Animal hoarding and welfare and stuff

[LadyShea]

Mean Old Lady Marmalade

I am not mean!

Srsly I would consider attempting to domesticate the cat if we didn't have 200lbs of not-tested-around-cats old crotchety dogs, and the money to get it properly routinely veterinaried let alone any special stuff like infections, fleas, worms, leukemia or gawd knows what, which we don't right now, and that's all if the cat would even let itself be taken in AND if I were even much of a cat person. Which, not really.

And why I am even justifying not welcoming a feral cat into my home with my small child and old dogs? BECAUSE YOU! You made me wonder if I'm mean.

[Sophia]

Any right-wingers around who think they like eugenics might be interested to learn that both gun ownership and opposition to democratic gun control are negatively correlated with IQ. Come to think of it, so is racial authoritarianism - the irony is fucking righteous - and if you're both a Klan fan and a gun nut then you're probably going to be close to retarded. Throw in frequent churchgoing and you may as well just go to the looney bin and hope they'll be somehow manage to "steal" enough money from slave-owner, squaw-murderer descended rich white assholes that they'll be able to afford for you permanent room and board and quality psych treatment.

Oh, hi yguy! I don't want to ever neglect you. Whatever humanity you have in you is beautiful, and I want to gently touch you exactly there.

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

That was a joke. I think that fully automatic rifles should have more stringent acquisition conditions than dogs.

Sorry, I just failed to resist.



Either Saudis or... Ziiiiiiiiiionists! I'll let you figure it out from there.

[Demimonde]

Okay, that totally made me bawl. And reminds me that Sylvie was such a Christmas rescue. We decided in 08 when the economy tanked and we heard that the humane society had closed their doors that our gift to each other, and Dante, was to adopt. She was due to die the day we rescued her, and the volunteers at the shelter all thought she'd been put to sleep.

Until that weekend, when she went to have her picture taken with Sandy Paws and her new family. The friends of the shelter sponsored the event and they all started to cry when she came. She was the ghost of Christmas Present for them.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by lisarea

Just to illustrate, once on an animal welfare forum, this woman who was an adoption counselor I think at a municipal shelter (could have been a rescue, but I don't think so) posted to brag about how she'd busted a potential cat adopter. They had a questionnaire where they asked a bunch of questions about what you intended to do with your pet. It included questions about whether you would get them vaccinations, take them for physicals at the vet, spay or neuter, and declaw them. The woman, who hadn't had a cat before, answered yes to all of them. So the poster rejected her and lectured her on declawing. The lady said that she answered that way because she thought that was what they wanted, and the counselor treated this as her being deceptive and just trying to say what they wanted to hear. I took it as someone who hadn't had a cat before and probably didn't understand about declawing, and who probably would have been very receptive to a non-hostile, non-judgmental education on what declawing is and why the shelter does not recommend it.

Out of curiosity, what are the arguments against declawing house cats? I understand that cats who venture out of doors need their claws, but what about cats that are strictly indoor pets? We have one such cat and, as it happens, he has not been declawed. He still has claws because, despite the depredations he commits against our furniture, he has a job that requires the use of his claws. He catches mice for us.

[Brimshack]

One doesn't normally label the essential themes of an argument "myths" in order to distinguish a subset of those arguments from others. The whole point of calling something a myth is normally to cast doubt on all arguments drawing from that theme. That would seem to belie the narrow construction you yourself insist was your initial intent.

But the problem isn't what you specifically intended. It's what your statements suggest, and they are nowhere near as precise as you now maintain. Neither is the issue whether or not your speculations amount to lying. The point is simply that when you describe one side's excess as understandable, given what the other side as is saying and what the other side says reflects some deep seated fear on their part, then your description certainly biases the subject. Is it a full on justification? No. But it certainly isn't a reasonable description of the controvery.

I don't recall questioning your motives, much less suggesting you are an asshole, but if you'd prefer to move on then be my guest. Your current position is at considerable variance with the statement to which I initially took exception, but hey, I was obvious out of line for taking issue with you, and apparently it doesn't matter anyway.

