Euthanasia Battle for Pets Heats Up
The issue of euthanasia for unwanted or abandoned pets is the subject of a Newsweek story that is posted online this week.
The story focuses on the difference in philosophical beliefs of major animal rights groups including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the Humane Society of the United States (Humane Society) and smaller, but vocal groups regarding euthanasia for pets, particularly at major shelters.
Some municipalities have enacted legislation for immediate or future no-kill goals for public and private shelters.
While this debate is not going to be quickly or easily resolved, we found some of the comments to the story to be very interesting and wanted to share some of them with you (the identification of the comments are self proclaimed and the comments are verbatim).
Tina Clark: Comment: “Please stop using the word "euthanasia" to describe the killing of healthy or treatable animals. Although it is common practice to use the word in this way, it is grossly incorrect. Webster defines euthanasia as "the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals...in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy." The vast majority of animals killed in so-called "shelters" and by PETA are neither hopelessy (sic) sick nor hopelessy (sic) injured. To use this word in this way perpetuates the idea that killing them is doing them a favor. It is not.”
RottieRuckus: Comment: “My area shelter, in a small city in New Hampshire, is a no-kill shelter. What that means for people looking to surrender less than desirable breeds of dogs (Pitts and Rotties, for instance) or older, big dogs is that the shelter refuses to take them. Until all the elements are assembled--readily available, affordable spay/neuter programs, buying only from COE breeders, or acquiring a dog from breed rescue groups or shelters, no-kill is a beautiful (sic) theory that fails in practicality.”
SharedThought: Comment: “One way to reduce animal euthenasia, (sic) would be to require that animals can only be sold to households licensed to buy them. Only households in which at least one adult member of the household has successfully completed a course about the proper care of animals, could be licensed. And, licensed households that fail to deal with animals responsibly, (sic) could lose both their animals and their license.”
CVHumane: Comment: “The final issue not talked about in this article, is the meshing of the "No Kill" with the spay/neuter emphasis. In addition to the ramping up of a volunteer corps and outreach programs, spay/neuter is very much a major component of the No Kill movement just as it is for PETA and the Humane Society of the United States. There should be no conflict in this. It is not either/or, it is both controlling births and finding loving homes for homeless companion animals.” C.Vreeland, President, Humane Society of Greater Kansas City
Interesting, emotional thoughts on this issue…
Where do you stand? Let us know…
http://www.pettrustlawblog.com/admin/trackback/69778
Timely article with the events that the Kentucky Derby over the weekend. Interesting too that PETA issued a demand for Eight Belles jockey to be suspended during an investigation her injuries and subsequent euthanization.