Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on Twitter
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
To Catlovers
- Thread starter MIST
- Start date
MIST
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,323
- Points
- 83
TNR clinic in U.S
[video=youtube;zCOlO-OVl24]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCOlO-OVl24[/video]
In Gambia the vet here doesn´t have to trap the animals but sometimes need to help to catch one..
[video=youtube;da9f2Z-Cp_g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da9f2Z-Cp_g&list=PLLU1bSBz0-CJvzsYGy6wgO2-nn5i387yP&index=32[/video]
It reminds me of when I took some of my ferals to the vet, one of them sat on the curtain rod but when I came closer she was flying from there and suddenly she was somewhere else.
It can take some time and a lot of energy to get the cat to the crate
[video=youtube;zCOlO-OVl24]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCOlO-OVl24[/video]
In Gambia the vet here doesn´t have to trap the animals but sometimes need to help to catch one..
[video=youtube;da9f2Z-Cp_g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da9f2Z-Cp_g&list=PLLU1bSBz0-CJvzsYGy6wgO2-nn5i387yP&index=32[/video]
It reminds me of when I took some of my ferals to the vet, one of them sat on the curtain rod but when I came closer she was flying from there and suddenly she was somewhere else.
It can take some time and a lot of energy to get the cat to the crate
Mikky Dee
Sunset Driver, Midnight Rider
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2016
- Messages
- 3,018
- Points
- 63
Re: to catlovers
I adore cats. My husband would never let me have one, but I wore him down and we've had a gorgeous Blue Tabby Domestic Short Hair for two years. Many of the cheeky internet cats and cats that I see on video are very similar to my cat.....I think perhaps they're one of the more intelligent and interesting breeds, personality wise??
This is Lexxi.
I adore cats. My husband would never let me have one, but I wore him down and we've had a gorgeous Blue Tabby Domestic Short Hair for two years. Many of the cheeky internet cats and cats that I see on video are very similar to my cat.....I think perhaps they're one of the more intelligent and interesting breeds, personality wise??
This is Lexxi.
MIST
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,323
- Points
- 83
Outrage Grows After Famed Lion ‘Mohawk’ Is Shot to Death
For the second time in less than a year, a beloved, iconic, 13-year-old lion has been shot to death.
But this time it wasn’t killed by a dentist, the sons of a presidential candidate or someone else shelling out big bucks for the thrill of destroying a majestic creature.
Mohawk, named for his spiky black mane, escaped Wednesday morning from Nairobi National Park, where he was regarded by many as the lion king.
He wandered to the town of Isinya, which is part of the seasonal migration area for lions. He was soon surrounded by the curious residents. Many of them taunted him, throwing rocks and spears, for as long as six hours, reports the Star, a Kenya newspaper.
Local officials reportedly tried to protect Mohawk, but not surprisingly, being tormented “brought about a visible agitation in the lion due to the rowdiness and size of the crowd,” the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) tweeted.
When Mohawk couldn’t take any more, he broke free from the crowd and pounced on a man riding by on a motorcycle. Townspeople started chasing the lion with bows and arrows, while KWS rangers — who took hours to arrive on the scene, even though it was just 12 miles from the park – started firing their rifles.
A disturbing video shows Mohawk fall to the ground after he was shot in the leg while trying to run away from the mob scene. He was then shot eight more times.
Instead of using tranquilizer darts to subdue the stressed-out lion, the rangers pumped nine bullets into him to “avert injuries or at worst, deaths to members of the public,” according to the KWS. “This action was taken as a last resort after an escalation of the situation, and a concern for public safety.”
Isinya Deputy County Commissioner David Kipkemei, who tried to protect Mohawk and witnessed his murder, strongly disagrees.
“We have been here all these hours protecting this lion. The rangers came with guns but we suggested the lion be sedated and taken back to the park,” he told the Star. “They have spoiled everything by killing the cat. This is wrong.”
The KWS didn’t say why it took so long for its rangers to show up, why they only brought rifles loaded with bullets or why they killed Mohawk so inhumanely. Another group of rangers was on its way with tranquilizer darts, but by the time they arrived, it was too late.
This wasn’t the first time Mohawk or other lions had escaped from Nairobi National Park. Because of ongoing construction projects – which are loud and stressful to the wildlife – an electric fence intended to keep the animals inside has been disconnected, making it easy to get out.
“We are working with contractors to ensure they maintain the integrity of the park and keep all animals safe,” Environment Cabinet Secretary Judi Wakhungu told the Star.
The Rangers ‘No Different Than Poachers’
Just as with Cecil last year, outrage is growing over Mohawk’s cruel and senseless killing.
“I am sad and heartbroken,” wildlife photographer Paras Chandaria told the Star. “How do the custodians of our wildlife and nature, the KWS, just gun down a famous dominant male lion in front of hundreds of people, including children?”
Also critical of the shooting is Perez Olindo, director of the Kenya Wildlife Conservation and Management Department. “There are many biological means of subduing lions and translocating them, which is purely the mandate of the KWS,” he told the Star. “Killing them is not part of the agency’s role and does not mean lions will not stray from the park.”
County assembly member Daniel Kanchori said the rangers were “no different than poachers.”
Thousands of Care2 members are urging the KWS to fire the rangers that killed Mohawk.
“Instead of humanely tranquilizing Mohawk and bringing him back to the park, reckless and unprepared KWS officers senselessly shot and killed him,” wrote Kelsey Bourgeois in a petition that’s been signed more than 53,000 times as of April 1. “These rangers must be fired for cruelty to animals — their whole job is to protect animals like Mohawk and they have failed miserably.”
Please join thousands of others who are demanding for justice for Mohawk by signing and sharing this petition.
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/outrage...oved-lion-is-shot-to-death.html#ixzz44k8lcQVq
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/364/667/144/fire-the-rangers-who-tortured-and-killed-mohawk-the-lion/
R.I.P Mohawk I´m so sad this happened.
For the second time in less than a year, a beloved, iconic, 13-year-old lion has been shot to death.
But this time it wasn’t killed by a dentist, the sons of a presidential candidate or someone else shelling out big bucks for the thrill of destroying a majestic creature.
Mohawk, named for his spiky black mane, escaped Wednesday morning from Nairobi National Park, where he was regarded by many as the lion king.
He wandered to the town of Isinya, which is part of the seasonal migration area for lions. He was soon surrounded by the curious residents. Many of them taunted him, throwing rocks and spears, for as long as six hours, reports the Star, a Kenya newspaper.
Local officials reportedly tried to protect Mohawk, but not surprisingly, being tormented “brought about a visible agitation in the lion due to the rowdiness and size of the crowd,” the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) tweeted.
When Mohawk couldn’t take any more, he broke free from the crowd and pounced on a man riding by on a motorcycle. Townspeople started chasing the lion with bows and arrows, while KWS rangers — who took hours to arrive on the scene, even though it was just 12 miles from the park – started firing their rifles.
A disturbing video shows Mohawk fall to the ground after he was shot in the leg while trying to run away from the mob scene. He was then shot eight more times.
Instead of using tranquilizer darts to subdue the stressed-out lion, the rangers pumped nine bullets into him to “avert injuries or at worst, deaths to members of the public,” according to the KWS. “This action was taken as a last resort after an escalation of the situation, and a concern for public safety.”
Isinya Deputy County Commissioner David Kipkemei, who tried to protect Mohawk and witnessed his murder, strongly disagrees.
“We have been here all these hours protecting this lion. The rangers came with guns but we suggested the lion be sedated and taken back to the park,” he told the Star. “They have spoiled everything by killing the cat. This is wrong.”
The KWS didn’t say why it took so long for its rangers to show up, why they only brought rifles loaded with bullets or why they killed Mohawk so inhumanely. Another group of rangers was on its way with tranquilizer darts, but by the time they arrived, it was too late.
This wasn’t the first time Mohawk or other lions had escaped from Nairobi National Park. Because of ongoing construction projects – which are loud and stressful to the wildlife – an electric fence intended to keep the animals inside has been disconnected, making it easy to get out.
“We are working with contractors to ensure they maintain the integrity of the park and keep all animals safe,” Environment Cabinet Secretary Judi Wakhungu told the Star.
The Rangers ‘No Different Than Poachers’
Just as with Cecil last year, outrage is growing over Mohawk’s cruel and senseless killing.
“I am sad and heartbroken,” wildlife photographer Paras Chandaria told the Star. “How do the custodians of our wildlife and nature, the KWS, just gun down a famous dominant male lion in front of hundreds of people, including children?”
Also critical of the shooting is Perez Olindo, director of the Kenya Wildlife Conservation and Management Department. “There are many biological means of subduing lions and translocating them, which is purely the mandate of the KWS,” he told the Star. “Killing them is not part of the agency’s role and does not mean lions will not stray from the park.”
County assembly member Daniel Kanchori said the rangers were “no different than poachers.”
Thousands of Care2 members are urging the KWS to fire the rangers that killed Mohawk.
“Instead of humanely tranquilizing Mohawk and bringing him back to the park, reckless and unprepared KWS officers senselessly shot and killed him,” wrote Kelsey Bourgeois in a petition that’s been signed more than 53,000 times as of April 1. “These rangers must be fired for cruelty to animals — their whole job is to protect animals like Mohawk and they have failed miserably.”
Please join thousands of others who are demanding for justice for Mohawk by signing and sharing this petition.
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/outrage...oved-lion-is-shot-to-death.html#ixzz44k8lcQVq
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/364/667/144/fire-the-rangers-who-tortured-and-killed-mohawk-the-lion/
R.I.P Mohawk I´m so sad this happened.
MIST
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,323
- Points
- 83
PRINCESS: THE KITTY THAT LIVED INSIDE A RABBIT BOX
Princess… she lived her entire life inside a rabbit box…
When you read my blog you usually read my own words, telling you our rescue stories, as they happen. Not today.
Today I´m going to use the precise words I read on Facebook that morning, words that made me leave everything I was doing and hit the road to rescue…
By the time I was finished reading Tears were flowing down my cheeks.
I dropped everything I was doing, made a couple of calls, found out the exact location of the kitty and rushed to get her from where she was.
The family, after much begging and negotiating had agreed to give her up.
