Any animal lover out there can agree that pet over population is a problem. We can all agree it starts with spaying or neutering your pet. We know that goes along with responsible pet ownership. But, there are times when a pet just can’t be kept any longer. Personally, I’d eat one meal a day to make sure my animals had one too, but that’s just me. Everyone isn’t that way. Then there’s illness that strikes a family, or death or this economy which can sometimes leave the family with no choice as to whether they feed their children or their pets. I get that. What I don’t get is an SPCA that lies to you about killing animals.
In the Tampa Bay paper online today, I read an extremely disturbing article about the Tampa Bay SPCA passing themselves off as a no kill when in reality, they are killing baby kittens, dogs and adult cats at a higher rate then they are adopting them out. Their kennels are not filled, some of their cat cages are empty and volunteers are being asked to sign a confidentiality statement so that they can’t relay to anyone what they see going on there.
My guess is that the 3 million they take in every year from unsuspecting donors would not nearly be that much if they showed their real statistics of euthanasia. Sure, everyone that donates to a shelter doesn’t do so because its a no kill, but, I would suspect that the majority of their donors have also been misled, just like the public and those dropping off pets to be adopted out.
Now, you say, what kind of person drops off pets and should they even have a say if they drop them off. Yes, while I don’t always understand their reason for the abandonment of a pet you’ve had since it was a baby, I certainly can respect the fact that they are attempting to find it a home instead of just leaving it behind in an abandoned apartment or house or letting it loose on the streets like so many others are doing. They are doing so under the assumption that their pet will be given the chance to find another home.
Tampa Bay SPCA says they check the animals for health problems, aggressiveness or cats that won’t use litter boxes. These animals are euthanized. So, you are telling me that someone won’t take a chance on a dog that has a little medical problem or a cat that maybe doesn’t like the litter the SPCA uses? Obviously.
How many other "no kill" rescues are using this same facade to hide behind? It’s disturbing to me to know it’s going on in my hometown or anywhere for that matter.
If these shelters and rescues put as much effort into adopting out the animals as they do in hiding the truth of all the euthanasia, they would have a much higher adoption rate and much lower euthanasia rate. But, from what I’ve seen in the past, for the most part, that’s not their goal. Their goal is to just run a shelter, dupe the public and hope that a few animals are adopted to at least show their feeble attempts at being a rescue shelter.
Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Your post is as unfair as the story. No where in that story does it ever say that SPCA TB passes itself off as a no-kill shelter. It doesn’t. You accuse it of lying — tell us where they lied????
Read it again, “Bauza was confident that the cats, who seemed healthy and had never caused problems in his apartment, would find a good home or at least live out their years in the shelter’s farm-like surroundings. He requested that, if possible, the pair be placed together with the same family.
Within days, both were euthanized, Phantom for unspecified medical issues, Lula for failing to use her litter box.
Bauza feels misled. “I went there because the SPCA Tampa Bay is ‘no-kill,’ ” he said. “The people there didn’t tell me any different. If they’re euthanizing animals, they should inform people . . . Then I could have made a more educated choice.”
Classic misrepresentation by shelters, they don’t come right out and tell you how quick they are to euthanize.
It’s only a misrepresentation if they do something to make you believe something that’s false. Nothing in the story shows they did that to Bauza or that they ever promoted themselves as no-kill. Bauza says they are no-kill but he is the one who’s wrong. No one who knows anything about that place would believe they are no-kill. You’re making representations without having all the facts, which is a misrepresentation.
From what I’ve read, its what they don’t say that makes them guilty. They clearly kill whatever they want and are not a true no kill shelter.
That is so not right! How could they promise someone their cats or dogs will be taken care of and then turn right around and KILL them?
A cat for not using the litter box, excuse me, the cat was scared, taken from it’s home that it only knew, thrown into a shelter, heck I wouldn’t use the litter box either!
No, this is not right at all, and I will be the first to tell people about this NO KILL. Who do they think they are lying to people? This should by all means be brought out into the open, innocent people who have to give up their animals thinking they will be safe, and other people donating to this place think they are NO KILL, I don’t think so.
A medical problem with that one cat, so it deserves to die, what kind of place is this. I myself take in the special needs, medical problems, anxiety, you name it I have dealt with it because I feel every animal has a right to live no matter how sick or old or other problems, they have a right to live!
They don’t know what the word NO KILL means except to get donations, FRAUD this is what this is FRAUD!
I totally agree, Cindy. If a shelter represented itself as “no-kill,” then I’d be pretty upset that an animal I might have dropped off there (for a catastrophic reason I have to add since like you I believe that if you get a pet as a baby he’s your responsibility until he’s ready to cross the rainbow bridge) was was euthanized. I’m sure the cats’ owner — whatever his reasons — specifically went there because they were “no kill” and as such would expect to be told if that was not the case so he could choose another course of action. I’d be mad too.