Hypothetical: Better for an homeless dog to have no home or be euthanized OR go to..
Hypothetical: Better for an homeless dog to have no home or/and be euthanized OR go to a home that just barely has enough money to feed it,etc.?
Because there is this huge debate at my work.. about if we should let people take an animal if they cant even afford the adoption fee.. Which i get it to some degree. But than again.. there are plenty of great people who care about their animals who can only give them the minimum vet care, low quality food, etc... and than at least that homeless animal has a home.. a family?
The only thing is, what if there is a better home out there for those homeless animals? But who is to say that the better home will ever come, and that they will go to that shelter and pick out that animal? There is no guarantee.. And what about at those shelters where they euthanize dogs by the dozen? Better to have a home like that than to be euthanized? Right? Depends on the dog?
What do you guys all think?
I need more thoughts and opinions before i can come to some sort of conclusion!
Probably depends on the homeless populations each person here has in their area. We have a huge homeless population. Some mentally ill were getting bussed here from Nevada with 3 days worth of meds and that is it. We have illegal alien homeless, druggie homeless, alcoholic homeless and schizophrenic type homeless and lazy young people homeless. Most of the families and non druggies do get support. In general I'd say a dog would be better off in the animal shelter than with the homeless in my area. Many do have dogs, and I just wish I could steal the dogs and give them a better life.
I'd say if someone were very poor, and had little money, but was sober and had a home, even a one room place, they could have a dog here. The SPCA offers dog food for low income persons like some seniors for example.
But i agree, and some food shelves also have dog food/cat food to give away too.
Ugh...this question posed in a way that shows how much variation there is across the country...minimal vet care and low quality food. That's better than a lot of the adopters who come to shelters in some places!
There are many, many situations a dog could be in that are worse than humane euthanasia. I say that as someone who has been volunteering inside a high-kill shelter where euthanasia happens a lot -- and as someone who has seen the worst that humans can do to dogs. We have one now who was chained up and deliberately starved. She was nearly dead when we got her -- a home like that is worse than death. If you've never seen what true starvation does to an animal, it's ghastly and painful.
Let's frame this the way it is down South---this is a real question that comes up constantly in our public shelter where some advocate for "open" adoptions for free to anyone who wants a dog (something being preached by an out-of-state group that's come in to "advise" the public shelter here on how to "improve"). Here are the things we have actually seen in applications:
-adopt to someone who will keep a GSD year-round, 24-7 outside, on a heavy chain as a "guard dog" (a miserable life for a people-loving GSD--and the adopter who wanted to do this wanted a dog who had previously been a HOUSE DOG)
-adopt to someone suspected of being involved in dog fighting (the fear being they wanted to adopt a bait dog)
-adopt to someone whose method of training on the application is "beat the dog with a shoe" (that's a quote from an application!)
-adopt to someone whose prior animals never saw a vet, even for routine care, knowing the adopted dog will not be kept on HW preventative (in the Gulf South means the dog will get heartworm disease and likely die from it in a few years (a very painful death))
-adopt to someone who has previously given up dogs to a high-kill shelter for reasons of convenience
-adopt to someone known to be a "dog flipper" on Craigslist (for profit) who targets purebred shelter dogs
My list could go on and on. My answer is NO.
In my high-kill local shelter, just FIVE shelter volunteers got the GSDs to "no kill" status by using a rescue-model application, doing home checks, and vet reference checks from within the shelter. Our average time to adoption for shelter GSDs is 12 days. I'm in the Deep South, where shelter kill rates are very high. Don't think it's because we don't have many GSDs in shelters either -- our volunteers saved more then 60 of them this year, in this one shelter!
I have no opinion on other breeds and mutts -- they are harder (esp. pit bulls, who are overproduced in huge numbers). For this GSDs, I know it is possible to get to "no kill" for the adoptable ones (non-aggressive temperament, treatable health issues) while still doing reasonable screening. It takes hard work and foster homes. This shelter had an 80% kill rate just three years ago!
I thus don't accept the premise of the hypothetical -- at least for this breed.
dogs dont recognize money. A homeless person is often a better owner than a millionaire. Probably one of the worst case scenarios is a shelter who keeps dogs in cages instead of rehoming them.