What you see here is precisely the moment when I arrived with her to our clinic. Words cannot fully describe the emotions we both went through during those moments…
[video=youtube;XKBnhnLADWI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKBnhnLADWI[/video]
http://blog.myletsadopt.com/2014/princess-the-kitty-that-lived-inside-a-rabbit-box/
She wasn´t wanted in the family but still rescuer had to beg and negotiate with wners to get her.
Princess… she lived her entire life inside a rabbit box…
When you read my blog you usually read my own words, telling you our rescue stories, as they happen. Not today.
Today I´m going to use the precise words I read on Facebook that morning, words that made me leave everything I was doing and hit the road to rescue…
By the time I was finished reading Tears were flowing down my cheeks.
I dropped everything I was doing, made a couple of calls, found out the exact location of the kitty and rushed to get her from where she was.
The family, after much begging and negotiating had agreed to give her up.
What you see here is precisely the moment when I arrived with her to our clinic. Words cannot fully describe the emotions we both went through during those moments…
[video=youtube;XKBnhnLADWI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKBnhnLADWI[/video]
http://blog.myletsadopt.com/2014/princess-the-kitty-that-lived-inside-a-rabbit-box/
She wasn´t wanted in the family but still rescuer had to beg and negotiate with wners to get her.
MIST
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,323
- Points
- 83
Shold cats eat fish?
There are different opinions of that but we can agree that fish in foil is no good
[video=youtube;opdZwMEJDXo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opdZwMEJDXo&list=PLLU1bSBz0-CJvzsYGy6wgO2-nn5i387yP&index=35[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opdZwMEJDXo&list=PLLU1bSBz0-CJvzsYGy6wgO2-nn5i387yP&index=35
Maybe this little kitten was hungry but it isn´t a good idea to eat fishbones
[video=youtube;TMLD4_Y8XJg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMLD4_Y8XJg&nohtml5=False[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMLD4_Y8XJg&nohtml5=False
I´m happy these cats got help from a veterinarian.
There are homeless animals. wild animals, they can be hungry and eat almost anything and get stuck with their heads in cans when they try to get the last food in it-
There are different opinions of that but we can agree that fish in foil is no good
[video=youtube;opdZwMEJDXo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opdZwMEJDXo&list=PLLU1bSBz0-CJvzsYGy6wgO2-nn5i387yP&index=35[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opdZwMEJDXo&list=PLLU1bSBz0-CJvzsYGy6wgO2-nn5i387yP&index=35
Maybe this little kitten was hungry but it isn´t a good idea to eat fishbones
[video=youtube;TMLD4_Y8XJg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMLD4_Y8XJg&nohtml5=False[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMLD4_Y8XJg&nohtml5=False
I´m happy these cats got help from a veterinarian.
There are homeless animals. wild animals, they can be hungry and eat almost anything and get stuck with their heads in cans when they try to get the last food in it-
MIST
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,323
- Points
- 83
The success of the No Kill movement continues to grow.
- Jacksonville, FL, saved 91% of dogs and 92% of cats in 2015. It is one of the largest communities in the nation to save at least 90%.
- Austin, TX, continues to break new ground. In 2015, they hit 95%, the largest community in the nation to do so.
- Petaluma, CA, reported a 98% save rate for dogs, 94% of cats, and 100% of other animals (including wildlife).
- Kitsap County, WA, reported a 98% save rate for dogs, 95% for cats, and 92% for rabbits and other animals in 2015.
- Charlottesville, VA, announced a save rate of 96% for dogs and 92% for cats.
- The cities of Clive, Urbandale, and West Des Moines, IA, collectively saved over 95%.
- Allegany County, MD, reported a 99% save rate for dogs and 92% for cats. It also saved the two rabbits and five ducklings it took in.
- Georgetown, TX, reported a 95% save rate for dogs and 94% for cats.
- Winchester & Frederick counties in VA reported a 93% save rate for cats, 97% for dogs, and 100% for rabbits and other animals.
- Brookfield, WI, reported a 98% save rate for dogs and 96% for cats.
And they are not alone. Roughly 1,000,000 people live in communities saving at least 98% of the animals. About 10,000,000 people live in communities saving 90% or more of dogs and cats in their shelters. And over 40,000,000 live in communities saving 80% or more of dogs and cats. For those who want proof — just the stats and nothing else — demonstrating that many communities across the country are saving 95%, 99% and in a few cases 100% of the animals, visit saving90.org
For those who want to know how they achieved success or want to bring that success to their own communities: http://goo.gl/dxPgmm
---------------
While I celebrate the increasing success of cities who are saving 90% or better, the goal of the No Kill movement is not to reduce killing to some consensus
-based level such as 10%. It is to end killing for all animals who are not irremediably suffering physically, rigorously defined
https://www.facebook.com/nathanwinograd
- Jacksonville, FL, saved 91% of dogs and 92% of cats in 2015. It is one of the largest communities in the nation to save at least 90%.
- Austin, TX, continues to break new ground. In 2015, they hit 95%, the largest community in the nation to do so.
- Petaluma, CA, reported a 98% save rate for dogs, 94% of cats, and 100% of other animals (including wildlife).
- Kitsap County, WA, reported a 98% save rate for dogs, 95% for cats, and 92% for rabbits and other animals in 2015.
- Charlottesville, VA, announced a save rate of 96% for dogs and 92% for cats.
- The cities of Clive, Urbandale, and West Des Moines, IA, collectively saved over 95%.
- Allegany County, MD, reported a 99% save rate for dogs and 92% for cats. It also saved the two rabbits and five ducklings it took in.
- Georgetown, TX, reported a 95% save rate for dogs and 94% for cats.
- Winchester & Frederick counties in VA reported a 93% save rate for cats, 97% for dogs, and 100% for rabbits and other animals.
- Brookfield, WI, reported a 98% save rate for dogs and 96% for cats.
And they are not alone. Roughly 1,000,000 people live in communities saving at least 98% of the animals. About 10,000,000 people live in communities saving 90% or more of dogs and cats in their shelters. And over 40,000,000 live in communities saving 80% or more of dogs and cats. For those who want proof — just the stats and nothing else — demonstrating that many communities across the country are saving 95%, 99% and in a few cases 100% of the animals, visit saving90.org
For those who want to know how they achieved success or want to bring that success to their own communities: http://goo.gl/dxPgmm
---------------
While I celebrate the increasing success of cities who are saving 90% or better, the goal of the No Kill movement is not to reduce killing to some consensus
-based level such as 10%. It is to end killing for all animals who are not irremediably suffering physically, rigorously defined
https://www.facebook.com/nathanwinograd
MIST
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,323
- Points
- 83
There are things we take for granted..but that´s not how life is in Gambia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=743P1muiEJ8
ventilation by hand, you can see at 25 sec , I read they were 2 who took turns with the ventilation.
It must have been quite a long operation I thing the vet took out all gastric contents for a while..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geE-DAwIkcw
The dog survived
But this is the same as in the west..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY_Ix0ISSuI&index=29&list=PLLU1bSBz0-CJvzsYGy6wgO2-nn5i387yP
[video=youtube;tY_Ix0ISSuI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY_Ix0ISSuI&index=29&list=PLLU1bSBz0-CJvzsYGy6wgO2-nn5i387yP[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=743P1muiEJ8
ventilation by hand, you can see at 25 sec , I read they were 2 who took turns with the ventilation.
It must have been quite a long operation I thing the vet took out all gastric contents for a while..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geE-DAwIkcw
The dog survived
But this is the same as in the west..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY_Ix0ISSuI&index=29&list=PLLU1bSBz0-CJvzsYGy6wgO2-nn5i387yP
[video=youtube;tY_Ix0ISSuI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY_Ix0ISSuI&index=29&list=PLLU1bSBz0-CJvzsYGy6wgO2-nn5i387yP[/video]
MIST
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,323
- Points
- 83
Five Tips to Help Kittens This Spring
April 11, 2016 | Categories: Seasonal
103
As springtime begins so does “kitten season” – when babies are born to cats who have not yet been spayed or neutered. People don’t always know the best way to help these kittens. Sometimes taking home a kitten found outdoors is the best way to help and sometimes it’s best to leave them outdoors with mom – it all depends on the situation.
“If you come across a kitten outdoors, you may be tempted to bring her home with you, but that may not be the best thing for the kitten,” said Becky Robinson, president and founder of Alley Cat Allies. “Deciding whether to take a kitten home with you or leave her where she is should be carefully considered based on the individual kitten’s situation and age.”
Alley Cat Allies, the only national advocacy organization dedicated to the humane treatment of cats, offers five easy ways people can help cats and kittens this spring. Visit www.alleycat.org/Kittens for a comprehensive guide to caring for kittens.
Tip #1: Leave kittens with mom.
Like all babies, kittens are best left with their mothers who instinctively know how to help their offspring grow up to be strong and healthy cats. Neonatal kittens, four weeks old or younger, need around the clock attention and depend on mom for 100 percent of their care. Kittens five to eight weeks old can begin to eat wet food but are still being weaned. (To determine the age of a kitten, use Alley Cat Allies’ Kitten Progression Guide at www.alleycat.org/KittenProgression.)
If you know the mother is present, it is best to leave kittens with her. To determine whether the mother is caring for the kittens, wait and observe for two to four hours to see if the mother returns. She could just be out looking for food. If she doesn’t return, the kittens could be abandoned. A young kitten living outdoors who does not have a mother present should be taken in and fostered.
If you are unsure, Alley Cat Allies has a number of resources available to help. The Alley Cat Allies’ National Cat Help Desk can provide advice and direction for a number of situations. Another option is the Alley Cat Allies’ Feral Friends Network – local individuals and organizations that may be able to help with hands-on advice, information about borrowing equipment, and veterinarians or clinics that can spay and neuter feral cats. To request a list of Feral Friends in your area, visit www.alleycat.org/FeralFriends.
Tip #2: Don’t bring neonatal kittens to an animal shelter.
Most shelters are not equipped or trained to provide the necessary round-the-clock care for neonatal kittens. If a kitten can’t eat on her own, she will likely be killed at the shelter. Realistical
ly, it’s never a good idea to take a cat to a shelter, no matter the age or level of socialization. There are some shelters who have lifesaving programs for cats, but across the nation, more than 70 percent of cats who enter shelters are killed. That number rises to virtually 100 percent for feral cats. Killing is never the answer—it is inhumane and it fails to stabilize or reduce outdoor cat populations.
