Can we neuter our way out of killing?

Huey shared this: http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=9022

I think it’s really, really good food for thought.

The gist of it is that the author questions if neutering is THE best way to control overpopulation and he thinks it is NOT.

He thinks it should start with having no-kill shelters.

There must be no-kill shelters first, and then, there has to be neutering. The two must co-exist.

I must say I totally and absolutely agree.  And that is why, as hard as it is sometimes (in difficult cases), we remain a no-kill medical fund. We cannot subsidise euthanasia. We will subsidise and support palliative care given to terminal animals. It is not about the economics of costs where the money spent to help a terminal animal can be used to save other “save-able” animals. It is about every life being precious and being worthy of care…until the end. That has been our policy right from Day One and it will remain to be so.

An excerpt from the article:

It is a way for them to avoid accountability and pass the blame for the killing to others. According to these organizations, the people who do not spay/neuter their animals are responsible for pet overpopulation; and pet overpopulation is why shelters are killing animals. In placing blame for shelter killing on the public, HSUS, the ASPCA, and the American Humane Association once claimed that their task was “to educate the public to the fact that irresponsible companion animal owners are at fault rather than the agencies [actually doing the killing].” And so long as there are intakes at shelters, they argue, the killing done there is the fault of the public for failure to spay/neuter. In short, shelters are merely doing the public’s dirty work.

But as surely as pet overpopulation is a myth, the idea that the only way to a No Kill nation is through spay/neuter initiatives is also a myth. It will certainly make it easier to reach and sustain, and that is why we should continue to advocate for it, promote it, offer it, and remove the barriers to people having it done (cost and availability). But no community has spay/neutered their way out of killing. And none ever will. Even if a shelter only takes in 25 animals a year, rather than 25,000, and we should strive for that, those animals are saved through adoption. Spay/neuter offers no immediate lifesaving benefit for the animals already on death row. And while adopting out 25 animals is easier than 25,000, we can do both. In other words, we can adopt our way out of killing, even without a comprehensive spay/neuter initiative. We can do it today. And in more and more communities, that is exactly what we have done.

We have to push for no-kill, no matter what, because the moment we give in and say, “oh, it’s ok to kill, depending on the circumstances”, that’s when the problem starts.

Where do you draw the line that it is okay to kill? What are the boundaries? Who decides?

There are vets who think it is right to euthanise a pet just because the owners are moving to an apartment and the vet doesn’t want the owners to dump the animal on the street as that would increase the stray population (and this becomes a public health issue, which is often, some vets’ priorities).

And there are caregivers who think it is alright to euthanise a animal because the vet says there is no hope of recovery.

Or, those who cannot bear to suffer when they see an animal in poor health, so they get the animal euthanised so that they (the human) would be relieved of their own suffering. But of course, very often, they claim the animal is suffering, and not them.

Who is to say who is right, or who is wrong, or even, who is more right?

We’re not saying who is right or who is wrong.

We’re coming from the point of view that we have no right to kill any living being. That’s it. Period.

And if I may add, many people simply assume that those who refrain from killing do so because they are afraid of repercussions, ie. the concept of karma, “you reap what you sow”. I think that is a very unfair assumption and almost offensive. Not everyone refrains from doing wrong just because they are afraid of repercussions or punishment. By the same token, not everyone does good just to get rewards. There are those who do good because it is the RIGHT thing to do, and refrain from doing wrong because it is the wrong thing to do. Period.

But I digress, sorry….let’s back to the point now.

The author of this article says that if no-kill comes first, and that all shelters implement no-kill, then rehoming would become the focal point of shelters. Overcrowding problem? Cannot kill. Rehome!

He says in the TNR concept, “R” is the most important. Not “N”, as we often think.

Think about it, folks. And if you agree, let’s do the animals a big favour, and send this article to shelter managers. Let them think about it, and who knows, if we could just convert ONE kill-shelter into no-kill, we would have stamped a mark of significant difference to the world of animal welfare.

Little by little is the water jug filled. 

I’ve sent the article to two shelter managers.

I’ve done my part.

Have you?