My Photo

Keep Up

Flickr


  • www.flickr.com
    christiekeith's items Go to christiekeith's photostream

« Is your cat sick? Don ' t overlook these subtle clues. | Main | Will our food -- and our pets ' -- be safer soon? »

16 November 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Christie Keith

Emily, the chain of suppositions in your comment is taking my breath away. Why do you say that it has to be either Oreo or another dog? Do you not believe the sanctuary movement, just like the no-kill movement itself, can grow?



And the value, of course, is that we won't have killed a dog.

mary frances

Amen

Susan Fox

I've seen exactly what Lis describes more times than I can count at our open admission county shelter.



The difference between a dog in a kennel and out of the kennel is breathtaking and sometimes instantaneous. I was stunned the first couple of times I saw it, but I'm a believer now.



When the place starts to fill up, the call goes out and dogs are doubled up, if necessary.



Dogs have been moved out to a local boarding kennel, if it comes to that.



To kill a dog based on its behavior in a shelter kennel is, shall we say, uninformed. To do so without exhausting every possible alternative is unacceptable.



And Lis and the others are right, the word is "kill".

EmilyS

Christie: no I don't believe in "sanctuary" for truly human aggressive dogs (as opposed to those that display aggression that can be re-conditioned).



In a world of limited resources, how can it NOT be possible that a space given to one dog won't take a space from another dog?

gretchen

The No Kill Nation facebook page has an image of the "vicious" Oreo on the day she was killed:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/No-Kill-Nation/99103779977?ref=nf

Christie Keith

In a world of limited resources, how can it NOT be possible that a space given to one dog won’t take a space from another dog?



Salvation is not a zero sum game any more than love is, Emily.

schnauzer

Salvation is not a zero sum game any more than love is, Emily.



Comment by Christie Keith — November 18, 2009 @ 9:28 am



No. But. http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_415331d6-d3cd-11de-b4e0-001cc4c002e0.html





"Stray dogs and cats picked up in Pennington County that don’t have tags or licenses would have to be held for only one day before being adopted or euthanized, under a proposed change to the county’s animal control ordinance."



"of the 453 animals picked up in the county through September of this year, only 120, or 27 percent, were claimed by owners.



Of the remainder, 196 -- 43 percent -- were adopted, and 137 -- 30 percent -- were euthanized.



Holloway told commissioners the move could save about $14,000 a year."





How much money & time do you spend on one dog? Would many other dogs have been better off if this dog had been euthanized at the time of his injuries, rather than putting him through everything he went through?



I don't have an answer, but it makes me sick to think of all the nice, healthy animals that aren't even going to get 25 hours to find a home here in my own county...

Jamie

So we shouldn't continue to save any lives because we are doomed to failure by the likes of the Pennington County Commissioners? What a crock! These commissioners are seeing money not lives, and we in the humane movement need to make sure that we are on the opposite end of that. But as long as groups continue to quote limited resources as a reason to kill...then how can we expect other people outside the movement to care? Saving lives takes money, but more so it takes innovation, compassion, strong leadership, and not giving in.

Christie Keith

As long as we keep accepting that we can't save them all, we won't.



The only thing standing between saving them all and not saving them all, barring those who are at the end of their lives due to illness, injury or old age, is believing we can, and then doing it.



The idea that it's an inevitable and eternal and unquestionable truth that we have to choose is a false one. It's time we abandoned it. Because until we do, we'll never implement the changes necessary to actually save them all.

Drew

>Why should a dog die because she’s aggressive and homeless?



I certainly don't imply that a dog should necessarily die because she's aggressive and homeless. That is not what I said. What I said is this situation isn't news. The fact that the dog is aggressive and homeless decreases the chance that the dog will have a positive impact on people or humans, and keeping the dog alive would require extensive resources.



It's certainly nice if organizations with resources offer to help out a dog, but that doesn't change the fact that when this kind of dog is killed, it's no big deal.



The dog doesn't know it's dead. It was killed in a humane and painless matter. It has no soul floating around, sad because it's no longer alive. Because it had such a little chance to make anyone around it happy-- be it dog or human-- I see no tragedy at all in the death.

Drew

I want to make sure I stress that in my first paragraph, I'm stating that the reason the dog's traits are relevant isn't because they make her deserving of death, but because they make her death less newsworthy.