Tip #3: Volunteer as a kitten foster parent for a local rescue group.
There are kitten foster parent programs across the country. Though it is an investment of time and requires training, volunteering to foster young kittens is lifesaving and rewarding. To learn the basics of kitten care, register for Alley Cat Allies’ free “Help! I found a kitten!” webinar at www.alleycat.org/KittenWebinar.
Tip #4: Support and practice Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR).
TNR is the only effective and humane way of stabilizing and reducing community cat populations. In a TNR program, community cats are humanely trapped and brought to a veterinarian to be spayed or neutered, vaccinated, and eartipped (the universal symbol that a cat has been neutered and vaccinated) before being returned to their outdoor homes. Learn more about TNR at www.alleycat.org/TNR.
Spaying and neutering community cats prevents new litters, drastically reducing the impact of kitten season. Cats as young as four months can have litters, so it is important to spay and neuter kittens as soon as they are ready. A good rule of thumb is the 2 Pound Spay/Neuter Rule – kittens can be safely spayed or neutered at two months of age or as soon as they weigh two pounds. Learn more about pediatric spay and neuter at www.alleycat.org/SpayNeuter.
Tip #5: Advocate for policies and programs that protect cats.
Contact your shelter and local officials and tell them you support lifesaving policies for cats, including spay and neuter funding and spay and neuter before adoption. Write letters and call in support of community outreach and education programs that spread awareness about spay and neuter, community cats and TNR – you can make a big difference. Learn how you can help your local shelter save more cats’ lives at www.alleycat.org/HelpShelters.
http://news.alleycat.org/2016/04/11/five-tips-to-help-kittens-this-spring/
April 11, 2016 | Categories: Seasonal
103
As springtime begins so does “kitten season” – when babies are born to cats who have not yet been spayed or neutered. People don’t always know the best way to help these kittens. Sometimes taking home a kitten found outdoors is the best way to help and sometimes it’s best to leave them outdoors with mom – it all depends on the situation.
“If you come across a kitten outdoors, you may be tempted to bring her home with you, but that may not be the best thing for the kitten,” said Becky Robinson, president and founder of Alley Cat Allies. “Deciding whether to take a kitten home with you or leave her where she is should be carefully considered based on the individual kitten’s situation and age.”
Alley Cat Allies, the only national advocacy organization dedicated to the humane treatment of cats, offers five easy ways people can help cats and kittens this spring. Visit www.alleycat.org/Kittens for a comprehensive guide to caring for kittens.
Tip #1: Leave kittens with mom.
Like all babies, kittens are best left with their mothers who instinctively know how to help their offspring grow up to be strong and healthy cats. Neonatal kittens, four weeks old or younger, need around the clock attention and depend on mom for 100 percent of their care. Kittens five to eight weeks old can begin to eat wet food but are still being weaned. (To determine the age of a kitten, use Alley Cat Allies’ Kitten Progression Guide at www.alleycat.org/KittenProgression.)
If you know the mother is present, it is best to leave kittens with her. To determine whether the mother is caring for the kittens, wait and observe for two to four hours to see if the mother returns. She could just be out looking for food. If she doesn’t return, the kittens could be abandoned. A young kitten living outdoors who does not have a mother present should be taken in and fostered.
If you are unsure, Alley Cat Allies has a number of resources available to help. The Alley Cat Allies’ National Cat Help Desk can provide advice and direction for a number of situations. Another option is the Alley Cat Allies’ Feral Friends Network – local individuals and organizations that may be able to help with hands-on advice, information about borrowing equipment, and veterinarians or clinics that can spay and neuter feral cats. To request a list of Feral Friends in your area, visit www.alleycat.org/FeralFriends.
Tip #2: Don’t bring neonatal kittens to an animal shelter.
Most shelters are not equipped or trained to provide the necessary round-the-clock care for neonatal kittens. If a kitten can’t eat on her own, she will likely be killed at the shelter. Realistical
ly, it’s never a good idea to take a cat to a shelter, no matter the age or level of socialization. There are some shelters who have lifesaving programs for cats, but across the nation, more than 70 percent of cats who enter shelters are killed. That number rises to virtually 100 percent for feral cats. Killing is never the answer—it is inhumane and it fails to stabilize or reduce outdoor cat populations.
Tip #3: Volunteer as a kitten foster parent for a local rescue group.
There are kitten foster parent programs across the country. Though it is an investment of time and requires training, volunteering to foster young kittens is lifesaving and rewarding. To learn the basics of kitten care, register for Alley Cat Allies’ free “Help! I found a kitten!” webinar at www.alleycat.org/KittenWebinar.
Tip #4: Support and practice Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR).
TNR is the only effective and humane way of stabilizing and reducing community cat populations. In a TNR program, community cats are humanely trapped and brought to a veterinarian to be spayed or neutered, vaccinated, and eartipped (the universal symbol that a cat has been neutered and vaccinated) before being returned to their outdoor homes. Learn more about TNR at www.alleycat.org/TNR.
Spaying and neutering community cats prevents new litters, drastically reducing the impact of kitten season. Cats as young as four months can have litters, so it is important to spay and neuter kittens as soon as they are ready. A good rule of thumb is the 2 Pound Spay/Neuter Rule – kittens can be safely spayed or neutered at two months of age or as soon as they weigh two pounds. Learn more about pediatric spay and neuter at www.alleycat.org/SpayNeuter.
Tip #5: Advocate for policies and programs that protect cats.
Contact your shelter and local officials and tell them you support lifesaving policies for cats, including spay and neuter funding and spay and neuter before adoption. Write letters and call in support of community outreach and education programs that spread awareness about spay and neuter, community cats and TNR – you can make a big difference. Learn how you can help your local shelter save more cats’ lives at www.alleycat.org/HelpShelters.
http://news.alleycat.org/2016/04/11/five-tips-to-help-kittens-this-spring/
I would say trap both mum and kittens and take them home. Then you get help tp raise the kittens too.
blue eyes
Proud Member
Re: to catlovers
Stopped by wish you all great weekend
Stopped by wish you all great weekend
MIST
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,323
- Points
- 83
Re: to catlovers
[SUP][/SUP]She was 2 months when she came to the vetclinic, and 6 months later she was still there.
The vet wrote this about her
She is a very brave cat, often stands in the door so that dogs can't pass.
It was three years ago, I guess they found her a home later.
[SUP][/SUP]She was 2 months when she came to the vetclinic, and 6 months later she was still there.
The vet wrote this about her
She is a very brave cat, often stands in the door so that dogs can't pass.
It was three years ago, I guess they found her a home later.
blue eyes
Proud Member
The Iberian Linx is the world’s most endangered feline species . There are real fears that it may soon become the first cat species to become extinct for at least 2,000 years.
A new ambitious conservation project, LIFE Iberlince, is recovering some of the lynx’s lost territories in Spain and Portugal.A little bit of hope in a sea of fears for uncertain future of such a beautiful big cat
LIFE Iberlince proyect:
http://www.iberlince.eu/index.php/eng/iberian-lynx/distribution#.VydD6_l94ok
Nat Geo documentary in English
[video=youtube;ntfrBcfJ_Uc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntfrBcfJ_Uc[/video]
A new ambitious conservation project, LIFE Iberlince, is recovering some of the lynx’s lost territories in Spain and Portugal.A little bit of hope in a sea of fears for uncertain future of such a beautiful big cat
LIFE Iberlince proyect:
http://www.iberlince.eu/index.php/eng/iberian-lynx/distribution#.VydD6_l94ok
Nat Geo documentary in English
[video=youtube;ntfrBcfJ_Uc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntfrBcfJ_Uc[/video]
Last edited:
TurnsToGold
Proud Member
Re: to catlovers
Love this thread. I got my first ever kitten a few months back and I couldn't be happier. Considering I used to be scared of cats
Love this thread. I got my first ever kitten a few months back and I couldn't be happier. Considering I used to be scared of cats
Last edited:
MIST
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,323
- Points
- 83
Tiesha Tiger has had mobility issues since she was rescued from Ohio in October of 2015.
These could have been caused from inbreeding, poor nutrition due to being pulled from her mother to be a plaything, injuries from being passed around, and from being beaten up by her cage mates when she was no longer a cute cub.
When she first arrived she was too heavy and unhealthy to sedate, so we put her on a diet to get her a little bit leaner so we could sedate her.
The x-rays showed she had arthritis all along her spine.
She was put on medication to help with inflammation and pain. Still, her condition worsened, so we decided to take her to the University of Florida for a full exam.
There she had an MRI which showed she had several bulging discs putting pressure all along her spine especially in her neck.
The specialist said that surgery was not an option because of the number of areas that would have to be repaired, however they did think that steroids would help her greatly.
The vet said that Teisha has been in this condition for many years.
Since her return those who have seen her may have noticed that she is a lot worse than when she left.
She can barely move her back legs and she cannot stand up and walk on her own.
This can be a result of being sedated and manipulated for the exam and MRI.
If you think about if any of you have had a hurt back in the past know that if you move a certain way it will hurt so you either brace yourself or move a different way.
Being sedated Tiesha may have been moved in ways that put pressure on her spine increasing Inflammation or worst-case furthering the damage to her spinal cord.
It could take several days for the inflammation to go down and for her to go back to normal for her.
In the meantime we have her on the new medication which can take up to two weeks to show their full effects.
Our vets will be watching her closely over the next few days and observing her quality-of-life.
We may be trying K-laser therapy as well. If it seems that she is not going to improve we will have to make the decision to let her go.
Don’t let Teisha’s suffering be in vain. You should know that whenever someone poses with a cub for a photo, or pays to see cubs on display, that they have contributed to this sort of suffering that goes on behind closed gates all around the world.
http://bigcatrescue.org/
[video=youtube;14HbFhoHVaQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14HbFhoHVaQ[/video]
3 days after MRI
[video=youtube;OH4cE_Yvbw8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH4cE_Yvbw8[/video]
I think i have posted Teisha´s rescue video from Ohio, her former owner first didn´t want to give up his 5 tigers but he didn´t care about them enough to get a vet there
"Teisha – a 13-year-old tiger, in such bad shape that she was unable to walk, and didn’t move even during the chaos and darting when authorities took possession of her."