Have fun.

[freemonkey]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Out of curiosity, what are the arguments against declawing house cats? I understand that cats who venture out of doors need their claws, but what about cats that are strictly indoor pets? We have one such cat and, as it happens, he has not been declawed. He still has claws because, despite the depredations he commits against our furniture, he has a job that requires the use of his claws. He catches mice for us.

For one thing, it's a radical surgery. Quick explanation.

Further, it means that the cat has reduced means to defend itself in the event it happens to escape the house. Some people even have the rear claws removed. I know someone who did this to her cats to save her furniture and her kids' arms. She said, don't worry, I'll never let them out. IMO, she should not have cats. I told her this and she has not talked to me since. I heard she moved to California and had to find homes for them.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by Brimshack

One doesn't normally label the essential themes of an argument "myths" in order to distinguish a subset of those arguments from others. The whole point of calling something a myth is normally to cast doubt on all arguments drawing from that theme. That would seem to belie the narrow construction you yourself insist was your initial intent.

But the problem isn't what you specifically intended. It's what your statements suggest, and they are nowhere near as precise as you now maintain. Neither is the issue whether or not your speculations amount to lying. The point is simply that when you describe one side's excess as understandable, given what the other side as is saying and what the other side says reflects some deep seated fear on their part, then your description certainly biases the subject. Is it a full on justification? No. But it certainly isn't a reasonable description of the controvery.

As I've said, I do have bias, but it's bias that I am OK with. The dangers of my bias are that someone's feelings get hurt if they know I'm saying it and care what I think; and, as I said, that people are alienated and put on the defensive. Which is a serious issue I take with some of Winograd's rhetoric. The dangers of bias on the other side are perpetuating the killing of adoptable animals. I do not represent myself as being entirely without bias in any situation, and in this case in particular, I don't have a personal problem with erring on the side I tend to err on.

Ultimately, though, my point is that my personal bias isn't really interesting or important. It's a diversion from the issue, and even if I were worse than Hitler, it doesn't matter in this context. That's why I'll go ahead and concede whatever I need to to move past it. I'm not claiming you said that. I'm just trying to dispense with that line of reasoning because I don't think it's relevant and also I get really bored when people start dissecting human communications.

I want to talk about the actual pet overpopulation myths, including things like the following.

This is one I run across all the time among pibble advocates:

Sadly, for every 1 "Pit Bull" placed in a loving home there are 599 killed. Shockingly, that statistic unfortunately does not exclude puppies!

That's just cold made up. I have researched this factoid as much as I could to try to determine what the actual statistic is that people have misunderstood or misrepresented, but I can't find anything that would parse even with the most egregious misreading.

Furthermore, what the fuck? How can so many people be repeating this over and over again without stopping for a couple of minutes to do some math? In either direction, it's absurd. I once did some quick calculations based on the number of 'pit bulls' in Los Angeles shelters, where they keep breed statistics, and even if you assumed that ALL pit bulls in that area were adopted from the shelter, the numbers would be ridiculous. The available land mass wouldn't provide sufficient space for all the dead pit bulls they'd have.

for us to end the killing “every person in America right now [would have to] adopt eight animals” and they would have to do so every year.

This shows up in various forms a lot as well. I think the number they throw out is usually seven, though.

Also absurd and ridiculous and unsupportable for largely the same reasons. You can't sit down and do thirty seconds of simple calculation without realizing it, either. And yet, this and similar arguments are cited all the time.

Slightly less egregiously absurd, but probably the source of those misrepresentations, are the statistics that there are seven kittens and puppies born for every human born in the US. I don't know if that's true or not (and I doubt it based on the fact that the sources are always unreliable or entirely uncited when I encounter it), but that statistic is often trotted out as well, and used to support really bizarre conclusions about people having to take on seven pets as soon as they're born, rather than seven over a lifetime (humans have significantly longer average lifespans than cats or dogs), to even things out.