Of course I also meant "manner" and not "matter" in the last paragraph!

Drew

"s long as we keep accepting that we can’t save them all, we won’t.



The only thing standing between saving them all and not saving them all, barring those who are at the end of their lives due to illness, injury or old age, is believing we can, and then doing it.



The idea that it’s an inevitable and eternal and unquestionable truth that we have to choose is a false one. It’s time we abandoned it. Because until we do, we’ll never implement the changes necessary to actually save them all."



Right. And as soon as we stop believing in starvation, homelessness, rape, and violence, those problems will go away too? How do you make it to your age without learning the ability to think rationally?

Christie Keith

Right. And as soon as we stop believing in starvation, homelessness, rape, and violence, those problems will go away too? How do you make it to your age without learning the ability to think rationally?



Because we aren't even remotely close to solving those huge problems of humanity.



We are literally on the brink of ending killing pets because of homelessness in this country.



Your personal slam doesn't change the facts, of which you're apparently entirely unaware. Pity, that.

Snoopys Friend

"Because it had such a little chance to make anyone around it happy— be it dog or human— I see no tragedy at all in the death...."



Sometimes I think I've seen and heard it all and there are no shockers and then I read the comments by Drew and just shake my head in amazement.



How did life (a pets life)become so meaningless Drew?

Jamie

yeah I agree that Drew's comment is gross. I don't believe in souls, so I agree that no one is dead feeling sad that they are dead. But as I believe that there is no after life I feel it is all the more important that we make THIS life the best that we can. Every life is precious BECAUSE it is unique and there is no do over. the ASPCA failed OREO the unique creature that she was and there is never any way of making up for that.

mary frances

#63 "We are literally on the brink of ending killing pets because of homelessness in this country" to that great hope..this case is on appeal but it reads:



Court orders New York City to open more animal shelters -

In September 2009 the State Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Shafer found that the city violated the Animal Shelters and Sterilization Act, NYC Code Section 17-801, et.seq., and ordered NYC to submit to it a plan to open animal shelters in all 5 boroughs and keep those shelters open 24 hours a day, 7 days per week to receive and permit the adoption of dogs and cats.



For a pdf copy go to: Committee on Animals and the Law (it's the 8th essay down)



Case is entitled: STRAY FROM THE HEART,INC., vs. DEPT. OF HEALTH & MENTAL HYGIENE

Eucritta

Drew, what's at issue here, I think, is what's termed a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' - that is, so long as you believe a problem to be intractable it become so, because the belief itself makes it less likely that possible approaches will be recognized.



So, no, I don't think the ills of human society - or animal cruelty - can be willed away by not believing in them. But I also know that so long as we believe them to be inevitable, we rob ourselves of the will to do much about them, and blinker the creativity that might just provide something workable.

Susan

I was looking at a breed rescue site today and it contained the following note:



"We do not use Sue Sternberg's Assess-A-Pet or any other extreme temperament tests on our dogs.



If we employed Assess-a-Pet methods to test [this breed] – a breed which is usually highly stressed in a shelter environment – many of them would have been killed. They would not be deemed worth saving and certainly not placed with loving families. That is where rescue comes into the equation. We take them out of the stressful shelter environment, place them into a foster home and then see how they unwind. After a few days of adjustment, we begin to see their true temperaments while they interact with a family and other pets. Remember - to a lost or surrendered pet, even the best shelters are full of loud noises, odd smells, strangers and fear. For those and many other reasons, so many of our dogs would have been killed for being too timid, too food aggressive from starvation, too fear aggressive, too hyperactive, etc. and they would not have become the beloved dogs they are today. We absolutely do not employ, nor do we recommend this type of temperament testing."



The organization is a national one and absolutely, unquestionably reputable. I am omitting the breed intentionally because it is irrelevant to the question - but it is not Pit Bulls or anything remotely like a pittie. The dog would be considered a small house dog. The AKC considers it a first class companion dog. If this can be the philosophy of a national breed rescue organization -- that before the dog can be properly evaluated, it needs to be taken out of the shelter setting, can it be such a ridiculous leap to say that this dog, abused over a period of time, gravely injured and having endured veterinary treatments which could not have been pleasant or enhanced her trust of humans, could not be given a fair evaluation until given time outside a shelter environment?



I think it is a perfectly fair question. Oreo was not your typical shelter dog.