I know there is a very strong feeling of "every dog deserves a chance or a second chance or a third chance." I don't know how many times I've read threads about a dog that's bitten someone more than once and there are still people defending this dog and saying its the owners fault and that in the right hands the dog would be fine, just would take some time to rehab.
Well knowing how crowded shelters are, and how rescues generally function...those types of places can't handle problem dogs. Why spend $10000 (counting someone's salary/time and also real resources) trying to rehab a single problem dog, taking up the space for possibly dozens of normal dogs that would move in and out of the shelter within days? I get it, every life is important, but at some level, isn't saving 10 dogs better than saving one?
Anyways...I don't know how I feel about a family that can barely afford minimal care getting a dog. To a family/person that has to worry about every dollar they spend, is $20 a month on food, and possibly a $100 vet visit a year really a good decision? Couldn't that $340 go somewhere else to maybe help that person get a better job or get into a better situation where that dog is more affordable and smarter to own? And this is nothing against those living paycheck to paycheck and investing all their discretionary income into their dogs...I get it, people do it, but I just don't know how "smart" it is to do that. I guess if you're spending your last $20 on dog food, I would wonder what happens if that $20 isn't there one month? Who is going to get to eat then? The last thing I would expect is someone to not buy food for themselves just to feed their dog...
Usually the first time by not teaching the dog bite inhibition when it was a pup or stopping that process by taking the pup away from his siblings and mother at too young an age.
The second time is when they fail to socialize the dog to stressors they find uncomfortable.
The third time is when they fail to inoculate against behaviors like this through management, things like item trades, or food bowl games to minimize or stop what are essentially normal dog behaviors.
And the fourth is when they finally put the dog in that situation where after all of this it feels the need to bite to protect itself.
On top of all that they dump the dog off on the system which is already massively overburdened and is essentially in triage mode. They basically **** dogs like this to execution. It isn't euthanasia at that point. The dog isn't getting a merciful death to avoid painful life, it is being killed because of unacceptable crimes against humans, and given all the times the humans failed this dog it isn't fair at all.
So yeah the reality of the situation is yeah it is easier to save those 10 than to put effort into that 1, but I can definitely see why some people would put energy into that 1.
I really don't think there's a perfect answer. Some dogs are better off euthanized; my family dealt with one that was put down due to mental issues at only 3 years old. It hurt our hearts deeply but she was better off away from her inner demons. We gave her everything: training, food, shelter, and love and it wasn't enough to help her so no I don't think it's enough in some cases to have all the worldly things available to them.
I do see both sides. There are many reasons to euthanize and none of them are pleasant, but I don't see it as a cruel thing, sad yes in most cases, but not cruel. If the dog is suffering then there's a time you just have to steel your heart as best you can and do it, no matter how badly it hurts you. If the dog is happy and decently cared for then why fix a problem that doesn't exist.
I deal with a lot of pet owners, and I'll tell you this much: some of those pets would be better off with a cash-strapped owner who truly cares for them, than they are in the well-off home they are ignored in--not to mention pets in shelters!
I was once homeless, no money. All I had was my dog. Many people would probably say I shouldn't have a dog I couldn't afford. But I took care of that dog, she ate before I did, went everywhere I went, played Frisbee every day, and we kept each other warm at night. She was my best friend, sometimes my only friend. I made a lot of mistakes with her as she was my first dog, but she was resilient and forgiving and loyal.
Eventually I got back on my feet, got a job, bought a house, and that dog lived out her golden years in the lap of luxury. She lived to be 16 years old.
Money isn't what makes a good pet owner. As long as the owner cares for the pet, takes responsibility, and gets its needs met, many dogs will be a heck of a lot happier living with a poor person that spends time with them, than they are languishing in a shelter, or thrown in the backyard of a nice big house and ignored.
Veterinary care is expensive, but there are low-cost vaccine clinics, spay and neuter. There is Care Credit for emergencies. In this country, pets do have a safety net. I'm not saying that poor people who can barely feed themselves should be getting a bunch of animals, but most of the homeless around here have dogs, and they all look pretty healthy, good weight, etc. Possibly in need of grooming, but when you have a hammer all you see are nails.
The problem is weeding out the bad owners whether rich or poor. There are just as many bad rich owners as there are bad poor owners, so adoptions should be granted on something other than income, IMO.
|All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:23 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2