Also this stuff, which is all over the place in various forms, is nonetheless a completely implausible clean room type of speculation that many people seem to take far too seriously. They're definitely alarming and sometimes more or less accurate numbers, but even when the math is solid, it depends on the female having a maximum number of litters a year, all fairly large, and all surviving, for every offspring to do the same, and for all to live for the full length of the scenario.

And, of course, there are the ass-backwards calculations and assumptions as well, where shelter deaths are used, circularly, as evidence that they're inevitable. One of the major premises of no kill, which I haven't seen effectively rebutted at all, is that based on surveys, there are about twice as many potential new homes for pets at any given time as there are pets in shelters, and that enough of those people are already amenable to adopting shelter pets that all those shelter pets could have homes. And that at least part of the reason that they don't is that many shelters are hostile enough to adopters that adopters go elsewhere. AND unless those shelters make some attempt to attract and retain adopters, they will never know how well the equation could work.

So of course there are all kinds of confounding factors in those surveys and statistics. Maybe people are lying. Maybe people change their minds. But there's not only little doubt that many of the shelter statistics could be improved (as evidenced by the fact that they almost always are improved when shelters give them a shot), but there's no good, solid reason not to try, because in a badly run, high kill shelter, the risks of trying something new are not as significant as the risks involved in doing things the way they've always been done.

[lisarea]

Gregory Castle from Best Friends just did an OK blog poast where he addresses hoarding, PETA, feral cat colonies, and, of course, no kill.

PETA™'s "better off dead" philosophy | The Best Friends Blog

Gotta say I really don't like the whole we are hoarders' enemies, bringing them to justice angle, though.

[lisarea]

Some of you have probably already seen this story, but if not, here:

SPCA investigates slaughter of 100 Whistler sled dogs

To summarize, a Vancouver company that did sled dog roleplaying things for tourists was experiencing an economy related downturn, so they ordered an employee to go out back and shoot a bunch (like 100) of the dogs to cull them. The employee then developed PTSD and sued for compensation and won.

And now I am going to tell a story I never used to tell in public, but I figure I will because any statutes of limitations are passed and I don't have sufficient information to narc anyone even if they torture me, anyway.

A very long time ago, I got a greyhound who had been rescued (read: stolen) from a cull. It was pretty much the same deal. The owner of the dogs had employees whose job in part was to go out back and shoot un- or underperforming dogs en masse. At least one of those employees was a mole, though, and would arrange to hand off at least some of the dogs to rescuers, who would hand them off to someone else, underground railroad style, until eventually, some guy comes to my door and says, "You have to take this dog."

I've entertained the notion that the story was exaggerated, but based on the evidence, I don't think so. Bud was horribly traumatized and fearful when I got him, and he never really got 100% over it in all the time I had him (about fourteen years--no shit!). Also, he was a purebred, tattooed, intact greyhound. Dog racers do not let their breeding stock out intact to the general public.

There are official adopt a retired greyhound programs, but I suspect they're Potemkin villages, where owners dump their less fucked up dogs as a PR move or something.

But so yeah, this kind of shit happens all the time, I have no doubt. I guess I'm glad this is at least getting some publicity, and that people are horrified about it.

[LadyShea]

Sorry about how badly written this is, but it's a good story

Alabama's "Baldwin County 7": Refuge for mama Pit Bull and six pups - Mobile Animal Welfare and Protection | Examiner.com

[lisarea]

There have been some good blog posts on that sled dog story, so I am going to link a couple.

This one's mostly a summary:

On working dogs, culling and stepping up to the plate - KC DOG BLOG

This is Fred, who is always awesome:

Pound Dogs: Cull culture

One really interesting development in this case is that apparently, the guy who shot all the dogs had called the SPCA twice asking for help before he killed them. (It looks like that's their local animal control authority.)

It's true that it's not their job to take on the problems for privately owned businesses, and it's a shit thing to do to try to foist off your problem onto a public resource. But it sounds as though they were incredibly dismissive and unhelpful, deeming all of the dogs unadoptable without even seeing them.