Pai

"Right. And as soon as we stop believing in starvation, homelessness, rape, and violence, those problems will go away too? How do you make it to your age without learning the ability to think rationally?"



When did you lose the ability to research the facts behind the shelter population issue before engaging with other people in a discussion about it? Because if you had spent even a few hours educating yourself on the topic, you never would've made such a comparison.



Why do fact-challenged people always seem to be the most smug, insulting people to talk to about anything?

The OTHER Pat

Drew, intention counts tremendously in solving any problem. Problems don't solve themselves. As a first step, someone has to have the desire and the intention to solve the problem. Follow-through is also required, of course. But nothing begins without intention.



That was part of what Christie was getting at.



But another part of what she was getting at - and where her statement about "saving them all" diverges dramatically from your follow-up comparison to solving starvation, homelessness, rape, and violence - has to do with how close we currently are to achieving the desired results.



I don't recall the exact figures, but in Nathan Winograd's book "Redemption", he presents data to show that an increase as small as something like 3% in the number of people adopting pets nationwide could essentially empty our nation's shelters (citing from memory here - forgive any nit-picky inaccuracies). Three percent. The tiniest of upticks, and we're there. Saving them all. Not a wishful fantasy, but an actual, possible, attainable goal.



On the other hand, we're nowhere NEAR that close to having solutions to the problems of starvation, homelessness, rape, and violence. Tose problems cannot be "wished away", and no one is suggesting otherwise. Those problems are just too widespread and pervasive. Different sitution altogether.



But saving saveable pets? That really IS within our reach.



And it all begins with intention . . . . .

Christie Keith

From YesBiscuit!, news of a proposed "Oreo's Law":



http://yesbiscuit.blogspot.com/2009/11/i-wish-wilkes-co-was-in-ny.html

Gina Spadafori

I was sort of thinking the same thing, and I'm glad he outed himself as a veterinarian. I wonder it there's not a little "burnout" going on here, or at least compassion fatigue.



A real problem with the shelter industry, as we all know, is that there are many who just can't see another way except kill, kill, kill, blame, blame, blame, punish, punish, punish (mandatory spay-neuter, anyone?) and wash, rinse, repeat.



That's why it's pretty normal for a lot of staff to leave (voluntarily or otherwise) when a shelter director aiming at building a no-kill community takes over. The shift from hating people who need help to, you know, helping is impossible for many to make.



I see that "learned helplessness" -- "hey, it's just another dead animal, not my fault, I'm just the guy who does your dirty work" -- and certainly the pushing of blame in Drew's posts.



Hate to see that in a veterinarian, and frankly, I'm sure glad my own vet does share that outlook. And of course, he wouldn't be my vet if he did.



By the way, Drew, TNR of ferals is a different issue than that faced by adoptable (or can be made adoptable) pets. Ferals are, well, feral. The kittens can be rehomed, the wild ones need to be in managed colonies. I'll tease to an upcoming SFGate.com column Christie's working on for next week for more on this issue.

Drew

“"We are literally on the brink of ending killing pets because of homelessness in this country."



Last I read, we kill 3-4 million a year.



“How did life (a pet's life)become so meaningless Drew?”



All life is meaningless in itself. If something dies painlessly and no one else is affected in any way, then it’s no one’s loss. A life has meaning if it has meaning to something alive-- ie, it's important if someone else cares about it or if the means by which the life was taken creates a fear in others that their life, or the life of one they love, will be lost similarly. This is only a tragedy because you and some others have decided you wanted to care about it and be upset. Of course that’s your choice; morality is in the eye of the beholder.



However, it seems to me that there’s always a problem when someone’s actions aren’t in line with their own goals, and that’s what I see here. You’ve used your own decision to regard this as a tragic loss to attack an organization that overall accomplishes goals that you would like to see accomplished. You are not likely to be affecting a statistically significant amount of canine lives with your attacks on the ASPCA, but you may well be turning public opinion against them, thereby costing them donations and public support.



“But I also know that so long as we believe them to be inevitable, we rob ourselves of the will to do much about them, and blinker the creativity that might just provide something workable.”



You’re responding to a strawman. I never suggested these things are impossible to solve, I was only responding to Christine’s comment that the *only* thing preventing them from being solved is belief that it can be so. It takes a hell of a lot more than belief.



