I don't think that it is ok for pounds to put dogs asleep after a couple days' chance. Mabey that dog's perfect family was going to come tomorrow, but today was his last day? You see what I mean? I think that they should build more kennels in pounds, and/or mabey they could put 4 or 5 equally sized puppies in one kennel with a doggie door, that way there would be around 4 or 5 more kennels to spare. And then they could put mabey 6 or 7 kittens in one kennel because they are smaller. That would help too, and mabey they could put 2 old dogs in a kennel together? That there would spare about 7 or 8 kennels for other animals. That way, more animals could be taken in without so many having to be put to sleep. And so that the animals have more time to find a home, instead of giving them just about 1 week, they could give them a week and 1/2. Or mabey even two weeks, because of all the kennels to spare! What do you all think of my idea?
it would be nice, but i don't see them doing that. our shelter keeps the pet for 2 weeks. still doesn't seem long enough. we have adoption agencies here that go to the shelter, or they call them when they see a pet that has potential, and the agency gets to take it. they usually come to my clinic where i work, check up, vaccines what ever they need, then they keep them until they are adopted. wish i could have more, if i had the space it would be full of animals.
They already do cram several animals into one cage. Have you never been to a county shelter??There are just too many to keep up with. And to create more kennels would require money. This is the base of the problem. Gov. run animal shelters are not a hot topic so they don't get much funding..if there is no money there is no way to take care of so many dogs. And private shelters have to rely on donations and adoption fees. What it boils down to is money. And until animal welfare becomes a hot issue among politicians, no money will be allocated to take care of the overpopulation problem. It would be great if they would enforce licensing more and require that anyone who wants to keep a pet unaltered must pay a really high fee like $500 a year or something. Wouldn't it be great if a cop could approach someone selling puppies out of cardbaord boxes and say could you please show me your breeding license? And when they don't have one, they get slapped with a fine. I think they are trying something like this in some states. I think the states need to make it more dificult than it is to breed. Of course this suggestion gets breeders angry, but their needs don't concern me. Also what needs to happen is enforcing spaying and neutering and also start a program where they trap more strays fix them. They need to come up with a way to inexpensively be able to sterilize in large masses. And it is not all the shelters fault. If people took accountability for their own actions and were more responsible with their pets it would cut down on alot of the problems. If so many people didn't say "I just want my dog to have 1 litter..just 1". Millions of people having just "1 litter" adds up to many many litters. Only 1 in 5 dogs born end up in a permanent home..yet every person who breeds think all their pups are going to good homes. But the math just doesn't add up. In short..people are selfish and until you can irradicate that kind of selfishness in the human race, the other species on this planet will always lose.
in our state we have a higher fee for keeping unneutered dogs. the license fee is only about 5 dollars more then a neutered dog. we have no licensing yet for cats. that seems to be a town by town decision. maybe increasing the license fee for unneutered dogs would be an incentive for back yard breeding but i think it is unfair to those that are responsible breeders. also in our state new jersey we have a government program that if someone traps stray cats they can have them fixed for 20 dollars. also besides being fixed they are felv/fiv tested, given a rabies shot and have their left ear cut in half so they are identifiable as being neutered and vaccinated. if the cat test positive for felv or fiv then the owner has the option to continue with the surgery but they incur all the expenses. the state will not pay for an infected animal to be neutered. they require it to be euthanized. and this only applies to feral cat colonies. there is also a cap on how much each clinic in the state is allowed. our hospital usually runs out of funds way before the year is out.
