“I have seen it with my own eyes. A very famous No Kill center, whose director is well known, takes them in the front door, takes a donation, and sends them out the back door to a shelter to be euthanize. A friend of mine worked there, he let me see this, he was the one who took them.”I don’t like to pass judgment on what I haven’t seen with my own eyes, although I do believe sincere questions should be asked when speaking of important matters such as the lives of animals.
“If it’s too good to be true, it often is.”
I also know, "Nobody's perfect."
I’m open to people working together, and getting involved, to improve on things that aren’t up to snuff. It’s one thing to complain about something, it’s another thing to DO something about it, and NOT in a spiteful way.
I do rescue. I have trust-worthy, respectable friends who do rescue and ask questions.
Right now, I’m wondering if No Kill title is just a buzz word to get funding as they let other organizations do the dirty work…
If they're saving lives, wonderful!
But if they're saving lives while attacking other rescues,
"Well, there's your problem."
You hit the nail on the head.
ReplyDeleteNo Kill started as a rational, sane movement about 20 years ago, focusing on widespread availability of spay and neuter, and better promotion of adoption. The tactics and overall goal of reducing and ideally eliminating euthanasia of adoptable, healthy animals was widely embraced by all (legitimate) animal welfare groups.
Sometime in the last few years, the term was highjacked by Nathan Winograd and his band of bullies. They fight spay and neuter laws, proclaim that pet overpopulation is a myth, and have been widely embraced by the dog breeding industry and anti-animal front groups like HumaneWatch.
Because of the strict no-euthanasia policy of animals, many no-kill shelters face either warehousing animals, having waiting lists for admission, or limiting admission to only young, healthy, adoptable animals/breeds.
They bully and publicly admonish shelters that won't embrace No Kill and call anyone who won't endorse their cult 100% "killers", "killing apologists" and other pejoratives.
But perhaps their most destructive tactic is smearing the national animal welfare organizations for reasons I have yet to comprehend. The No Kill folks claim these organizations don't support shelters, but those organizations were never shelter-funding groups. I have to wonder if it has to do with the fact that the national welfare groups promote spay and neuter so strongly, which is despised by the breeders who support Winograd?
Whatever the reasons, it's incredibly ironic because the No Kill parent organizations (No Kill Coalition and No Kill Nation) spend absolutely no money on direct animal care, it's all spent promoting their particular brand of activism.