“When did you lose the ability to research the facts behind the shelter population issue before engaging with other people in a discussion about it? Because if you had spent even a few hours educating yourself on the topic, you never would’ve made such a comparison... Why do fact-challenged people always seem to be the most smug, insulting people to talk to about anything?”



So educate me. I’m a veterinarian. I’ve been a surgeon at the local TNR clinic every month for the past 3 years, minus 1 clinic that occurred while I was out of the state on vacation. I’m good friend with a woman who runs a doberman rescue (she’s a tech for a certified behaviorist with whom I’ve done a residency). I’ve spent more than a few hours researching this, and I disagree with your conclusion. Seems to me you’re being quite demeaning yourself, but in a far worse way than I—I’m certainly being disrespectful and personally insulting, but not at the cost of my own argument (at least, not at the cost of the logic of my argument, though I've certainly lost brownie points.) You are being disrespectful in a way that harms your ability to even express your thoughts or try and convert me to your way of thinking—you’ve simply concluded that you’re right, and if only I read 4 hours of internet statistics, I’ll agree with you. I’d love to see your evidence that we are on the cusp of solving this problem.



“an increase as small as something like 3% in the number of people adopting pets nationwide could essentially empty our nation’s shelters”



The hardest thing in the world to do is change public behavior. 3% is a universe away. Here’s the kicker: by villifying the ASPCA, you’re more than likely driving that number DOWN, since the ASPCA does much net good and relies largely on donations and goodwill.



I guarantee you any economist worth his salt could come up with a large list of ways that a change in 3% of the nation’s population with regards to various behaviors and actions could practically solve any one of those problems I listed. If an additional 3% of the nation suddenly joined Habitat for Humanity, do you realize how many houses could be built? If an additional 3% of the nation made substantial donations to their local food pantry, how far would that go towards solving hunger in America? We’re talking about 9 million people (many of whom are practically speaking too young or not in the right situation to adopt a pet anyway.)



I encourage working to solve this problem. However, I don’t think we should bring out pitchforks and torches because an overwhelmingly good organization made a decision that you disagree with, resulting in the death of one aggressive homeless dog. If I am being insulting, it's because I find your actions counterproductive and your horror and disgust misplaced, not because we have divergent goals.

Drew

Scratch the 9 million-- I responded appropriately earlier in my reply with the assumption you meant a 3% increase in the number of adopters, but later forgot, and changed it to 3% of the population. But the exact same principle applies-- changing the attitudes of a few million people is a daunting task, and again, discrediting organizations working to influence those people is not a good way to accomplish the goal.

H. Houlahan

“All life is meaningless in itself. If something dies painlessly and no one else is affected in any way, then it’s no one’s loss."



Please remind me to stay well away from any syringes being wielded by "Drew."

The OTHER Pat

Comment by Drew — November 18, 2009 @ 11:49 pm



"All life is meaningless in itself. If something dies painlessly and no one else is affected in any way, then it’s no one’s loss. A life has meaning if it has meaning to something alive— ie, it’s important if someone else cares about it or if the means by which the life was taken creates a fear in others that their life, or the life of one they love, will be lost similarly. This is only a tragedy because you and some others have decided you wanted to care about it and be upset. Of course that’s your choice; morality is in the eye of the beholder."



So would this same argument apply - for example - to a homeless man with no friends or family who quietly falls asleep one winter's night and silently freezes to death? It is not my intention to draw an inapplicable comparison here. Rather, I suspect there is a stunning divide between your philosophical framework v.s. that of many who post here. For example, I believe simply accepting preventable death diminishes us all. Whereas I suspect you find no merit to that argument.

Gina Spadafori

Someone sent me This link, more food for thought, mostly.

Drew

"Continuing to comment makes no sense with a person who obviously enjoys the game."





This comment makes no sense. It implies that your entire purpose in commenting is to take away my enjoyment of the argument (what you refer to as "the game.") The point of a conversation is to exchange viewpoints, possibly leading to changes in behavior. It's sad that your only purpose in arguing appears to be to make your opponent feel bad.

Drew

"And would probably tell me, if I discovered what had happened after the fact, that I should not be at all upset, because it was the “sensible” thing to do, and after all, she hadn’t suffered."



I would never tell you that. I'd expect you to be upset.

Drew

"Trotting out “irrational and emotional” when arguing with women is … well .. sexist bullshit."