This is one of those things that I've known goes on in businesses like this for a long time, so I guess I assumed everyone else knew too, and just didn't care. So it is a little heartening to me to see that people aren't OK with it after all.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by lisarea

One really interesting development in this case is that apparently, the guy who shot all the dogs had called the SPCA twice asking for help before he killed them. (It looks like that's their local animal control authority.)

It's true that it's not their job to take on the problems for privately owned businesses, and it's a shit thing to do to try to foist off your problem onto a public resource. But it sounds as though they were incredibly dismissive and unhelpful, deeming all of the dogs unadoptable without even seeing them.

This really is extremely interesting, especially considering the SPCA is who is investigating this case (thank goodness the police are as well), and considering how judgmental the SPCA employee Moriarty was as quoted in the initial Sun article:

Marcie Moriarty, head of the BC SPCA cruelty investigations division, said the employee, who was the general manager at the time with Outdoor Adventures in Whistler, could have simply said no when his employer ordered him to kill the dogs.

The man said in a written declaration to the WorkSafeBC review that he had “developed a strong emotional bond of mutual love and trust with” the dogs before carrying out the “execution-style” mass cull over two days.

“I’ve no doubt he has suffered post traumatic stress but there’s a thing called choice,” said Moriarty. “I absolutely would not have done this and he could have said no. This is a Criminal Code offence ... I don’t feel sorry for this guy for one minute.”

(Although, lisarea, it appears from the article you linked that one of the calls the ex-Whistler employee made to the SPCA was before the cull, and one after.)

[LadyShea]

This is a recent local story of starved horses. Owner charged with neglecting 10 horses | pnj.com | Pensacola News Journal

If you can't afford to feed them, give them away for free. Someone, somewhere would take a free horse or two I am sure!

[lisarea]

Just another irresponsible pet owner… right? | PetConnection.com

There's a link to the original story and video, but the blog post has a pretty good analysis. This guy's dog got out after a telephone worker left his gate open, he posted fliers and went to the shelter every day to look for him. The dog was there the whole time, in a private wing of the shelter for injured dogs, and he didn't find out until they'd killed the dog after the holding period because they don't adopt out 'pit bulls.'

And they still managed to scramble around and find a way to blame the owner for their fuckup.

[Ensign Steve]

We doubled the size of our collection of chihuahuas last weekend. If we keep doing that every weekend, we'll have over 70 quadrillion chihuahuas by the end of the year.

[Sophia]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

We doubled the size of our collection of chihuahuas last weekend. If we keep doing that every weekend, we'll have over 70 quadrillion chihuahuas by the end of the year.

That is fuckin' scary.

[BrotherMan]

I heartily endorse this effort.

[lisarea]

DO IT DO IT DO IT.

You could get a reality show on TLC called Furbabies to the Power of Love. And I can have some of the money from it, because I invented the name.

[lisarea]

Here is a really awful story.

For the Pit Bulls: Casa Grande Animal Control You Have a Problem

Summary: Three apparently severely neglected, underfed, unlicensed dogs got out and attacked a ten year old boy, who was seriously mauled and lost an ear. Their owner surrendered them voluntarily and they were all put to sleep.

So, you know, that plays right into the stereotype of the abusive, neglectful owners that animal control employees are always blaming for problems.

Except for the part where this abusive, neglectful owner is an animal control employee.

[LadyShea]

LA Purse dogs, discarded as last season's accessories, airlifted to Canada. Yes, you read that right

Airlift rescues abandoned LA chihuahuas - Yahoo! News

[BrotherMan]

Good for Canada.

[livius drusus]

Katherine Heigl funds a charity that supports animal rescue. I remember reading in the news a couple of years ago that she gave something like $25,000 so a California shelter could fly dozens of Chihuahuas to the East Coast where small dogs are very much in demand and a lot harder to come by.

[Miisa]

Are they gonna be used as replacement sled dogs?

[lisarea]

They've flown them here to CO too. In fact, the airline that flew them out last time was our very own Juggalo City based Pet Airways!

[Ymir's blood]

But how do the chihuahuas navigate through all the snow?