Chix
Lv 6
Chix asked in PetsDogs · 7 years ago

Is California town bankruptcy an excuse for shelters to kill "bottle babies"?

Question; If a town runs out of money, do the dogs and cats have to go?

Would you endorse a shelter that does this?

http://www.examiner.com/article/bankrupt-city-opts...

The city shelter has been on a killing spree for months, using its bankruptcy as an excuse even though rescues from throughout the state have stepped up to assist with the unwanted animals. Activists say the shelter regularly violates California law by refusing to allow rescues to pull unclaimed animals.

According to a statement issued on the PetsConnect.Us Facebook page, “In what could be called their most callous, hateful move to date, shelter supervisors have declared that they will no longer allow staff or volunteers to contact rescues to save underage puppies or kittens dumped at the shelter without their mothers. If a rescue is present at the time the babies are impounded the rescue can take them, but if no rescue is there the puppies or kittens will be taken to the back and immediately killed.”

4 Answers

Relevance
  • 7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Sounds like a change.org petition waiting to happen. IMO it's inexcusable. It's one thing if they personally don't have the staff or support facilities for the unweaned - but to basically bar rescues from intervening, and disallowing them from pulling animals when they have fosters willing and available, is just incomprehensible.

  • 4 years ago

    "No kill" in basic terms potential that the look after does no longer euthanize adoptable animals that they have regular. The definition of adoptable varies from look after to guard. An unwell kitten delivered to a look after with little or no financial potential won't be considered adoptable. Shelters and rescues at the instant are not magical places that rework the unwell into the wholesome, and discover mind-blowing residences for all the undesirable. they seem to be a collection of over labored and under paid human beings (and volunteers) who've the comparable cost selection constraints which you do. income undemanding terms is going so a protracted way, and it particularly all comes right down to funds. Even the main rescue-friendly vets would desire to can charge some thing for their facilities. If no you may take her in, then you definately would have not have been given any determination yet to take her to the look after, and function her take her possibilities. each now and then is greater useful to have them humanely euthanized than in basic terms go through, decline, and die, as unfavourable as that sounds. do no longer blame the shelters - blame all of the irresponsible people who do no longer regulate their pets.

  • 7 years ago

    Your target should be the BYBers that just keep pumping out pups, if they didn't supply so many puppies this would not be happening.

    Stop the BYBing & you will stop this over flow that can only be handled by putting down the excess.

    I know it is awful & it is hard to think about, much less talk about. Owners are turning int the mama dogs along with her litters. What else are officials supposed to do?

  • 7 years ago

    There's no excuse to kill a life and there are solutions like transport to other places who can take them or let these rescues take them. This is murder because its not like theres no choice there just going easy root, like there not EVEN TRYING to find somone who can take them

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.