Huh. Actually, I stupidly was thinking of Gina as a man's name (I have a prof named Gino, and I guess I just read that.) My natural reaction to this is to say that you seem pretty reactionary and sensitive on this topic, but I realize that would (irrationally) make you more certain of your accusations.



I call emotional people emotional, and irrational people irrational. If you assert that that's more likely with women, go ahead; I don't. To put it another way, it's sexist and stupid to avoid using the words "irrational" or "emotional" simply because you're arguing with a woman. I use those words indiscriminately to refer to anyone who has those properties. Your last response demonstrated both of those properties, in that it lacked any logical coherence and consisted only of pathos and ad hominem arguments.

Drew

By the way, Lis, thanks for being a voice of reason. You make a good point.

Drew

(Man, I hope Lis happens to be a man and it sets Gina off the deep end!)

EmilyS

http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/pets/2009-11-17-pet-talk-oreo_N.htm?obref=obinsite

Anne

@ Drew

Your argument about death not affecting others is not pertinent to this situation. As evidenced by the 70 some posts here, Oreo's death DID affect others, people who have never even met her.

She had a place to go and she wasn't given that opportunity. That decision may be viewed as an ethical dilemma for some, but her death should be viewed as a tregedy by all, whether we blame the ASPCA, her owner, or society in general.

Anne

Sorry in advance for the long post. I just want to reply to Lis’ comments earlier, since she made a whole lot of accusations about the shelter I work at as well as me personally without having any knowledge about either.



Lis you accused me and my shelter of automatically ‘killing’ your dog were he to be surrendered because of his stress and fear-induced behavior. However, I and my coworkers are completely aware that animals coming in to our possession will be stressed and dealing with strangers and may act completely different in a home setting. That’s why we have specialized programs to offset the stress and encourage good behavior:

We don’t ‘kill’ small dogs that exhibit cage guarding behavior

We offer an Adoption Preparation program for shy/fearful dogs that are having troubles adjusting to kennel life (reward based training to encourage confidence and calmness)

We offer a Manners program for dogs that are unruly, pushy and rude, to learn appropriate, adopter friendly manners, such as sitting at the front of the kennel and not barking.

We offer fostering for special needs cases

We have de-stress procedures, such as bedding with Feliway for cats, and shelve units so they have control over their environment, and a ping pong ball for each one. Dogs get a bed and a hard toy (treat stuffed kong) every day, and walked multiple times every day.



You accuse us “big, scary strangers” of cornering new and fearful dogs and pushing them until they snap. Well of those big, scary strangers, in my shelter only 2 are men (and one works in the kitchen)- the rest are women who all work here because we love animals and have lots of experience (both personally and professionally) with dogs of all types and all behaviors. We have certified Vet Techs, 2 DVMs, and certified Behavioral Specialists as part of our staff. If a dog is acting stressed or fearful, we give them time to settle in.



You accuse us of ‘killing’ any animal deemed ‘not adoptable’. In fact, 1,771 animals were returned to their owners last year, and 532 animals were placed with other rescue agencies. And that’s not for lack of offering. A month ago we had 27 dogs come in from a cruelty/hoarding seizure. Even though we have a coalition with 9 other agencies, and work in partnership with 35 other rescues, only 2 dogs were accepted elsewhere, even though we offered all of them. Luckily our Prep volunteers were able to rehab all but 3 after months of care. 1 of those 3 was able to go to sanctuary, but that’s all they had space for.



I take offense at the ‘pat myself on the back’ statement. How dare you accuse us of enjoying euthanizing animals, like we never cry doing our job.



You say that not every shy and fearful dog is killed by every shelter, but without having ANY personal knowledge of my shelter or me personally, you attack me and accuse us of those things.



Trust me, you don’t need to ‘clarify’ anything for me. I am a dog owner myself, and I am QUITE aware that animals act differently around people/places they know and those they don’t.



So I hope that helps clarify some points for YOU.



Its people like you that inhibit good communication, collaboration, and learning between shelters. For shame.

The OTHER Pat

Anne, I suspect Drew might respond that Oreo's death affects us because we have chosen to allow it to affect us. However, that difference in reaction is part of the stunning philosophical divide to which I referred in my post.

Drew

“So would this same argument apply - for example - to a homeless man with no friends or family who quietly falls asleep one winter’s night and silently freezes to death?”

