PETA is not entirely correct about no-kill policies

“No-kill” policies often do more harm than good in ending the cycle of companion-animal homelessness….

PETA says that when shelters become no-kill without addressing the root cause of the problem they make things worse because cats and dogs die an unpleasant death rather than being euthanised. They die an unpleasant death because of various reasons such as:

  • Animals turned away at the door will be shot, for example.
  • The animals still die but painfully. For instance in San Antonio, Texas, 12,000 cats were killed on the roads. It has been called “euthanasia by proxy” – an alternative but less humane form of euthanasia
  • Animals spend ages in cages at no-kill shelters where they deteriorate psychologically and become difficult to adopt. Or they die of diseases.
  • Animals are handed to abusers and hoarders. We know about these. These are fraudulent independent cat rescuers who are really animal abusers. Westberry comes to mind. Note: most are decent people. The Westberry types are rare I believe.

PETA says that no-kill shelters make matters worse. Of course there is a lot of truth in what they say but in saying it they are promoting kill shelters. At the same time not enough attention is being paid to solving the problem at source: stopping unwanted breeding and poor cat ownership.

If kill-shelters are indirectly supported as they appear to be by PETA we have an equally bad situation. This is because in euthanising, in large numbers, cats at shelters the shelters inadvertently create an outlet for unwanted cats which lets irresponsible breeding and ownership off the hook.  Kill-shelters mop up the mess of the source of the problem which takes the pressure off clearing the problem up.

There needs to be a major catastrophe for people to become seriously concerned about tackling the production of unwanted cats.

Humans only react to something when it affects them directly. For instance if global warming was so bad that we were all running out of water and dying then we’d do something about it but as “global warming” is a sound bite hardly felt by anyone people brush it under the carpet and carry on as normal.

If many of the unwanted cats and dogs are conveniently got rid of at shelters through euthanasia then we mask the source of the problem or it becomes less of a problem and therefore it continues and no one does anything about it which is why PETA is not entirely correct about no-kill shelter policies.

See PETA’s page.

P.S. Kill-shelters are mostly engaged in killing and not euthanasia as the cats they kill are healthy. PETA did not mention that.

7 thoughts on “PETA is not entirely correct about no-kill policies”

  1. I agree, Dee. When I was younger I used to argue with those fools. It’s pointless to talk sense to them because they don’t have any.

    Reply
  2. Kill shelters euthanize 2 month old kittens knowing full well that at that age false positives for all kinds of diseases will show up. I don’t have much good to say about them. Or PETA.

    This is the no kill shelter I adopted Samirah from:

    http://www.stlcats.org/

    I can’t say enough good things about them. Samirah was grossly overweight, had a fatty tumor underneath her chin and was absolutely furious and terrified. Despite this Animal House took her in and calmed her down. They made sure that she got the surgery she needed and helped her lose weight. Even though she was defensive towards them for a time they did not declaw her. Once they realized she hated being in those open rooms with the other cats (in the back) she was given a place in the lobby. Would a kill shelter have done all that for her? No. They would have given her the needle and tossed her body into the dumpster out back.

    Reply
    • Thank you, Serbella. I have absolutely nothing positive to say about PETA. They’re too twisted to bother with. It’s as much of a waste of energy to deal with them as it is to reason with Jimbo Woody.

      Reply
    • So, let met get this straight. Thousands of dollars of resources were devoted to saving the life of one sick cat, instead of using that money to sterilize many dozens of cats that are already over-breeding and creating more sick and suffering cats.

      Did I get that right?

      And you’re okay with this.

      Okay, got it.

      Reply
      • Ah, Ralph, it’s obvious you don’t know what you’re talking about. Animal House spays and neuters all the cats in their care as soon as they come of age. Your concern about spaying/neutering is just as fake as your screen name. Is that you, Woody? Hello again.

        Animal House also provides surgeries for any cat in their care that needs it. Since this has absolutely nothing to do with you, I fail to see why you would be concerned about it.

        No, you got that wrong.

        And yes, I’m perfectly okay with it.

        You’re dumb. And a troll. I got that.

        Now I imagine you are going to respond with some long winded post that is clearly going to expose your illogical thinking and your troll tendencies. Have at it. I could use a good laugh.

        Reply
  3. Education . People need to be educated. I have seen a cat horder. at least 30-50 cats (depending on how many kittens lived at birth or after) some of these kittens that lived were were very sick and deformed, i feel it would have been best for these little kittens to be humanely put to sleep . Other kittens could have been helped. i confroted this man daily…he said it was the “circle of life”. how do you reach or educate someone like him??

    Reply

Leave a Comment

follow it link and logo