No-Kill Shelter free essay sample

During a crisis of pet overpopulation, it right to kill animals simply because they are not wanted? Or is it ever right thing to do? The United States is faced with the problem of what should be done with the excess of stray animals. This is a complex thing to solve, but that doesn’t mean killing the animals for space is right. Stray dogs and cats have just as much right to a good home as pets that already have owners. No-Kill shelters are beneficial, they provide a safe, pet-friendly environment that would help solve the problems of pet homelessness and overpopulations, as a result of spay and neuter being provided as well. For a no-kill shelter to work, it requires the cooperation of multiple staff members and part-time volunteers, also including local rescues, pet owners and vets. Although, there are two different kinds of shelters. A municipal shelter is run by a city, country, or other public place and is funded by taxpayer dollars. Such shelters are staffed by civil volunteers who may or may not have any experience working with animals. According to one source, â€Å"The shelters fall under the governmental departments such as streets and sanitation, road maintenance. Their primary job as defined in municipal codes, is to pick up stray and nuisance animals and reunite lost animals with their owners† (Fasseas). That are just on the street, but they do say they are a private shelter, just not the way you are thinking of. In a model of a No Kill community, all private shelters manage their admissions much like human services do. They take in only as may pets they can care for with their entire donor dollars are going to be saving, not ending lives. According to one source, â€Å"In reality, every intuition has a capacity limit. If a hospital or domestic violence shelter has only 1,000 beds, they will not take in 2,000 people and kill the excess† (Moore). A No Kill shelter takes in pets to the crisis care and the worst cases first. When a family gives up on a pet, the shelter educates them on the reality of homelessness and offers educational counseling. During the busiest times, these private shelters will ask people with less critical needs to keep their pet a fee weeks or look at foster homes to take in pets while the shelter is operating capacity. Private donor dollars go to treating and saving the lives of all healthy and treatable animals that come through the shelters door. Traditional, open door shelters would no longer exist, since they are an outdated model that replicates government services. The Government has a role in the No kill community, Animal Care Control, or the city pound. In the community they would serve as the best location for stray and unwanted pets and for some cases animal cruelty, they would work with the cities law enforcement. As the community’s open door shelter is funded by tax dollars, they would take in all animals and be the single destination to search for lost pets. Private shelters would support the city by transferring pets into their adoption programs. With an active transfer culture, there is a safety net for the pets that enter the city shelter. No Kill has become the commonly accepted sheltering model; many traditional open door shelters mask their killing through false information from websites etc. According to one source, â€Å"With knowledge about the shelters, the public is going into action by responding to the need of helping the animals, the response from the public is huge about 7,000 people who have volunteer for PAWS Chicago because they believe in the No-Kill model† (Moore). Within five years this war will be won and animals will no longer be killed in Chicago, and the revolution will spread everywhere. A lot of history about No Kill shelters goes back to the second half of the nineteenth century. According to one source, â€Å"Humane societies began to take over the killing of stray and unwanted populations of cats and dogs. They wanted to eradicate the cruel methods of animal control at the time, which commonly resorted to clubbing, shooting, or drowning companion animals to death† (Fasseas). The private shelters accept upon how they kill the stray dogs and cats but then how is the history so much worse? A problem has grown among animal lovers. On one side are the traditional shelters that euthanize to make space for more animals. On the other side are those that call themselves â€Å"no kill†. They represent a rage of shelters from all over the country that won’t euthanize any animal on their property. No-Kill shelters are gaining popularity in the United States, According to one source, â€Å"More than 600 shelters and that’s just a fraction. The popularity has put pressure on the other shelters to become no-kill† (Fasseas). Now there are two different sides to the story, half of the people agrees upon euthanize animals for space and the other half agrees that there should not be any kill shelters here in this area or anywhere in the country. Some of the shelters in California are amazing, at Sonoma County’s animal shelter has new policies for the crowded