Post by dg on Feb 16, 2009 14:05:44 GMT -5
I once thought that the society for prevention of cruelty to animals was a good organization. I thought that its mission was to find animals that were being treated badly and help them into better situations. But after watching many episodes on tv of this organization operating in different cities around the world, I am beginning to have a different perception of them.
Several months ago, I was outraged to watch them carefully capture 150 cats living in horrid conditions at a single dwelling only to take them to their facility and euthanize 149 of them -- saving one kitten. Most of the cats were healthy -- just underfed and with fleas. The rationalization was that except for the 1 kitten, these cats grew up essentially wild and were unsuitable to be adopted pets. Hey guess what? If they find a bear in your back yard, or a wolf, they take it out and release it in the wild. It seems the least they could have done for the "wild" cats! Do you know that for every human living in the US, there is a rat living less than 10 feet away on average? (not enough "wild" cats?)
Just recently, I was again outraged as I watched the "rescue" of 10 pit bulls at an illegal dog fighting location. Eight were badly scarred male fighters and two were timid female breeders in near perfect health. They immediately put down all the males with the excuse that they were trained for fighting and now too dangerous to be adopted for pets. Then they checked out the two females. One readily adapted to the new surroundings and showed friendliness. The other remained frightened and shy and shook occasionally from that fear. They euthanized the perfectly healthy female that remained timid with the rationalization that it probably wouldn't be adopted. STUPID! STUPID! STUPID! My dog Jenny is super shy; but she is the most loving companion I have ever had. Shyness and fear after being treated badly is no reason for killing a healthy animal!!!!!!!!!!
Give me a break! How is it prevention of cruelty of animals to take them away from their owners and to kill them based on arbitrary criteria as to how friendly they might eventually become? I can understand putting down animals that are suffering and are in hopeless health conditions; but I cannot understand killing healthy animals that might prove hard to adopt! If it's okay to have coyotes, wolves and for god's sake bears in the wild areas near towns, why isn't it okay to release cats too wild for adoption and dogs too wild for adoption into some of the same areas? The worst that can happen is that the cats live like wild cats and the dogs live like coyotes and wolves. RIGHT? (They already know how instinctively).
Hard to adopt? TOUGH COOKIES! If you take the healthy animal away from someone else, you become responsible for it. You have no more right to kill it than did its owners. Stop killing healthy animals! Release them to the wild if you can't find adoptive guardians for them. (Or some of us will stop contributing to your cause. That's a promise.)
dg
Several months ago, I was outraged to watch them carefully capture 150 cats living in horrid conditions at a single dwelling only to take them to their facility and euthanize 149 of them -- saving one kitten. Most of the cats were healthy -- just underfed and with fleas. The rationalization was that except for the 1 kitten, these cats grew up essentially wild and were unsuitable to be adopted pets. Hey guess what? If they find a bear in your back yard, or a wolf, they take it out and release it in the wild. It seems the least they could have done for the "wild" cats! Do you know that for every human living in the US, there is a rat living less than 10 feet away on average? (not enough "wild" cats?)
Just recently, I was again outraged as I watched the "rescue" of 10 pit bulls at an illegal dog fighting location. Eight were badly scarred male fighters and two were timid female breeders in near perfect health. They immediately put down all the males with the excuse that they were trained for fighting and now too dangerous to be adopted for pets. Then they checked out the two females. One readily adapted to the new surroundings and showed friendliness. The other remained frightened and shy and shook occasionally from that fear. They euthanized the perfectly healthy female that remained timid with the rationalization that it probably wouldn't be adopted. STUPID! STUPID! STUPID! My dog Jenny is super shy; but she is the most loving companion I have ever had. Shyness and fear after being treated badly is no reason for killing a healthy animal!!!!!!!!!!
Give me a break! How is it prevention of cruelty of animals to take them away from their owners and to kill them based on arbitrary criteria as to how friendly they might eventually become? I can understand putting down animals that are suffering and are in hopeless health conditions; but I cannot understand killing healthy animals that might prove hard to adopt! If it's okay to have coyotes, wolves and for god's sake bears in the wild areas near towns, why isn't it okay to release cats too wild for adoption and dogs too wild for adoption into some of the same areas? The worst that can happen is that the cats live like wild cats and the dogs live like coyotes and wolves. RIGHT? (They already know how instinctively).
Hard to adopt? TOUGH COOKIES! If you take the healthy animal away from someone else, you become responsible for it. You have no more right to kill it than did its owners. Stop killing healthy animals! Release them to the wild if you can't find adoptive guardians for them. (Or some of us will stop contributing to your cause. That's a promise.)
dg