Group items tagged

I don’t begin to pretend that I know the culture of South Korea. But I also cannot deny that the world is a lot smaller than it once was because of technology and human mobility. I also cannot deny shared human experience. We are people, and despite the ugly things that people are capable of, we are also capable of great compassion. I agree with abolitionist Theodore Parker that the arc of history may be long but it bends toward greater compassion. So, my initial caveat aside, I do not see why a model that works in the U.S. and works in Canada and works in Australia and works in New Zealand cannot work elsewhere.

It is also hard for me to see how the absence of “large, well-funded animal charities” in South Korea would be a bar to No Kill success. In the U.S. No Kill began and continues as a completely grassroots effort. In fact, in the U.S., the “large, well-funded animal charities” have been a roadblock to success. Without exception, the large national organizations like the Humane Society of the United States, the American Humane Association, the ASPCA, and PETA have been hostile to No Kill, championing killing and fighting reform efforts. Today, the biggest barrier to more widespread No Kill success in the U.S. is not “pet overpopulation.” It is not an absence of spay/neuter. It is not the “irresponsible public.” It is not a lack of funding. The single biggest barrier to No Kill is the fact that 3,500 shelter directors are mired in killing and they are legitimized, protected, and promoted by the large national organizations.

Why do they believe sterilization is so critically important?

Because, like the pet overpopulation, they have been told over and over again, and for years on end, that it is.

Whereas the other programs of the No Kill Equation such as foster care, comprehensive adoption programs and proactive redemptions which are vitally important—even more essential—to saving lives than spay/neuter place the responsibility for lifesaving on the shelter; spay and neuter places the responsibility on the public.

advertisements being run by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). These ads advocated banning the use of kennel crates for dogs.

Such statistics triggered a complaint to Virginia’s Agriculture Department and VDACS then commissioned Dr. Daniel Kovich to investigate and conduct an inspection of PETA’s headquarters. In his final report he noted “The facility does not contain sufficient animal enclosures to routinely house the number of animals annually reported as taken into custody.” Dr. Kovich went on to conclude that PETA’s “primary purpose is not to find permanent adoptive homes for animals.” He also determined that PETA employees kill 84 percent of the animals in their custody within 24 hours of receiving them—even though most are healthy and not showing any behavioral problems. Inquiries about how and if PETA attempts to actually find people that might want to adopt the animals that they received were not answered.

Apparently Newkirk believes that one way to help achieve this “lovely” outcome is to destroy virtually all of the animals placed in PETA’s care before they can be adopted and become well-loved pets in any family’s home.

it is because of this irresponsibility that shelters exist in the first place.

it is often the practices of the shelter itself that lead to killing.

[The No Kill movement] debunks the myth of pet overpopulation and puts the blame for the killing where it belongs:

Does it matter that so many people still believe these myths? I think the answer to that is a resounding “yes,”

because these myths seriously undermine the message of no kill.

Both of the myths take the responsibility for shelter killing off of shelter management (where it belongs) and put it on the “irresponsible public.”