conditions and are working to reduce the number of healthy animal’s that are killed. Dog and cat owners who may want to give up their pets have to make an appointment with the shelter staff to discuss alternatives. Healthy animals will be taken in only if the space is available, otherwise the owners must wait. According to one source, â€Å"Most public shelters have around 393,000 cats that enter public shelters and it increased to 25,000. About 278,000 cats were killed in shelters in 2012†(Moore). Now these numbers are dating back to a few years ago but that makes no difference, maybe the numbers have gone down since then but this still is a huge problem in the United States. The people who volunteer at shelters believe this is not right we should not be killing animals for space. Look at the situation in Sochi, Russia there was at least 65,000 dogs on the streets during the Olympics. Russia army men didn’t no what to do with them, they finally came to the conclusion of hanging the 65,000 stray dogs and we offered to help. If that doesn’t make the public sick to their stomachs then there is something seriously wrong with America. Shelters all around the world are taking their shelters and upgrading them into what they want to call â€Å"Creature Comforts†. The public are fighting to get shelters to take in some comfort to their shelters; they don’t want to see the images of dark smelly hallways that are crammed with noisy dogs and cats in steel cages. According to one source, â€Å"A growing number of shelters are coming up with new facilities with architecture and retail space, also a cafe† (Mleczek). At the Human Society/SPCA of Bexar County in San Antonio, is the first shelter to try out these new changes. Some of the changes they are making for the animals is the cats are in â€Å"kitty cottages† and dogs in â€Å"puppy palaces† will be playing behind glass walls that face the main street. Their also considering playing soft music to keep the animals calm most of the time. Starting in California where shelters in San Francisco and Oakland changed the way homeless animals are housed. As sterilization rates raised more shelters changed to â€Å"no kill† and they realized that the traditional steel cage living environments weren’t healthy for the longer stays of animals. The only reason for these shelters is because people have been misled into believing that there is no alternative to killing in shelters, we have been told that this killing is the right thing to do. The leading animal rights group says killing is â€Å"often the kindest option or animals admitted to sheltering facilities. † But, in fact, killing is neither kid nor necessary, or prevents animal suffering. According to one source, â€Å"Indeed, it is population control killing that itself is the root cause of animal suffering in our nations animal control shelters â€Å"(Winograd). By misleading and even blaming the public, shelters have turned their backs on a very dog and cat loving American public that could help them save lives through donations, volunteerism, and adoptions. By asking may workers at the PAWS Chicago shelter about their thoughts on this question? â€Å"How difficult is it for a traditional shelter to go No Kill? † Now there were many thoughts and opinions about this topic, they all basically said the same things. It is not difficult at all. According to one source, â€Å"There are key series of programs and services which result in increased lifesaving, a declining death rate and have created No Kill in both urban and rural communities. It takes to implement these programs is leadership† (Waggoner). A hard working, compassionate shelter director who is passionate about saving lives, no killings and is not to hide behind cliche saying about how there is to may animals and not enough homes. Anyone with a deep love for animals and can do this and change how people react and say things about these No Kill shelters. No-Kill animal shelters and the process of spaying and neutering are not always convenient to people but are necessary to animals. No-kill animal shelters require hard work, dedication and satisfactory effort to be properly maintained, but the rewards are beyond price. Many people are currently unwilling to take the extra in caring for animals, but the animals have as much right to a good well-being as humans do. Many pet owners are not willing to pay the price of about one hundred dollars to spay and neuter their pets it’s not a bad price when compared to the consequences of pet overpopulation. Many Americans should hear the message, and make the change. We have a major pet overpopulation issue in the United States, but unwanted animals shouldn’t be killed for that reason. No-kill animal shelters are positive steps in the right direction, as they provide underprivileged animals with spaying or neutering treatment, in addition to a safe, pet-friendly environment. Although the process is never easy, the establishment of no-kill shelters would help resolve the pet homelessness and overpopulation. A solution such as this reasonable to make change all over the country.