"for the first week after she was rescued by ODA, she did not stand and just peed and defecated while laying down."
I hope she will be better with pain medication so she can at last can have some good years in her life
These could have been caused from inbreeding, poor nutrition due to being pulled from her mother to be a plaything, injuries from being passed around, and from being beaten up by her cage mates when she was no longer a cute cub.
When she first arrived she was too heavy and unhealthy to sedate, so we put her on a diet to get her a little bit leaner so we could sedate her.
The x-rays showed she had arthritis all along her spine.
She was put on medication to help with inflammation and pain. Still, her condition worsened, so we decided to take her to the University of Florida for a full exam.
There she had an MRI which showed she had several bulging discs putting pressure all along her spine especially in her neck.
The specialist said that surgery was not an option because of the number of areas that would have to be repaired, however they did think that steroids would help her greatly.
The vet said that Teisha has been in this condition for many years.
Since her return those who have seen her may have noticed that she is a lot worse than when she left.
She can barely move her back legs and she cannot stand up and walk on her own.
This can be a result of being sedated and manipulated for the exam and MRI.
If you think about if any of you have had a hurt back in the past know that if you move a certain way it will hurt so you either brace yourself or move a different way.
Being sedated Tiesha may have been moved in ways that put pressure on her spine increasing Inflammation or worst-case furthering the damage to her spinal cord.
It could take several days for the inflammation to go down and for her to go back to normal for her.
In the meantime we have her on the new medication which can take up to two weeks to show their full effects.
Our vets will be watching her closely over the next few days and observing her quality-of-life.
We may be trying K-laser therapy as well. If it seems that she is not going to improve we will have to make the decision to let her go.
Don’t let Teisha’s suffering be in vain. You should know that whenever someone poses with a cub for a photo, or pays to see cubs on display, that they have contributed to this sort of suffering that goes on behind closed gates all around the world.
http://bigcatrescue.org/
[video=youtube;14HbFhoHVaQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14HbFhoHVaQ[/video]
3 days after MRI
[video=youtube;OH4cE_Yvbw8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH4cE_Yvbw8[/video]
I think i have posted Teisha´s rescue video from Ohio, her former owner first didn´t want to give up his 5 tigers but he didn´t care about them enough to get a vet there
"Teisha – a 13-year-old tiger, in such bad shape that she was unable to walk, and didn’t move even during the chaos and darting when authorities took possession of her."
"for the first week after she was rescued by ODA, she did not stand and just peed and defecated while laying down."
I hope she will be better with pain medication so she can at last can have some good years in her life
MIST
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,323
- Points
- 83
I don´t know it was an accident or if someone tried to chop the tail of her
[video=youtube;lCIHW5vKOus]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCIHW5vKOus&list=PLLU1bSBz0-CJvzsYGy6wgO2-nn5i387yP&index=33[/video]
I can read this in the description under the video
"Now she is dewormed, de-flea-ed, de-tail-ed, spayed, vaccinated and can lead a happy life!"
[video=youtube;lCIHW5vKOus]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCIHW5vKOus&list=PLLU1bSBz0-CJvzsYGy6wgO2-nn5i387yP&index=33[/video]
I can read this in the description under the video
"Now she is dewormed, de-flea-ed, de-tail-ed, spayed, vaccinated and can lead a happy life!"
MIST
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,323
- Points
- 83
When the world gets you down, cats and dogs pick you up. A new study by a team of psychologists finds that being around cats and dogs improves our mental health. That may not be surprising. But the study went further and found that just “briefly thinking about cats or dogs is an effective strategy for improving feelings,” even after social rejection.
Animals do so much good for us: they give us a sense of optimism, safeguard us from depression and loneliness, and break down the barriers that isolate us from one another. Their presence improves our health, protects us from danger, and teaches us about caring and responsibility. And they ask for so little in return.
They deserve so much.
The study is here: http://goo.gl/guOdcg
https://www.facebook.com/nathanwinograd
Animals do so much good for us: they give us a sense of optimism, safeguard us from depression and loneliness, and break down the barriers that isolate us from one another. Their presence improves our health, protects us from danger, and teaches us about caring and responsibility. And they ask for so little in return.
They deserve so much.
The study is here: http://goo.gl/guOdcg
https://www.facebook.com/nathanwinograd
MIST
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,323
- Points
- 83
Former circuslions in South America were taken to freedom in Africa..Well as much freedom as they can
I guess all of them are declawed and can´t manage of their own.
[video=youtube;wq7WW1gWXkY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq7WW1gWXkY[/video]
They look quite worn out now after years of abuse in circus and a long travel but they can recover so they finally can enjoy life..just to feel the sun , to roll around on the ground, not having to jump through flaming rings anymore,..if the still use to do it in circuses nowadys
[video=youtube;V9dI0fqHQvU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9dI0fqHQvU[/video]
I guess all of them are declawed and can´t manage of their own.
[video=youtube;wq7WW1gWXkY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq7WW1gWXkY[/video]
They look quite worn out now after years of abuse in circus and a long travel but they can recover so they finally can enjoy life..just to feel the sun , to roll around on the ground, not having to jump through flaming rings anymore,..if the still use to do it in circuses nowadys
[video=youtube;V9dI0fqHQvU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9dI0fqHQvU[/video]
MIST
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,323
- Points
- 83
It´s going in the right direction but it´s not enough, I want more.
And I think we´ll get there.
It isn´t always possible to save 100 % , animals can be in too bad shape when they come.
It´s a quote from Dr Meyer vet clinic Gambia after he tried to save a puppy who later died.
I´m glad he tried.
Some animals can be real fighters and survive if they just get a chance
MIST
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,323
- Points
- 83
Now Teisha can run free at the rainbow world
[video=youtube;lKwoHGsspyI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKwoHGsspyI[/video]
She was 13 years old and spent the last 6 months of them at Big Cat Rescue.
6 months when she didn´t have to be injured by other tigers ,she had her own pool and got enrichments.
Of course she shouldn´t have to be abused for over 12 years.
Let´s do something to stop other tigers to be abused.
[video=youtube;lKwoHGsspyI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKwoHGsspyI[/video]
She was 13 years old and spent the last 6 months of them at Big Cat Rescue.
6 months when she didn´t have to be injured by other tigers ,she had her own pool and got enrichments.
Of course she shouldn´t have to be abused for over 12 years.
Let´s do something to stop other tigers to be abused.
MIST
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,323
- Points
- 83
The Terrible Truths from Thailand’s Tiger Temples
When we first discovered that we could visit tiger “sanctuaries” in India and Thailand we were thrilled at the prospect of being able to spend some time with the beautiful beasts, petting their massive bodies, and experiencing the power they exude.
We decided to do more research on these “sanctuaries” before making the decision to visit one as we do with any place that claims to promote the well being and care of animals.
There was a 2 year investigation done by CWI (Care for the Wild International) that revealed disturbing animal abuse and tiger trafficking at the tiger temple in Kanchanaburi, one of Thailand’s premiere tourist destinations. We didn’t want to just take their word for it, so we decided to do our own investigating.
We decided to visit the Tiger Temple in Kanchanaburi. In our experience the tigers seemed to be sedated. There is an area where you can pay extra to get an up close and personal photo with a tiger.
We witnessed an employee take a tourist by the wrist over to a tiger, and then proceed to scruff the tiger and splash a whole bottle of water in his/her face to wake them up. They were chained so close to the ground that they couldn’t properly stand up. In another area employees were dangling raw meat above the tigers to tease them.
These tiger temples/kingdoms have been said to even go so far as to remove the tigers claws and teeth, even the tendons in their wrists are clipped so they can’t swat or run with a lot of speed to ensure that tourists are not harmed when visiting.
These “sanctuaries” claim that they promote conservation and breeding of tigers, and aim to return them to the wild, yet most animals born in captivity would never be able to survive or fend for themselves if set free, so there is no conservation value.
There is even speculation that some of the tigers bred are sold to be used in canned hunts.
The tigers are far from being able to roam free, they are chained and confined to a small cage for several hours a day. Adult tigers suffer from several behavioral and physical problems, including pacing back and forth and self mutilation. This may be due to not having their natural needs met, as well as suffering from abuse.
When visitors choose to take photos with the tigers for an extra fee, staff prop the tigers up on heavy concrete bowls and force them to keep a captivating pose. Tourists are then able to pet, sit, or lie on the tigers until they get that perfect shot.
Tigers are also kicked, punched, and pulled into position by their tail which we witnessed. They are also controlled by having urine squirted in their face at close proximity. In the wild tigers use urine as an aggressive or territorial signal. In a tiger temple when it is humans doing the squirting, it just seems cruel, and wrong.
After everything we experienced, we don’t think these facilities are any place for tigers, they are for human entertainment, and we will continue to fight for the freedom of all animals.
Sometimes we get so caught up in the excitement, awe, and enjoyment of beautiful wild animals, that we don’t really think about what they might want. We want to be around them, we want to caress them, we want to give them love, and experience their energy. If you truly love animals. Help them to be happy.
“The assumption that animals are without rights, and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance, is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.”
—- Arthur Schopenhauer, German Philosopher
http://www.angloitalianfollowus.com/the-terrible-truths-from-thailands-tiger-temples
You can see there are pictures in the link and comments.
Some say the article is a lie, the tigers are treated good.
We know that stories can be twisted and turned
and
They don't care
They'd do me for the money
They don't care
They use me for the money
So you go to church
Read the Holy word
In the scheme of life
It's all absurd
They don't care
They'd kill for the money
You can read the article in the link
This
What happened to the male tigers
The temple has an annual income of around 100m Thai Baht ($2.8m, £1.9m), according to the WFFT. The monks have also admitted to generating "some income" from tiger cub activities.
I´ve learned that if you pay for having a picture taken of you together with wild animals, or to pet them it`s no good for the animals.
When we first discovered that we could visit tiger “sanctuaries” in India and Thailand we were thrilled at the prospect of being able to spend some time with the beautiful beasts, petting their massive bodies, and experiencing the power they exude.
We decided to do more research on these “sanctuaries” before making the decision to visit one as we do with any place that claims to promote the well being and care of animals.
There was a 2 year investigation done by CWI (Care for the Wild International) that revealed disturbing animal abuse and tiger trafficking at the tiger temple in Kanchanaburi, one of Thailand’s premiere tourist destinations. We didn’t want to just take their word for it, so we decided to do our own investigating.
