Can you give me some facts here.. has no-kill benn around as the ‘cray cat lady’ that lived near me long ago… how about the old guy who had say 12-15 dgs that he takes care of.. they sleep in the barn, get plenty to eat and don’t leave the property.. Are these “hoarders” ? The ct lady had all of hers “fixed” and told us to mae sure we did the same with yours.. pretty educational.

Is it a “growing problem” really? Can you show me that statisitic? Or just that some people lie to keep multiple pets?

But … it IS about making spay-neuter easy and low-cost (preferably free or even paying people to bring animal in), especially for targeted problem populations like feral cats. And more … it about taking the services TO people who need them, because you can’t take a big dog on the bus to get to a low-cost clinic 25 miles away when you don’t have a car.

And I challenge you to provide ANY PROOF that hoarders have increased along with the emergence of no-kill. I have been covering these issues for 30 years, and there always been plenty of hoarders.

Hoarders have a recognized mental illness. They have always been here, and will always be here. Their existence has NOTHING to do with no kill.

The “dirty work” is being done by the shelter industry because they refuse to do anything except blame the public and continue “business as usual.” It’s a failure of leadership, aided and abetted by animal-rights groups that use no-kill and hatred as a wedge issue to advance their real agenda: The eventual and complete extinction of domestic animals.

Have you read “Redemption”? You might want to, before talking about what you “think” no kill and Winograd believe — and being WRONG.

Unfortunately, along with the “no-kill” trend, we have seen the emergence of animal hoarders disguised as animal rescuers. This is a growing problem and needs to be addressed.

Do the numbers correspond to “other?”

You’d normally expect only strays to be reclaimed, but their intake actually categorised as strays seems very low.

In comparison the Richmond SPCA, which seems to be a normal animal welfare society and is dealing with the same ballpark numbers of animals has quite low numbers of animals reclaimed by owners (but excellent rates of adoption).

No Kill is not hoarding. Hoarding is not No Kill. There are hoarders who call themselves rescues, of course, but that doesn’t make them so. My calling myself an Olympic marathoner wouldn’t make me one, either, and would cast zero reflection on the physical conditioning of Olympic marathoners.

PETA is attacking the term “No Kill” not because it creates confusion in the public mind, but because it is such a powerful term, so effective at garnering public support because it reflects what the general public wants shelters to be—places that euthanize only when necessary for the animal, rather than killing for human convenience. Using the term “Low Kill” won’t engender the same public support because, sorry, it suggests a shelter that, yeah, sure, tries “minimize” convenience killing, but which will still, when the going gets tough, blame the Bad Owners for the fact that they’re killing healthy, adoptable animals rather than seriously trying to save every single one that’s savable.

Using the term “Low Kill” would be handing PETA a propaganda victory, and I don’t see any reason to do that—not when PETA doesn’t even have “low kill” as a goal. Not with a kill rate over 90%.

I think it’s pointless (not to debate, but) to try to make a definite decision WHY people are giving them up with out polling them as they drop them off to the shelters. If it was being done for this specific reason you could either have a fill in the blank as not sway their answer, or have MSN / Foreclosure / Other.

To assume we know peoples motives based on statistics with so many variables is absurd. All sides presented so far have their points as well as their flaws. The only way to know for SURE, is to ask.

——-

Personally I prefer when shelters use the term “LOW-kill.” It doesn’t mis-lead the less informed public, and you’ll be hard pressed to find an honest one that actually carries on a hording no-kill policy. It’s a forth right term. They make no promises of being able to save all lives; be it because of finances or health or temperament. They admit through the term itself that not all lives can or will be saved.

The term “no-kill” can quickly become a hot button of discord. I’ve read accounts the the best of shelters and the worst of shelters who worked under this label.

What set in stone my own negative prejudice was years ago meeting a woman who was with a rescue and her own set of mind included that no pet should be euthanized no matter their temperament and almost with out exception for for any state of health. And judging by the state of the rescue pets they had with them, I could only feel sorry for those that weren’t adopted out.

I know that doesn’t embody all of “no-kill” but I know for certain that that that particular extreme of mind set is out there. Falling in with those are individuals out there who get in over their heads. Individuals whom society labels as hoarders.

I am grateful for the no-kill facilities out there that do provide the best care, the ones that run like a well oiled boarding center. The ones that produce canine members of society worthy of a CGC (or at least comparatively so in their progress) and not like some wretch forgotten about cower in some unnumbered cell for months at an underfunded pound with a horrible director. Ones that work patiently with the rehabilitatable, and turn away the ones that would make the most notorious street thug proud.
Far better in my opinion to turn away or put down a dog that will never be able to be handled than to have it languish in a cage because none of your workers are capable of taking care of it(not strong enough, too scared, or dog is far too aggressive even after months of patient gentle kindness from staff,) or it is a poor facility in regards to caring for the animals (those that easily could be charged with abuse and neglect.)

—- But alas… PETA blaming the no-kill movement for foreclosures… That makes me laugh. At least the other way around is plausible. Silly PETA. It’s rare (I think it’s a grand total of twice in 20 plus years,) when I agree with them and this certainly isn’t one of those times.

Yes, because as I said very clearly, I was using both 2007 foreclosure AND shelter stats, apples to apples. And I additionally said that foreclosures in Los Angeles went up early 2008 (which is all you cite, that rise), but that rise is now reversing itself.

Laura then, separately from me, compared some other figures, the shelter stats for the period since MSN was passed. Those, too, were apples to apples.