The sad irony in Australia is that the only people who get any voice on how to best manage domestic animals, are the ones who take it upon themselves to kill thousands.
Which is kinda like someone who has had lots and lots of car accidents, being held up as an expert on road safety; “well, who knows better about things that cause crashes than I?”
So, with all the pulling-my-hair-out-by-the-roots frustrated blog topics I’ve been bombarding you with this week, please take a moment to enjoy some words of wisdom and hope from Maddie’s Fund, the United States largest foundation devoted to animal welfare.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Maddie’s Fund wants to support organizations whose mission is to cherish and protect all animals accepted into care.
When we adopt a dog or cat into our home, we become legally and morally responsible for that animal’s welfare. No one claims a right, much less an obligation, to take that animal’s life in order to make room for another. Animal shelters rightly insist that people who adopt from them make the commitment to cherish and protect the animals they take home. At Maddie’s Fund, we don’t see why this commitment should stop at the shelter door.
We are troubled by the notion that non-profit humane organizations must “accept†animals, when “accepting†them means they are likely to be killed. Instead, we feel that the first responsibility is to the animals already under care. And that’s why we choose to support organizations that have made this commitment their first priority.
Maddie’s Fund does not believe humane organizations have an obligation to kill animals.
Some traditional shelters believe humane organizations have an obligation to kill healthy dogs and cats – at least as long as there is a “surplus†population. It wouldn’t be fair, they say, to leave this job to government animal control agencies. But at Maddie’s Fund we don’t think charities are obliged to do the government’s job, particularly when that job could compromise their charitable purpose.
Government animal control agencies are charged, first and foremost, with protecting public health and safety. In many communities that has come to mean impounding stray and unwanted animals and killing the “surplus.†For humane organizations to take on this function, at the expense of saving the animals in their care, risks creating, at least in the public’s perception, a conflict with the humane mission and purpose.
Maddie’s Fund wants to support organizations that send a clear and consistent message that every animal’s life is valuable.
Humane organizations set an example in their communities, and we think actions often speak louder than words. When shelters kill adoptable and treatable animals, the message they want to send – that each animal’s life is precious – is put at risk. What the public hears instead may well be that animal lives are not that important, and that killing is an acceptable way to deal with unwanted dogs and cats: it is, after all, the way the humane organization deals with the problem. And, rather than educating the community about the value of animals’ lives and the commitment required when adopting a dog or cat, the organization may end up reinforcing the message that animals are disposable and killing is the answer whenever housing or cost become a problem.
This inconsistency between what the organization says and what it does risks undermining its credibility and effectiveness in advocating the animals’ cause. By reserving our support for organizations whose words and actions are consistent, Maddie’s Fund hopes to ensure that the message we send and the message the public receives are one and the same.
Maddie’s Fund believes that as more shelters embrace the no-kill approach, fewer animals will be abandoned and neglected.
Some argue that only by accepting all animals and then killing them when facilities become overcrowded can shelters work to prevent animal abandonment and neglect. We see it as just the opposite. When shelters kill, many people avoid them and are reluctant to surrender stray and unwanted animals, because they fear the animals will be put to death. Instead, many of these animals are neglected in backyards and garages or abandoned in neighborhoods and fields, to “give them a chance.†By the time these animals are finally picked up and taken to a shelter, they are often injured, ill, traumatized, and debilitated, and many have bred new generations of homeless animals. Most will now be beyond saving – candidates not for adoption, but for euthanasia. And these deaths will only add to the numbers killed, further fueling community fears that the shelter offers not a second chance at life but the likelihood of death.
When shelters commit to saving all adoptable and treatable animals in their care, they begin to break this cycle of abandonment and death, and pave the way for the entire community to achieve the no-kill goal.
Maddie’s Fund wants to invest in those organizations that use 100% of their resources to save lives and promote an ethic that affirms the value of each companion animal.
When private humane organizations take on the killing function, vital resources that could be used to save lives are diverted. Instead of expanding adoption, spay/neuter, and education programs, charitable dollars must now go to euthanizing animals and disposing of their remains. Staff morale may suffer as those who committed their careers to helping animals find themselves faced with the daily task of ending animal lives. And volunteer and community support can stagnate if the organization’s actions are perceived to be in conflict with community perceptions of its humane mission.
Rather than investing in this model, Maddie’s Fund wants its dollars to go to organizations where the resources at hand are focused on saving lives, and where the commitment to that goal can succeed in harnessing the energy and excitement of the entire community.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Maddie’s Fund might be American, but this is the future for the world of animal sheltering. Believe it.
I’m sure they’re right that it’s the attitude that shelters MUST accept animals even if they have to kill others to make space that’s the key. There may be situations (e.g. abuse) where animals HAVE to be taken in, but the answer to that is to make sure the system has some spare capacity.
Where the owner is a normal, competent adult with no over-riding reason why it’s impossible for them to go on caring for an animal it has to be their decision whether they put up with going on an admissions waiting list or have their pet killed.
Most people will opt for the waiting list; it just makes no sense to have an open door policy that encourages killing on a kind of “out of sight, out of mind” basis.