We decided to visit the Tiger Temple in Kanchanaburi. In our experience the tigers seemed to be sedated. There is an area where you can pay extra to get an up close and personal photo with a tiger.
We witnessed an employee take a tourist by the wrist over to a tiger, and then proceed to scruff the tiger and splash a whole bottle of water in his/her face to wake them up. They were chained so close to the ground that they couldn’t properly stand up. In another area employees were dangling raw meat above the tigers to tease them.
These tiger temples/kingdoms have been said to even go so far as to remove the tigers claws and teeth, even the tendons in their wrists are clipped so they can’t swat or run with a lot of speed to ensure that tourists are not harmed when visiting.
These “sanctuaries” claim that they promote conservation and breeding of tigers, and aim to return them to the wild, yet most animals born in captivity would never be able to survive or fend for themselves if set free, so there is no conservation value.
There is even speculation that some of the tigers bred are sold to be used in canned hunts.
The tigers are far from being able to roam free, they are chained and confined to a small cage for several hours a day. Adult tigers suffer from several behavioral and physical problems, including pacing back and forth and self mutilation. This may be due to not having their natural needs met, as well as suffering from abuse.
When visitors choose to take photos with the tigers for an extra fee, staff prop the tigers up on heavy concrete bowls and force them to keep a captivating pose. Tourists are then able to pet, sit, or lie on the tigers until they get that perfect shot.
Tigers are also kicked, punched, and pulled into position by their tail which we witnessed. They are also controlled by having urine squirted in their face at close proximity. In the wild tigers use urine as an aggressive or territorial signal. In a tiger temple when it is humans doing the squirting, it just seems cruel, and wrong.
After everything we experienced, we don’t think these facilities are any place for tigers, they are for human entertainment, and we will continue to fight for the freedom of all animals.
Sometimes we get so caught up in the excitement, awe, and enjoyment of beautiful wild animals, that we don’t really think about what they might want. We want to be around them, we want to caress them, we want to give them love, and experience their energy. If you truly love animals. Help them to be happy.
“The assumption that animals are without rights, and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance, is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.”
—- Arthur Schopenhauer, German Philosopher
http://www.angloitalianfollowus.com/the-terrible-truths-from-thailands-tiger-temples
You can see there are pictures in the link and comments.
Some say the article is a lie, the tigers are treated good.
We know that stories can be twisted and turned
and
They don't care
They'd do me for the money
They don't care
They use me for the money
So you go to church
Read the Holy word
In the scheme of life
It's all absurd
They don't care
They'd kill for the money
You can read the article in the link
This
Pet tigers who killed..they were not on drugs anymore..
What happened to the male tigers
The temple has an annual income of around 100m Thai Baht ($2.8m, £1.9m), according to the WFFT. The monks have also admitted to generating "some income" from tiger cub activities.
I´ve learned that if you pay for having a picture taken of you together with wild animals, or to pet them it`s no good for the animals.
blue eyes
Proud Member
Re: to catlovers
MIST
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,323
- Points
- 83
Just One Day Equals Empty Cages
Every year, across the United States, many shelters join the Just One Day movement, in which they pledge not to kill any adoptable or savable pets “just for one day.” These shelters promote adoption over euthanization on June 11 in an attempt to create a no-kill nation. In the years that Just One Day has been around, it has also spread to Canada and Australia.
The events held annually for Just One Day result in many shelters emptying their facilities of adoptable pets. It’s an exciting and inspiring day — one that proves, with just a bit of effort and changing focus, a no-kill nation can become a reality, not just a dream that may happen “someday.”
Are any of the shelters in your area holding events tomorrow? You can look at the interactive map here to see who is participating. You can also see the names of the shelters on the sidebar of the Pledge page on the Just One Day website.
If you have a shelter in your area that’s participating, visit them on June 11 and let them know you support what they are doing. If you know of anyone looking to adopt a new feline or canine family member, send them over!
If none of the shelters in your community is taking part in Just One Day, maybe you should get involved, and help them become part of the solution! Just One Day started off as the idea of one person and grew from there. It may seem like a lot of work, changing the way the shelter system works in so many cities, but when you think about it in terms of individuals doing it one day at a time, then it’s not so daunting.
Someday there will be homes for every pet that needs one. I know it
http://www.sparklecat.com/special/just-one-day-equals-empty-cages.
Just one day map
http://www.justoneday.ws/#!maps/nk6sk
Adoption is one step in the no kill equation, there are 10 more steps;
Feral Cat TNR Program
High-Volume, Low-Cost Spay/Neuter
Rescue Groups
Foster Care
Pet Retention
Medical and Behavior Programs
Public Relations/Community Involvement
Volunteers
Proactive Redemptions
A Compassionate Director
No kill can be done every day, for some shelters it´s a reality.
Every year, across the United States, many shelters join the Just One Day movement, in which they pledge not to kill any adoptable or savable pets “just for one day.” These shelters promote adoption over euthanization on June 11 in an attempt to create a no-kill nation. In the years that Just One Day has been around, it has also spread to Canada and Australia.
The events held annually for Just One Day result in many shelters emptying their facilities of adoptable pets. It’s an exciting and inspiring day — one that proves, with just a bit of effort and changing focus, a no-kill nation can become a reality, not just a dream that may happen “someday.”
Are any of the shelters in your area holding events tomorrow? You can look at the interactive map here to see who is participating. You can also see the names of the shelters on the sidebar of the Pledge page on the Just One Day website.
If you have a shelter in your area that’s participating, visit them on June 11 and let them know you support what they are doing. If you know of anyone looking to adopt a new feline or canine family member, send them over!
If none of the shelters in your community is taking part in Just One Day, maybe you should get involved, and help them become part of the solution! Just One Day started off as the idea of one person and grew from there. It may seem like a lot of work, changing the way the shelter system works in so many cities, but when you think about it in terms of individuals doing it one day at a time, then it’s not so daunting.
Someday there will be homes for every pet that needs one. I know it
http://www.sparklecat.com/special/just-one-day-equals-empty-cages.
Just one day map
http://www.justoneday.ws/#!maps/nk6sk
Adoption is one step in the no kill equation, there are 10 more steps;
Feral Cat TNR Program
High-Volume, Low-Cost Spay/Neuter
Rescue Groups
Foster Care
Pet Retention
Medical and Behavior Programs
Public Relations/Community Involvement
Volunteers
Proactive Redemptions
A Compassionate Director
No kill can be done every day, for some shelters it´s a reality.
MIST
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,323
- Points
- 83
Good Homes Need Not Apply
I’ve devoted the last [20] years of my life to reforming animal shelters in the United States (far longer doing rescue). I’ve worked at two shelters that have the highest rates of lifesaving in the nation: one as its Director of Operations and the other as the Executive Director. I’ve also worked and consulted with dozens of shelters nationwide. Currently, I run the national No Kill Advocacy Center, which is dedicated to ending the systematic killing of animals in shelters.
In my work to reform antiquated shelter practices, I often face traditional sheltering dogma that is a roadblock to lifesaving innovation. Too many shelters operate under false assumptions that cause animals to be killed. If shelter directors reevaluated, rather than hid behind conventional wisdom, they would more be more successful at saving lives.
One of the most enduring of these traditional dogmas is that animal shelters must kill because the public cannot be trusted with animals. I faced this attitude when I arrived as the new executive director of the Tompkins County SPCA in upstate New York. Other than prohibiting killing, I had planned to quietly observe the agency for the first couple of days on the job: I wanted a sense of how the agency was run. An elderly gentleman and his wife came in as I was standing behind the counter observing our adoption process. After looking at the animals for some time, they came to the front counter to adopt a cat. The man told the adoption counselor how he adopted a cat from us 15 years ago. “She died one year ago today,” he said. As much as they missed having a cat, he explained, he and his wife waited one year to get a new cat because they wanted to mourn her appropriately. As he told the story, he began to cry and walked away. His wife explained that her husband loved their cat very much, but they were indeed ready to love another one. Because they found a great cat here 15 years ago, they came back to us.
They filled out the application: Do they consider the adoption a lifetime commitment? Yes. Do they have a veterinarian? Yes. What happened to their other cat? Died of cancer. “In my arms,” the old man said. But one thing caught the adoption counselor’s eye. When they came to the question asking about where the cat would live, they had checked the box: “Mostly indoors, some outdoors.”
“Sorry,” the adoption counselor said. “We have a strict indoor-only rule.” She denied the adoption. They were stunned. I was stunned.
What happened to “15 years,” “in my arms,” “wanted to mourn her appropriately,” “lifetime commitment”? I overruled the counselor and gave them the cat. No fees, no more paperwork: “Let’s go get your kitty,” I said. I put her in their carrier and told them we’d see them in another 15 years. They thanked me and left.
I looked at the adoption counselor and told her: “We’ve got to take a more thoughtful approach to adoptions.”
She stared at me blankly.
“Ok,” I said, “Let me put it this way. Outdoor cats may face risks, but it largely depends on circumstances. We need to use common sense. This isn’t downtown Manhattan. This is a rural community. I only saw one car on my way to work this morning. In fact, given how safe it is, people should be required to let the cat go outside.” I smiled.
Nothing.
So I continued: “Outdoor cats may face risks, but so do indoor cats. They are just different ones and we don’t always see the causal connections, such as obesity and boredom. Fat and bored cats are at risk for diabetes, heart problems, and even behavior problems.” Still nothing. My then shelter manager stepped in and said that they were following the policies of the Humane Society of the United States. And HSUS says that people—and therefore shelter adoption policies—must keep cats indoors.
Over forty years ago, the late Phyllis Wright of HSUS, the matriarch of today’s killing paradigm, wrote in HSUS News,
I’ve put 70,000 dogs and cats to sleep… But I tell you one thing: I don’t worry about one of those animals that were put to sleep… Being dead is not cruelty to animals.
She then described how she does worry about the animals she found homes for. From that disturbing view, HSUS coined a maxim that says we should worry about saving lives but not about ending them and successfully propagated this viewpoint to shelters across the country. For many agencies, the HSUS standard is the gold standard. It is not uncommon for shelters to state they are “run in line with HSUS policies.” Consequently, it’s very easy to surrender an animal to a shelter and very hard to adopt one because of a distrust of the public. And after turning away adopters, these shelters often turn around and kill the same animals.
In reality, most people care deeply about animals and can be trusted with them. Evidence of this love of animals is all around us: we spend $48 billion a year on our companions, dog parks are filled with people, veterinary medicine is thriving, and books and movies about animals are all blockbusters because the stories touch people very deeply. Nonetheless, HSUS blames the public and because it has significant influence over shelter policies, promotes this view through shelter assessments, national conferences, and local advocacy. Consequently, it has failed to educate shelters to take more responsibility for the animals entrusted to their care. As a result, HSUS has impeded innovation and modernization in shelters. The result: unregulated, regressive shelters slavishly following the protocols of HSUS based on an idea that no one can be trusted. The employee at Tompkins County’s SPCA embodied this attitude. Such people are not really worried about the remote possibility that the adopted cat would one day get hit by a car and killed; they kill cats every day—obviously, killing is not the concern. Instead, staff at the Tompkins County SPCA at that time—like many shelters—can simply say they are operating “by the book,” even though that meant unnecessarily killing animals every year in the process. In other words, I came face to face with mindless bureaucracy.
how it made s
I challenged the Tompkins County SPCA shelter manager on this score, asking her ense to kill cats today in order to save them from possibly being killed at some time in the future. “HSUS says,” she responded, “that in order to increase the number of adoptions, we have to reduce the quality of homes”—we must, as a staff member of HSUS once later quipped, basically “adopt Pit Bulls to dog fighters.” And that, she stated, is something we should not do.
Tragically, this is a commonly held misperception in the culture of animal sheltering, but the facts prove otherwise. Increasing adoptions means offsite adoption events, public access hours, marketing and greater visibility in the community, working with rescue groups, competing with pet stores and puppy mills, adoption incentives, a good public image, and thoughtful but not bureaucratic screening. It has nothing to do with lowering quality. It has absolutely nothing to do with putting animals in harm’s way. Indeed, shelter killing is the leading cause of death for healthy dogs and cats in the United States. Adoptions take animals out of harm’s way.
Moreover, successful high-volume adoption shelters have proved that the idea that one must reduce quality of homes in order to increase quantity is merely the anachronism of old-guard, “catch and kill” shelters that must justify high kill rates and low adoptions. Quality and quantity are not, and have never been, mutually exclusive. As one progressive shelter noted:
The best adoption programs are designed to ensure that each animal is placed with a responsible person, one prepared to make a lifelong commitment, and to avoid the kinds of problems that may have caused the animal to be brought to the shelter.
I agree. I have long been a proponent of adoption screening because I, too, want animals to get good homes. But truth be told, in shelters where animals are being killed by the thousands, I’d rather they do “open adoptions” (little to no screening) because I trust the general public far more than those who run many animal control shelters—those who have become complacent about killing and willfully refuse to implement common-sense lifesaving alternatives. In fact, I recently assessed a municipal shelter with poor care and a high kill rate in one of the largest cities in the country. They practice open adoptions and volunteers have long clamored for adoption screening. My recommendation was as follows:
This is an area where volunteers have repeatedly suggested some form of screening to make sure animals are not just going into homes, but “good” homes. This suggestion has some appeal. And while it should ultimately be the agency’s goal, in the immediate cost-benefit analysis, I think it would be a mistake to do so at this time. While the shelter should ensure potential adopters do not have a history of cruelty, the shelter is not capable of thoughtful adoption screening and the end result will mean the needless loss of animal life.
At this point in the shelter’s history, the goal must be to get animals out of the shelter where they are continually under the threat of a death sentence. And given the problems with procedure implementation at the shelter, the process will become arbitrary depending on who is in charge of adoptions. There is simply too much at stake for the staff I observed to hold even more power over life and death.
In addition, several high-volume, high-kill shelters have realized that denying people for criteria other than cruelty, would lead them to get animals (likely unsterilized and unvaccinated) from other sources, with no information or guidance on proper care, which the shelter can still provide.
When the shelter has high quality staff, is consistent in applying sound policies and procedures, and has achieved a higher save rate—when shelter animals do not face certain death—it can revisit the issue of a more thoughtful screening to provide homes more suitable for particular shelter animals.
Unfortunately, too many shelters go too far with fixed, arbitrary rules—dictated by national organizations—that turn away good homes under the theory that people aren’t trustworthy, that few people are good enough, and that animals are better off dead. Unfortunately, rescue groups all-too-often share this mindset. But the motivations of rescue groups differ from those of the bureaucrat I ended up firing in Tompkins County. People who do rescue love animals, but they have been schooled by HSUS to be unreasonably—indeed, absurdly—suspicious of the public. Consequently, they make it difficult, if not downright impossible, to adopt their rescued animals.
I recently read the newsletter from a local cat rescue group. There was a story about two cats, Ruby and Alex, in their “happy endings” section. Under the title, “Good things come to those who wait,” the story explained that Ruby and Alex were in foster care for 7½ years before they found the “right” home. I wondered what was wrong with the cats. If it took seven years to find them a home, surely they must have had some serious impediments to adoption. But I couldn’t find anything in the story. Under another section in the newsletter listing the cats in their care that still needed to find “loving homes,” I found the answer.
The first one I looked at was Billy. Billy was a kitten when he was rescued in 2001. He is still in a “foster” home. Does it really take 8 years to find the “right” home? Surely, I thought again, something is wrong with this cat. But Billy is described as “easy going, playful, bouncy.” It goes on to say that “Billy loves attention and loves to be with his person. Mild-mannered and gentle with new people, he’s also a drop-and-roll kitty who will throw himself at your feet to be petted.” They also note that he likes dogs. In other words, Billy is perfect.
Clearly, the pertinent question wasn’t: “What’s wrong with the cats?” The real question was: “What’s wrong with these people?” Not surprisingly, the rescue group does not believe families with young children should adopt. They claim that if you have children who are under six years old, you should wait a few years. In reality, this rule is very common in animal sheltering. But it is a mistake nonetheless. Families with children are generally more stable, so they are a highly desirable adoption demographic. They also provide animals with plenty of stimulation, which the animals crave. Children and pets are a match made in heaven.
So if families with children shouldn’t adopt, who does that leave? Unfortunately, this group also states that kittens ‘require constant supervision like human babies do.’ My family frequently fosters kittens for our local shelter. When fostering, we live our lives like we always do: we visit friends, take walks, dine out. We often leave home for hours at a time. Obviously, I would have never done that with my kids when they were babies. That isn’t a statement on loving children more than animals. A kitten can sleep, eat, drink, use the litter box, play with a toy, and more at only six weeks of age. A human baby would starve to death surrounded by food if left alone at that age. Kittens are not “like human babies.” They are more advanced, skilled, smarter, and cleaner. But that’s not the point. The point is that the “constant supervision” rule eliminates potential adopters who go to work, too, but would otherwise provide excellent, loving, nurturing homes. That leaves the two minority extremes: unemployed people and millionaires—although my guess is the former would be ruled out, too.
Having eliminated the two most important adopter demographics (working people and families with children), is it any wonder that Billy—an easy going, playful, cuddly, gentle, drop-and-roll kitty—has been in foster care for eight years?
A Pennsylvania rescue group, operating in a community where animal control kills most animals entering that facility, should be working feverishly to adopt out as many animals as possible so they can open up space to pull more animals from the shelter. Instead, they put up ridiculous roadblocks stating that “Cohabitating couples who have not married need not apply to adopt our pets.” Apparently, people have tried because they follow up by noting on their website that you should not waste your time trying because “there are no exceptions.” This eliminates many committed couples and, for those who live in states without marriage equality, most gay people.
And a rescue group from Louisiana, a state with some of the highest killing rates in the nation, pummels you with 47 reasons not to adopt an animal on their application, including the warnings that animals will “damage your belongings, soil your furniture and/or flooring, scratch furniture, chew and tear up items, knock down breakable heirlooms, and/or dig up your yard.”
When I visited the humane society in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania a number of years ago, I was presented with a list of breeds considered not appropriate for homes with children under ten years old: Chihuahuas, Collies, Toy Breeds, and all small terriers.
Several years ago, this mentality really hit home—literally, my home. We decided to add another dog to our family. Having worked at two of the most successful shelters in the country, having performed rescue my whole adult life, having consulted with some of the largest and best known animal protection groups in the country, owning my own home, working from home, and allowing our dogs the run of the house, I thought adoption would be easy.
Adopting from our local shelter was not possible because we wanted a bigger dog which was against their rules because we had young children. Instead, we searched the online websites, and found a seven-year-old black Labrador Retriever with a rescue group about an hour south of us. I called about the dog and asked if we could meet him. They wanted to know if we had a “doggy door” leading to the backyard. We did not, but I told them happily—and naively—that I work from home and that we homeschool the kids, so the dog will be with us all the time. One of us will just let him out when he wants to go like we do for the resident dogs and then he can come back in. We have a fenced backyard. I housetrained every dog we ever had. No problem, I told them.
But that was not good enough. Apparently, the dog should be able to go in and out whenever he wants without having to ask. No doggy door, no adoption. “But,” I started to stammer: seven years old, larger black dog, sleep on the bed, with us all the time, fenced yard…. DENIED.
We then found another dog, a Lab-cross, with a different rescue group. About five years old, “a couch potato” according to the website. Perfect, I thought. I haven’t exercised since I was 18! I’ll take the dog for a walk around the block twice a day, but mostly will hang out, 24/7!
“We’d like to meet him,” I said when I called.
“There’s a $25 charge to be considered above and beyond the adoption fee,” they replied.
“No problem. If he likes our dogs, we’ll pay whatever it costs.”
“No,” I was told. “You have to pay the non-refundable fee before you can meet any dog and before we review your application.”
“What are your rules for adoption?” I said, not wanting to sink $25 if I was going to be denied because of the age of my kids, because I have brown eyes, or because I am balding.
“We can’t discuss that until after you pay the $25.”
Exasperated, I hung up.
We finally found a dog—a seven year old, lab-mix with a rescue group two hours from us by car. The fee was $250 to adopt, a pricey sum, but we were approved over the telephone because she was familiar with my work.
I could have given up. Lots of people do. When I tell people what I do for a living, that my work takes me all over the country trying to reform antiquated shelter practices, people constantly tell me how they tried to adopt from a shelter or rescue group, but were denied for entirely illogical reasons. One woman told me of her own failed attempt to adopt a dog and save a life. She owned an art gallery and wanted a dog who would come to work with her every day, just like her previous one who had recently died. The new dog would also have the run of both the house and office. She went to several shelters to adopt, but all of them denied her: she had really young kids and she wanted a large dog, and that was against the rules. She ended up at a breeder because she really wanted a dog, she said sheepishly, thinking I would judge her as having failed. “But I tried…” she trailed off. “The shelters failed you,” I replied.
Recently, HSUS launched a campaign to help shelters “educate the public” about adoption policies by creating a poster for shelters to hang in their lobbies. The poster features a chair beneath a light in a cement room. The tagline reads: “What’s with all the questions?” and it tells you not to take it personally. Rather than ask shelters to reexamine their own assumptions, HSUS produces a poster of what looks like an interrogation room at Abu Ghraib, instructing potential adopters to simply put up with it. In the process, adopters are turned away. Cats like Billy wait years for a home. And animals are needlessly killed: three million adoptable ones, while shelters peddle the fiction that there aren’t enough homes.
In fact, there are plenty of homes. The experience of successful No Kill communities proves it; No Kill communities now thrive across the United States. The data also proves it. Approximately three million dogs and cats that need a home are killed every year. Simultaneously, [of the 23 million people] looking to get a new dog or cat, [17 million] can be persuaded to adopt from a shelter. And, the number of people shelters turn away because of some arbitrary and bureaucratic process proves it. Like this experience shared with me a few years ago:
I tried to adopt from my local shelter… I found this scared, skinny cat hiding in the back of his cage and I filled out an application. I was turned down because I didn’t turn in the paperwork on time, which meant a half hour before closing, but I couldn’t get there from work in time to do that. I tried to leave work early the next day, but I called and found out they had already killed the poor cat. I will never go back.
Shelter animals already face formidable obstacles to getting out alive: customer service is often poor, a shelter’s location may be remote, adoption hours may be limited, policies may limit the number of days they are held, they can get sick in a shelter, and shelter directors often reject common-sense alternatives to killing. One-third to one-half of all dogs and roughly 60 percent of cats are killed because of these obstacles. Since the animals already face enormous problems, including the constant threat of execution, shelters and rescue groups shouldn’t add arbitrary roadblocks. When kind hearted people come to help, shelter bureaucrats shouldn’t start out with a presumption that they can’t be trusted.
In fact, most of the evidence suggests that the public can be trusted. While roughly eight million dogs and cats enter shelters every year, that is a small fraction compared to the 165 million thriving in people’s homes. Of those entering shelters, only four percent are seized because of cruelty and neglect. Some people surrender their animals because they are irresponsible, but others do so because they have nowhere else to turn—a person dies, they lose their job, their home is foreclosed. In theory, that is why shelters exist—to be a safety net for animals whose caretakers no longer can or want to care for them.
When people decide to adopt from a shelter—despite having more convenient options such as buying from a pet store or responding to a newspaper ad—they should be rewarded. We are a nation of animal lovers, and we should be treated with gratitude, not suspicion. More importantly, the animals facing death deserve the second chance that many well intentioned Americans are eager to give them, but in too many cases, are senselessly prevented from doing so.
I’ve devoted the last [20] years of my life to reforming animal shelters in the United States (far longer doing rescue). I’ve worked at two shelters that have the highest rates of lifesaving in the nation: one as its Director of Operations and the other as the Executive Director. I’ve also worked and consulted with dozens of shelters nationwide. Currently, I run the national No Kill Advocacy Center, which is dedicated to ending the systematic killing of animals in shelters.
In my work to reform antiquated shelter practices, I often face traditional sheltering dogma that is a roadblock to lifesaving innovation. Too many shelters operate under false assumptions that cause animals to be killed. If shelter directors reevaluated, rather than hid behind conventional wisdom, they would more be more successful at saving lives.
One of the most enduring of these traditional dogmas is that animal shelters must kill because the public cannot be trusted with animals. I faced this attitude when I arrived as the new executive director of the Tompkins County SPCA in upstate New York. Other than prohibiting killing, I had planned to quietly observe the agency for the first couple of days on the job: I wanted a sense of how the agency was run. An elderly gentleman and his wife came in as I was standing behind the counter observing our adoption process. After looking at the animals for some time, they came to the front counter to adopt a cat. The man told the adoption counselor how he adopted a cat from us 15 years ago. “She died one year ago today,” he said. As much as they missed having a cat, he explained, he and his wife waited one year to get a new cat because they wanted to mourn her appropriately. As he told the story, he began to cry and walked away. His wife explained that her husband loved their cat very much, but they were indeed ready to love another one. Because they found a great cat here 15 years ago, they came back to us.
They filled out the application: Do they consider the adoption a lifetime commitment? Yes. Do they have a veterinarian? Yes. What happened to their other cat? Died of cancer. “In my arms,” the old man said. But one thing caught the adoption counselor’s eye. When they came to the question asking about where the cat would live, they had checked the box: “Mostly indoors, some outdoors.”
“Sorry,” the adoption counselor said. “We have a strict indoor-only rule.” She denied the adoption. They were stunned. I was stunned.
What happened to “15 years,” “in my arms,” “wanted to mourn her appropriately,” “lifetime commitment”? I overruled the counselor and gave them the cat. No fees, no more paperwork: “Let’s go get your kitty,” I said. I put her in their carrier and told them we’d see them in another 15 years. They thanked me and left.
I looked at the adoption counselor and told her: “We’ve got to take a more thoughtful approach to adoptions.”
She stared at me blankly.
“Ok,” I said, “Let me put it this way. Outdoor cats may face risks, but it largely depends on circumstances. We need to use common sense. This isn’t downtown Manhattan. This is a rural community. I only saw one car on my way to work this morning. In fact, given how safe it is, people should be required to let the cat go outside.” I smiled.
Nothing.
So I continued: “Outdoor cats may face risks, but so do indoor cats. They are just different ones and we don’t always see the causal connections, such as obesity and boredom. Fat and bored cats are at risk for diabetes, heart problems, and even behavior problems.” Still nothing. My then shelter manager stepped in and said that they were following the policies of the Humane Society of the United States. And HSUS says that people—and therefore shelter adoption policies—must keep cats indoors.
Over forty years ago, the late Phyllis Wright of HSUS, the matriarch of today’s killing paradigm, wrote in HSUS News,
I’ve put 70,000 dogs and cats to sleep… But I tell you one thing: I don’t worry about one of those animals that were put to sleep… Being dead is not cruelty to animals.
She then described how she does worry about the animals she found homes for. From that disturbing view, HSUS coined a maxim that says we should worry about saving lives but not about ending them and successfully propagated this viewpoint to shelters across the country. For many agencies, the HSUS standard is the gold standard. It is not uncommon for shelters to state they are “run in line with HSUS policies.” Consequently, it’s very easy to surrender an animal to a shelter and very hard to adopt one because of a distrust of the public. And after turning away adopters, these shelters often turn around and kill the same animals.
In reality, most people care deeply about animals and can be trusted with them. Evidence of this love of animals is all around us: we spend $48 billion a year on our companions, dog parks are filled with people, veterinary medicine is thriving, and books and movies about animals are all blockbusters because the stories touch people very deeply. Nonetheless, HSUS blames the public and because it has significant influence over shelter policies, promotes this view through shelter assessments, national conferences, and local advocacy. Consequently, it has failed to educate shelters to take more responsibility for the animals entrusted to their care. As a result, HSUS has impeded innovation and modernization in shelters. The result: unregulated, regressive shelters slavishly following the protocols of HSUS based on an idea that no one can be trusted. The employee at Tompkins County’s SPCA embodied this attitude. Such people are not really worried about the remote possibility that the adopted cat would one day get hit by a car and killed; they kill cats every day—obviously, killing is not the concern. Instead, staff at the Tompkins County SPCA at that time—like many shelters—can simply say they are operating “by the book,” even though that meant unnecessarily killing animals every year in the process. In other words, I came face to face with mindless bureaucracy.
how it made s
I challenged the Tompkins County SPCA shelter manager on this score, asking her ense to kill cats today in order to save them from possibly being killed at some time in the future. “HSUS says,” she responded, “that in order to increase the number of adoptions, we have to reduce the quality of homes”—we must, as a staff member of HSUS once later quipped, basically “adopt Pit Bulls to dog fighters.” And that, she stated, is something we should not do.
Tragically, this is a commonly held misperception in the culture of animal sheltering, but the facts prove otherwise. Increasing adoptions means offsite adoption events, public access hours, marketing and greater visibility in the community, working with rescue groups, competing with pet stores and puppy mills, adoption incentives, a good public image, and thoughtful but not bureaucratic screening. It has nothing to do with lowering quality. It has absolutely nothing to do with putting animals in harm’s way. Indeed, shelter killing is the leading cause of death for healthy dogs and cats in the United States. Adoptions take animals out of harm’s way.
Moreover, successful high-volume adoption shelters have proved that the idea that one must reduce quality of homes in order to increase quantity is merely the anachronism of old-guard, “catch and kill” shelters that must justify high kill rates and low adoptions. Quality and quantity are not, and have never been, mutually exclusive. As one progressive shelter noted:
The best adoption programs are designed to ensure that each animal is placed with a responsible person, one prepared to make a lifelong commitment, and to avoid the kinds of problems that may have caused the animal to be brought to the shelter.
I agree. I have long been a proponent of adoption screening because I, too, want animals to get good homes. But truth be told, in shelters where animals are being killed by the thousands, I’d rather they do “open adoptions” (little to no screening) because I trust the general public far more than those who run many animal control shelters—those who have become complacent about killing and willfully refuse to implement common-sense lifesaving alternatives. In fact, I recently assessed a municipal shelter with poor care and a high kill rate in one of the largest cities in the country. They practice open adoptions and volunteers have long clamored for adoption screening. My recommendation was as follows:
This is an area where volunteers have repeatedly suggested some form of screening to make sure animals are not just going into homes, but “good” homes. This suggestion has some appeal. And while it should ultimately be the agency’s goal, in the immediate cost-benefit analysis, I think it would be a mistake to do so at this time. While the shelter should ensure potential adopters do not have a history of cruelty, the shelter is not capable of thoughtful adoption screening and the end result will mean the needless loss of animal life.
