|
Orange County Animal Services Sheltering Practices and Philosophies 42
<br />"Thank God for animal control!" says Kirkpatrick, who is also the associate
<br />director of the Pet Savers Foundation. "Somebody was doing their job. It certainly
<br />wasn't this organization. Yau have to understand, they are not a true 'no kilh' ... I
<br />would consider them collectors or hoarders, ,,,
<br />"Bottom line is that a true `no kill' organization will euthanize an animal that has a
<br />disease which cannot be treated or [that] has lost the quality of life, 'No kill'
<br />organizations will euthanize a dangerous dog that presents major potential for
<br />injury to the public or to another animal. A true 'no kill' would do that."
<br />"And that's what's the driving force behind my particular articles," says
<br />Kirkpatrick, " .,, is that there are 'no kill' organizations or supposed 'no kill'
<br />organizations that ,,, are not following the real meaning behind what they are
<br />doing."
<br />Spinning Our Wheels
<br />To Kirkpatrick, the assertions are nothing more than common sense, To some in
<br />the field, however, they represent a sea change, a re-opening of a dialogue that
<br />had been slammed shut for years by anger, insensitivity, resentment, and fear,
<br />it was about a decade ago that Richard Avanzino, whose name has become
<br />synonymous with the "no kill" movement, stood before a workshop audience at
<br />The HSUS's Animal Gare Expo to explain his interpretation of the phrase "no kill":
<br />that it was a concept, a description of the mission he believed every humane
<br />organization should have. It was just one piece of the larger puzzle, however,
<br />and it was not meant to condone "warehousing" of animals or advocate an
<br />exclusive focus on "the cutes and cuddlies,"
<br />Nor should the term be used to cast aspersions on other agencies, Avanzino
<br />advised, "When i first came into the cause, there was a round condemnation by a
<br />lot of humane organizations about animal control programs, he told attendees.
<br />"And now I think everybody realizes that we're all part of the same family, all
<br />trying to da the best thing as professionally as we can. And I don't think that we
<br />should be making good guys and bad guys out of the entire movement, I think we
<br />should all be working together, trying to learn from each other, taking efforts and
<br />trying to see what we can do to make the best good,"
<br />If those wards had been taken to heart movement-wide, the concept would have
<br />been easier far many to embrace; "no kill" could have become a barometer for
<br />measuring change, not an epithet. But instead, the dialogue often regressed from
<br />its original incarnations, manifesting itself in public spats over the definitions of
<br />"euthanasia," "kill," "no kill," and "adoptable," As the debate turned almost
<br />exclusively toward euthanasia, the battle lines were drawn. Many shelters have
<br />endured so many slings and arrows over their operational policies that
<br />developing relationships with external groups can seem like not just a difficult
<br />
|