Yes, it would apply—so long as you apply it properly. The problem is, according to my own argument, this wouldn’t be okay because there’s no way that we could systemically allow homeless people to die without creating a fear in others that we might face the same fate. Any of us could become homeless people, and so it causes us stress and unhappiness to think that if that happens, we will no longer receive the protection of society.

The same is not true of our animals. Most of us will never fear that our animals will become homeless and aggressive, since aggressiveness or nonaggressiveness are generally established at a very young age. I certainly understand that our animals may become homeless due to a mistake, but there’s no reason to suspect they will become human-aggressive and homeless.

Gina, I’m not sure whether you’re simply trying to be insulting, or if you actually thing you’ve presented reasonable arguments here, but your statements about “learned helplessness” and “compassion fatigue” only serve to make you feel better without considering my words. They have no effect on the logic of my arguments, besides not being true of me personally. I also don’t understand the relevance or even what your intention is in most of the other things in that paragraph—blame pushing? Who am I blaming? I don’t see it. I see blame-pushing in the original blog post, but I fail to see where I have put any blame on anyone. I’m well aware that TNR is a different situation from this one—did I say anything that indicated otherwise? I also don’t get what the anecdote about people quitting when a shelter becomes no-kill... did you just decide that in your scenario, you could assign me the role of one of those people, and this would somehow be relevant to our argument? I donate to no-kill shelters, and I encourage the re-homing of aggressive dogs when there is a will and a way. You guys are so irrational and emotional about this issue that you can’t accept the simple fact that I am a reasonable, compassionate person who most of you would love to work with in real life, who happens to have a different worldview and philosophy from you. Again, the bottom line here as far as I’m concerned is that while very little harm was actually done in the painless killing of Oreo, your actions in vilifying the ASPCA *hurt* the chances of aggressive and non-aggressive dogs ever finding a home.



"Your argument about death not affecting others is not pertinent to this situation. As evidenced by the 70 some posts here, Oreo’s death DID affect others, people who have never even met her."



As Pat said, many people have chosen to be upset about this issue. My point is there's no objective reason to be upset, and your decision on how to feel is, rationally speaking, hurting causes that you deeply wish to support.

Snoopys Friend

Maybe it is just easier for Drew (a guess of course) to view life in his dull way, perhaps it helps him come to terms with death.....maybe it helps him not grieve and I wonder if he has lost someone dear lately and is trying in this rather stiff way to make it not important. I can understand a person doing this as a means of protection because if he hasn't lost a loved one or a precious pet, then his position is truly scary.

Drew

Whoops-- I forgot to fix my spacing after copying and pasting. And now another comment I am wasting... oh well, commence the lambasting!

Drew

"I wonder if he has lost someone dear lately" --Sorry Freud



Nope.

Snoopys Friend

Sorry Freud



Nope.



Continuing to comment makes no sense with a person who obviously enjoys the game.

Gina Spadafori

You guys are so irrational and emotional about this issue that you can’t accept the simple fact that I am a reasonable, compassionate person who most of you would love to work with in real life, who happens to have a different worldview and philosophy from you.



Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009



Honestly, I have rarely seen anyone read so much into other peoples' comments and assume so much about the commentors themselves. You're not being personally attacked. You're being challenged on your beliefs. There's a huge difference.



As for what "us guys" believe -- well, Christie isn't irrational and emotional about ANYTHING, ever. You disagree with her, period. Impassioned, yes. Irrational, never. And by the way, I now know you really are most likely a man. "Irrational and emotional"? Advice, unsolicited: When you're in a hole, stop digging. Trotting out "irrational and emotional" when arguing with women is ... well .. sexist bullshit.



And I, in fact, have always chosen the needle over the risk of harm to a person, as I expressly stated most recently on this very thread.



What I personally said was that "guessing" how Oreo would do in a sanctuary that was offering her space is quite different than seeing how she actually did and then deciding whether killing her was a better option.



The questions deserve to be asked, and the A doesn't get a pass because of the other good work they do. Doesn't work that way, certainly not here.

Lis

The same is not true of our animals. Most of us will never fear that our animals will become homeless and aggressive, since aggressiveness or nonaggressiveness are generally established at a very young age. I certainly understand that our animals may become homeless due to a mistake, but there’s no reason to suspect they will become human-aggressive and homeless.