At this point in the shelter’s history, the goal must be to get animals out of the shelter where they are continually under the threat of a death sentence. And given the problems with procedure implementation at the shelter, the process will become arbitrary depending on who is in charge of adoptions. There is simply too much at stake for the staff I observed to hold even more power over life and death.
In addition, several high-volume, high-kill shelters have realized that denying people for criteria other than cruelty, would lead them to get animals (likely unsterilized and unvaccinated) from other sources, with no information or guidance on proper care, which the shelter can still provide.
When the shelter has high quality staff, is consistent in applying sound policies and procedures, and has achieved a higher save rate—when shelter animals do not face certain death—it can revisit the issue of a more thoughtful screening to provide homes more suitable for particular shelter animals.
Unfortunately, too many shelters go too far with fixed, arbitrary rules—dictated by national organizations—that turn away good homes under the theory that people aren’t trustworthy, that few people are good enough, and that animals are better off dead. Unfortunately, rescue groups all-too-often share this mindset. But the motivations of rescue groups differ from those of the bureaucrat I ended up firing in Tompkins County. People who do rescue love animals, but they have been schooled by HSUS to be unreasonably—indeed, absurdly—suspicious of the public. Consequently, they make it difficult, if not downright impossible, to adopt their rescued animals.
I recently read the newsletter from a local cat rescue group. There was a story about two cats, Ruby and Alex, in their “happy endings” section. Under the title, “Good things come to those who wait,” the story explained that Ruby and Alex were in foster care for 7½ years before they found the “right” home. I wondered what was wrong with the cats. If it took seven years to find them a home, surely they must have had some serious impediments to adoption. But I couldn’t find anything in the story. Under another section in the newsletter listing the cats in their care that still needed to find “loving homes,” I found the answer.
The first one I looked at was Billy. Billy was a kitten when he was rescued in 2001. He is still in a “foster” home. Does it really take 8 years to find the “right” home? Surely, I thought again, something is wrong with this cat. But Billy is described as “easy going, playful, bouncy.” It goes on to say that “Billy loves attention and loves to be with his person. Mild-mannered and gentle with new people, he’s also a drop-and-roll kitty who will throw himself at your feet to be petted.” They also note that he likes dogs. In other words, Billy is perfect.
Clearly, the pertinent question wasn’t: “What’s wrong with the cats?” The real question was: “What’s wrong with these people?” Not surprisingly, the rescue group does not believe families with young children should adopt. They claim that if you have children who are under six years old, you should wait a few years. In reality, this rule is very common in animal sheltering. But it is a mistake nonetheless. Families with children are generally more stable, so they are a highly desirable adoption demographic. They also provide animals with plenty of stimulation, which the animals crave. Children and pets are a match made in heaven.
So if families with children shouldn’t adopt, who does that leave? Unfortunately, this group also states that kittens ‘require constant supervision like human babies do.’ My family frequently fosters kittens for our local shelter. When fostering, we live our lives like we always do: we visit friends, take walks, dine out. We often leave home for hours at a time. Obviously, I would have never done that with my kids when they were babies. That isn’t a statement on loving children more than animals. A kitten can sleep, eat, drink, use the litter box, play with a toy, and more at only six weeks of age. A human baby would starve to death surrounded by food if left alone at that age. Kittens are not “like human babies.” They are more advanced, skilled, smarter, and cleaner. But that’s not the point. The point is that the “constant supervision” rule eliminates potential adopters who go to work, too, but would otherwise provide excellent, loving, nurturing homes. That leaves the two minority extremes: unemployed people and millionaires—although my guess is the former would be ruled out, too.
Having eliminated the two most important adopter demographics (working people and families with children), is it any wonder that Billy—an easy going, playful, cuddly, gentle, drop-and-roll kitty—has been in foster care for eight years?
A Pennsylvania rescue group, operating in a community where animal control kills most animals entering that facility, should be working feverishly to adopt out as many animals as possible so they can open up space to pull more animals from the shelter. Instead, they put up ridiculous roadblocks stating that “Cohabitating couples who have not married need not apply to adopt our pets.” Apparently, people have tried because they follow up by noting on their website that you should not waste your time trying because “there are no exceptions.” This eliminates many committed couples and, for those who live in states without marriage equality, most gay people.
And a rescue group from Louisiana, a state with some of the highest killing rates in the nation, pummels you with 47 reasons not to adopt an animal on their application, including the warnings that animals will “damage your belongings, soil your furniture and/or flooring, scratch furniture, chew and tear up items, knock down breakable heirlooms, and/or dig up your yard.”
When I visited the humane society in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania a number of years ago, I was presented with a list of breeds considered not appropriate for homes with children under ten years old: Chihuahuas, Collies, Toy Breeds, and all small terriers.
Several years ago, this mentality really hit home—literally, my home. We decided to add another dog to our family. Having worked at two of the most successful shelters in the country, having performed rescue my whole adult life, having consulted with some of the largest and best known animal protection groups in the country, owning my own home, working from home, and allowing our dogs the run of the house, I thought adoption would be easy.
Adopting from our local shelter was not possible because we wanted a bigger dog which was against their rules because we had young children. Instead, we searched the online websites, and found a seven-year-old black Labrador Retriever with a rescue group about an hour south of us. I called about the dog and asked if we could meet him. They wanted to know if we had a “doggy door” leading to the backyard. We did not, but I told them happily—and naively—that I work from home and that we homeschool the kids, so the dog will be with us all the time. One of us will just let him out when he wants to go like we do for the resident dogs and then he can come back in. We have a fenced backyard. I housetrained every dog we ever had. No problem, I told them.
But that was not good enough. Apparently, the dog should be able to go in and out whenever he wants without having to ask. No doggy door, no adoption. “But,” I started to stammer: seven years old, larger black dog, sleep on the bed, with us all the time, fenced yard…. DENIED.
We then found another dog, a Lab-cross, with a different rescue group. About five years old, “a couch potato” according to the website. Perfect, I thought. I haven’t exercised since I was 18! I’ll take the dog for a walk around the block twice a day, but mostly will hang out, 24/7!
“We’d like to meet him,” I said when I called.
“There’s a $25 charge to be considered above and beyond the adoption fee,” they replied.
“No problem. If he likes our dogs, we’ll pay whatever it costs.”
“No,” I was told. “You have to pay the non-refundable fee before you can meet any dog and before we review your application.”
“What are your rules for adoption?” I said, not wanting to sink $25 if I was going to be denied because of the age of my kids, because I have brown eyes, or because I am balding.
“We can’t discuss that until after you pay the $25.”
Exasperated, I hung up.
We finally found a dog—a seven year old, lab-mix with a rescue group two hours from us by car. The fee was $250 to adopt, a pricey sum, but we were approved over the telephone because she was familiar with my work.
I could have given up. Lots of people do. When I tell people what I do for a living, that my work takes me all over the country trying to reform antiquated shelter practices, people constantly tell me how they tried to adopt from a shelter or rescue group, but were denied for entirely illogical reasons. One woman told me of her own failed attempt to adopt a dog and save a life. She owned an art gallery and wanted a dog who would come to work with her every day, just like her previous one who had recently died. The new dog would also have the run of both the house and office. She went to several shelters to adopt, but all of them denied her: she had really young kids and she wanted a large dog, and that was against the rules. She ended up at a breeder because she really wanted a dog, she said sheepishly, thinking I would judge her as having failed. “But I tried…” she trailed off. “The shelters failed you,” I replied.
Recently, HSUS launched a campaign to help shelters “educate the public” about adoption policies by creating a poster for shelters to hang in their lobbies. The poster features a chair beneath a light in a cement room. The tagline reads: “What’s with all the questions?” and it tells you not to take it personally. Rather than ask shelters to reexamine their own assumptions, HSUS produces a poster of what looks like an interrogation room at Abu Ghraib, instructing potential adopters to simply put up with it. In the process, adopters are turned away. Cats like Billy wait years for a home. And animals are needlessly killed: three million adoptable ones, while shelters peddle the fiction that there aren’t enough homes.
In fact, there are plenty of homes. The experience of successful No Kill communities proves it; No Kill communities now thrive across the United States. The data also proves it. Approximately three million dogs and cats that need a home are killed every year. Simultaneously, [of the 23 million people] looking to get a new dog or cat, [17 million] can be persuaded to adopt from a shelter. And, the number of people shelters turn away because of some arbitrary and bureaucratic process proves it. Like this experience shared with me a few years ago:
I tried to adopt from my local shelter… I found this scared, skinny cat hiding in the back of his cage and I filled out an application. I was turned down because I didn’t turn in the paperwork on time, which meant a half hour before closing, but I couldn’t get there from work in time to do that. I tried to leave work early the next day, but I called and found out they had already killed the poor cat. I will never go back.
Shelter animals already face formidable obstacles to getting out alive: customer service is often poor, a shelter’s location may be remote, adoption hours may be limited, policies may limit the number of days they are held, they can get sick in a shelter, and shelter directors often reject common-sense alternatives to killing. One-third to one-half of all dogs and roughly 60 percent of cats are killed because of these obstacles. Since the animals already face enormous problems, including the constant threat of execution, shelters and rescue groups shouldn’t add arbitrary roadblocks. When kind hearted people come to help, shelter bureaucrats shouldn’t start out with a presumption that they can’t be trusted.
In fact, most of the evidence suggests that the public can be trusted. While roughly eight million dogs and cats enter shelters every year, that is a small fraction compared to the 165 million thriving in people’s homes. Of those entering shelters, only four percent are seized because of cruelty and neglect. Some people surrender their animals because they are irresponsible, but others do so because they have nowhere else to turn—a person dies, they lose their job, their home is foreclosed. In theory, that is why shelters exist—to be a safety net for animals whose caretakers no longer can or want to care for them.
When people decide to adopt from a shelter—despite having more convenient options such as buying from a pet store or responding to a newspaper ad—they should be rewarded. We are a nation of animal lovers, and we should be treated with gratitude, not suspicion. More importantly, the animals facing death deserve the second chance that many well intentioned Americans are eager to give them, but in too many cases, are senselessly prevented from doing so.