If an animal is red listed for euthanization because it's not getting adopted, why not give it to someone for free? I understand that it cost to spay/neauter, board and all that other good stuff. But if you are about to put the animal down, it just seems ridiculous to still make someone pay to save the animal.
My neighbor heard of a dog being put down so she went to go get the dog and take it to her organization, which places animals in homes without killing them. Because it was last minute, she didn't have the $150 cash (yes cash, they didn't except checks or cards) to get the dog out. The shelter was getting ready to close, so she couldn't run to the bank and they refused to wait. Luckily, there was a ma there looking for his lost dog, heard what happened, and put up the $150 for her to get it. I thought the entire situation was ridiculous.
What do you think?
2007-02-01 08:16:22 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Pets ➔ Other - Pets
I am a very strong advocate for spay/neuter for reasons like this.
Not only do they euthanize hundreds & thousands of dogs and cats each day/week/month/year but they dump their bodies in the local land fill.
Humane Societies and rescue groups can only save so many, with the thought of, "At least THIS one is getting a second chance". They have to close their eyes on the other ones. Heart breaking but they can only do what they can.
Some owners never check the pound for their lost dogs and if not adopted the only choice is................................
The people that work at the local animal control get hardened by the some of the things they have see and the number of them. They are public service personel and pealing a dead animal off the asfault day after day would harden anyone.
The thing is that there are too many BYBers & puppy mills.
2007-02-01 08:42:05 · answer #1 · answered by bluebonnetgranny 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
then why charge a fee at all? and where do you draw the line? some places have lots of volunteers and some don't and the fact is, they have to run these places like a business to keep afloat. And if they weren't there to take the animals, the animals would be worse off.
They should, however, give folks the option to do something else (not just cash) like checks, credit or even doing volunteer work to help the shelter out. That's a win-win situation.
2007-02-01 16:42:14 · answer #2 · answered by SC 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is ridiculous. Totally uncalled for. What would it have hurt to just let the dog go? Nothing. But people are more afraid of bureaucratic red tape than with the life of an animal. And paying that much, that's crazy. Who pays $150 for a mixed breed dog in the pound? The cost should be low enough for low income families to afford getting a pet and they certainly can't afford that price. This is just crazy. Makes me want to go out there and set them all free.
2007-02-01 16:53:32 · answer #3 · answered by Serinity4u2find 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think its disgusting. If some one is showing genuine interest in an animal then by all means it should go to them, and as far as the "required" adoption fee, I think that is atrocious too, granted the should not be free IF you can afford to pay it or have the ability. A recommended donation is much better. But your right, if someone wants it isn't the idea of the shelter to help these animals get adopted and not just harbor them until its time for them to die like its some sort of game ?
2007-02-01 16:25:02 · answer #4 · answered by Dylan m 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
.....Being an animal Person myself. and in business, I have to say no... I can see all sides of the coin. I have found a lot of animals are put down because adoption time lapse . but, If one does not have enough money to adopt. I have found that the animals are usually not taken care of either. It cost to keep animals healthy in order for us to keep them around. Shelters have to make a judgment call. and they can not afford to keep them all. Most foster care . get stuck with more than they should .They too absorb a lot of cost. most are volenteers. I might add here. We need their help, but we need to educate the public. On the other hand. We have to have rules. Cash only is becoming our practice. because off identity theft and bad cks..sorry.....I do understand, its a sad problem we have
2007-02-01 17:10:48 · answer #5 · answered by Betty S 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree 100%. Shelters are in place to help animals! Refusing the adoption of a dog/cat into a good home because of adoption fees is ridiculous and un-charitable, and in my opinion, immoral. I have heard of no-kill shelters, so maybe we let people who wish to make donations to help animals send their money in that direction, rather than the ones who care more about the money than finding a loving home for the pets.
2007-02-01 16:25:29 · answer #6 · answered by katysknox 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think the shelter should've given the woman till the next morning to get the cash. I can sympathize with the shelter not wanting to take checks, etc., but if the woman was serious, they could have let it go for one more day!!
2007-02-01 16:49:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think it should be free to if its to a good home i mean i know the shelter has spent money on the animal but to put it down would cost them more! and by giving it to someone the animal lives and has a home!
2007-02-02 14:13:14 · answer #8 · answered by Avaria 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no
2007-02-03 17:14:11 · answer #9 · answered by jerry 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