You did not read, or did not understand, my previous post about the behavior of sweet, shy, or fearful dogs in a shelter environment. I do in fact fear that if any accident caused my dog to land in a shelter, and for any reason they did not immediately find her microchip, "practical, realistic" people like you would decide she should be killed, and that she'd be no loss.



And would probably tell me, if I discovered what had happened after the fact, that I should not be at all upset, because it was the "sensible" thing to do, and after all, she hadn't suffered.

EmilyS

http://badrap-blog.blogspot.com/2009/11/pick-me-choosing-foster-dog.html



"Six of the dogs presented unworkable behavior issues and were given compassion holds." (a compassion hold is a temporary foster designed to give comfort to a dog.. and a person.. in its last days before being killed)



any outrage?



Most of you are not pit bull people though you appreciate the dogs, and don't understand the dangers to the breed, the rehabilitation of its image and status, to pit bull rescue, or the dangers to society, of allowing bad pit bulls to exist.



Bad Rap's decisions were correct.. and so was ASPCA's.



Salvation and love may not be zero sum games, but in the real world TODAY money, space, time and energy ARE.

Christie Keith

Emily: Are you somehow laboring under the delusion that my problem with what happened to Oreo is that I think no dog should ever be put to sleep? Because hard as I try, I can't find a speck of parallel besides that between the two situations.

Lis

“Continuing to comment makes no sense with a person who obviously enjoys the game.”



This comment makes no sense. It implies that your entire purpose in commenting is to take away my enjoyment of the argument (what you refer to as “the game.”) The point of a conversation is to exchange viewpoints, possibly leading to changes in behavior. It’s sad that your only purpose in arguing appears to be to make your opponent feel bad.



Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009 @ 12:38 pm



No, it doesn't imply that her purpose is to take away your enjoyment. It implies that you are not arguing in good faith; that you are playing a game rather than engaging in an exchange of viewpoints possibly leading to a change in behavior, or even greater mutual understanding.



My interpretation is different; you seem to simply lack any comprehension of caring about the unnecessary death of another living being, if the being isn't a family member and the circumstances don't create (in your mind) reasonable concern that it could happen to a member of the person's own family.



“And would probably tell me, if I discovered what had happened after the fact, that I should not be at all upset, because it was the “sensible” thing to do, and after all, she hadn’t suffered.”



I would never tell you that. I’d expect you to be upset.



Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009 @ 12:39 pm



That's very good to read, because it's certainly not the impression you're conveying.

Gina Spadafori

Your last response demonstrated both of those properties, in that it lacked any logical coherence and consisted only of pathos and ad hominem arguments.



Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009



So I guess that advice that "when you're in a hole, stop digging" seems irrational to you. Shame, that.



This is the point when I generally suggest you can advance the discussion, or you can leave. Otherwise, you're just trolling, and we don't feed the trolls.



I trust you can do the former. But my long experience moderating largely anonymous discussions on Teh Interwebs is that a Nazi analogy generally follows the use (and often, misuse and misspelling) of the claim of "ad hominem" attacks.



If Godwin's Law is your next move, you be outta here.

mary frances

Hey I got an idea - anyone want to comment on the potential impact of the case from New York state having on shelters across the USA?(that is - real shelters that actually save lives)(see comment #66) How about you Drew can you shift gears....?

H. Houlahan

Drew is expressing a sort of uber-Benthamite radical utilitarian viewpoint about life and death -- as interpreted by a 10-key adding machine. Which may indeed be what we are dealing with here.



But he's also a lying troll who claims to be a veterinarian, but won't use a real name, and who claims to think that the name "Gina" is a man's name, and claims to be participating in the discussion in good faith.



Which, by the way, I'm not necessarily in agreement with the OP about the death of Oreo -- I'll reserve judgment and claim not enough information -- or not enough reliable information from unbiased sources. But it was an honestly-stated, coherent, rational argument supporting an opinion, and it was offered by a real person who puts her name to her work.



I think Gina's pop-psychologizing probably hit uncomfortably close to the mark, hence the reaction. But I don't care. I just want to keep living things out of needle range of this particular automaton.

Lis

(Man, I hope Lis happens to be a man and it sets Gina off the deep end!)



Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009 @ 12:50 pm



You do not get your wish.



Your childish and highly emotional wish, I might point out.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner