example: a dog who became “cage crazy.” The vet who works part-time there and the shelter manager both considered the situation and agreed. Huggins, who expressed confidence in both women, signed off on the decision and let the board of trustees know of the situation.
What would have happened with this dog in a no-kill shelter?
#
3 comments:
the dog could not live in a cage so it should have been adopted out to a place where it did not have to live in a cage. i am so sorry that our govt gives absolutely no money to save these poor animals and takes no steps to prevent breeders from breeding more dogs to make money. no new dogs should be bred until homes are found for all dogs. they do not deserve to die by the millions because breeders want to make money from sellng dogs
I agree with you we have to help them. You Rock Thank YOU
I do agree with you why do we have to kill them. We need everbody to work together and help save them.We do have a lot good rescues out there.We just need more good homes and foster homes.
Post a Comment