Houston issue: How to `fix' problem of euthanizing more pets By SEAN HAWKINS Recent policy changes at the Houston Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals create an interesting dilemma for the community: What to do with homeless dogs and cats? The board of directors for a public charity determines the mission and policies of an organization. The Spay-Neuter Assistance Program, or SNAP, for example, has chosen to focus solely on spaying and neutering of dogs and cats as its mission, as opposed to animal sheltering and adoption programs. The HSPCA has decided it is no longer able to care for stray animals and instead it is going to focus its time and resources on the re-homing of owned pets, humane education, animal rescues and animal cruelty investigations. Prior to the policy change at the HSPCA, every one of the five animal sheltering agencies in Houston was already filled to capacity with homeless dogs and cats. The effect of the HSPCA policy shift will be to cause stray animals who would have been normally admitted (and euthanized) at the HSPCA to either be turned loose on the streets, where they will certainly multiply and most likely die from injury or disease, or to be admitted and euthanized at one of Houston's other animal sheltering agencies. The problem is not that the HSPCA has changed its policy. Rather, the problem is that there are very simply too many dogs and cats and not enough homes for them all. It's not a matter of "more" animals being euthanized. It's just a matter of which agency will be responsible for the destruction of homeless animals. The control of stray animals (and the diseases they spread, such as rabies) is clearly a function of government and its public health programs, not a function of private animal sheltering agencies. If the city of Houston and Harris County did more to prevent the breeding of cats and dogs and the proliferation of homeless puppies and kittens in the first place, there would be less of a need to destroy homeless animals in our community. Ordinances such as breeding bans or permits, high license fee differentials for unsterilized versus sterilized, and leash laws for dogs and cats must be enacted and enforced. Many cities such as Seattle and Los Angeles have banned or regulated the breeding of dogs and cats and made it more expensive to own an unsterilized animal. That's not the case in Houston or Harris County. Our city and county governments must put more resources into programs that prevent homeless dogs and cats from being born, such as funding free and reduced-cost spaying and neutering of dogs and cats. Dallas spent $300,000 to build that city's first spay and neuter clinic in 1994. Los Angeles recently committed $1.5 million specifically to spay and neuter animals in income-qualified families. Instead of being proactive and working to prevent homeless animals, both Houston's and Harris County's leadership deals with "more" strays by building bigger and more expensive warehouses to hold and ultimately destroy "more" animals. Isn't it time that we fix the problem of animal overpopulation to begin with? If nothing else, policy changes at the HSPCA are forcing the public, via our city and county governments, to step up to the plate and deal with the problem that uncontrolled fertile dogs and cats create. Casting blame on any agency forced to do the public's dirty work of destroying homeless animals is not productive. Let's fix the problem of too many dogs and cats by spaying and neutering animals to prevent animal homelessness in the first place. So what can a private citizen do? 1. First and most importantly: Spay and neuter your pets. With both free and reduced-cost spaying and neutering services available in Houston, there is absolutely no reason not to spay or neuter any dog or cat in this city. Contact SNAP at 713-863-0010 for information on free and reduced-cost services. 2. Write both city and county elected officials. Ask for tougher animal licensing laws and for strict enforcement of the animal licensing laws that are already in effect. Until such a time that every dog and cat has a home, the breeding of any animal should be outlawed. There should be significant penalties for owning a fertile dog or cat, and handsome rewards for sterilizing pets. 3. Demand more government funding for subsidized spay and neuter programs. Oppose funding for bigger animal shelters. According to a study in the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, it cost the city/county government an average of $176 to pick up a stray, hold the animal for three days, euthanize the animal and send the body to landfill. It cost SNAP an average of $80 to neuter the same animal. Prevention is not only kinder than destruction -- prevention is cheaper than destruction! Animal overpopulation is a problem that Houstonians can solve. Let's "fix" the problem by "fixing" our pets! Hawkins is chief executive officer of the Spay-Neuter Assistance Program Inc. in Houston.
mrama, I like your idea, but the $500 a year is a little.............ummmmm........expensive. It would be better to just pay $500 once, and that would be as soon as you buy it. There is a new neutering process that some veteranarians are using. They laser sterilize male dogs. It looks like they are still full, but it deadens the sperm cells....
I think your idea is a great one in theory, but it actually working is limited by a few things. First off, many humane societies already have too many cages. I know ours has crates in the hallways to make more room for as many animals as possible. Adding more kennel space and such sounds goods, but there has to be more physical room in each building to accomodate the extra kennels. More crates = bigger building, bigger building = room for more crates until there's again too many dogs/cats, whatnot to put into those. It's a never ending cycle. Also, putting more puppies into each kennel creates less room in each kennel for each individual puppy overall. I'm personally a fan of a law requiring spaying/neutering of any pet that isn't registered with some sort (any sort, be it NKC, Continental Kennel Club, UKC, AKC, ARBA, etc) of animal registry. Think of how many fewer cats there would be if all cats had ot be registered! Since they come into humane societies at 4x the rate of dogs, there's a LOT more unwanted cats than there are dogs, probably because they breed so darned fast. And that all pets adopted from a humane society be spayed/neutered within 6 months of purchase or the adopter is found and legally prosecuted for violation of a contractual agreement.
"I like your idea, but the $500 a year is a little.............ummmmm........expensive. " Exactly..it's much cheaper to just get your pets fixed. Perhaps when the overpopulation problems start to decrease then they can lower the fee. I think they need to make an aggressive start. Police would need to really enforce it too..getting looking for those tags!