Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ponderingaresponse t1_iui7tq2 wrote

Reply to comment by IcyWillow1193 in Why are QAnoners trying to save Hardy Park…or am I missing something? by weirdfish1995

LOL, hardly. Those folks do a lot of damage, too.

Nope, I'm not employed by any of those folks. I do foster care for local shelters, and have placed over 200 animals over time. "Kill" vs. "No Kill" is language that was invented to divide animal welfare and for fundraising purposes. Really awful what it has done over the decades, and how many people are fooled into thinking "no kill" is a responsible position to take.

31

koalapsychologist t1_iuicxx1 wrote

Thank you! "No kill" can mean warehousing unadoptable dogs for years instead of giving them a good last day and a humane death. Warehousing is torture and cruelty. It can also mean knowingly adopting out dogs with massive behavioral issues that should not be adopted and then just praying that a tragedy doesn't strike. Responsible animal stewardship involves proper care from birth to death.

21

cheeeeesey t1_iui8e4y wrote

Thank you for vocalizing this opinion!! So important. The term and concept is destructive and actually leads to more suffering.

14

IcyWillow1193 t1_iuiolm1 wrote

How about we adequately fund shelters and population control, and also agree that euthanasia should never be an acceptable answer for inconvenient animals any more than it is for humans?

1

ponderingaresponse t1_iuioyqa wrote

Yup.

FWIW, I've been around animal sheltering for over 2 decades, in various parts of the country, and never seen an animal euthanized for inconvenience. Overwhelmed, emotionally numb staff, yes. Pointing fingers at them is lazy and ineffective.

5