Agenda - 09-19-2006-7b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Orange County Animal Services Sheltering Practices and Philosophies '7t going kennel-crazy is neither possible nor desirable-"zero suffering" must be a priority above all others. While some have been resistant to the "no kill" movement because of the harmful language and false dualisms the term "no kill" perpetuates, other detractors have well-founded fears that treating the zero-euthanasia goal as an immediate solution rather than an eventual outcome could result in increased suffering for animals in long-term holding facilities. Without increased socialization, exercise, and human contact, no creature can stay healthy, comfortable, behaviorally sound, and "adoptable" for long. The concern has been expressed by even so--called "radical" groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Many members of the public mistakenly equate PETA's goal to end suffering with the concept of saving life at all costs. But while PETA's focus has brought the group into conflict with some of the obvious culprits like fur retailers and fast food restaurants, the organization has also found itself at odds with some groups that claim to have an animal agenda at heart but are actually contributing to cruelty. Cofounder and President Ingrid Newkirk, who started her work in the field as a kennel cleaner and an animal control officer, says she's witnessed animal suffering at organizations that refuse to euthanize even when it is the most humane option; on the other hand, some communities are at the opposite end of the extreme in that they are ending animal lives inhumanely. As long as stories still surface about communities where cats and dogs die by gunshot or by car-generated fumes, the current dialogue will remain simplistic and inadequate. "This is the 21st century and we are still trying to stop people from ... electrocuting animals to death in painful ways," says Newkirk. "It's a dream world out there." Providing cats and dogs with a humane death is far preferable to subjecting them to an inhumane life, says Ken White, who recently left the Arizona Humane Society to head up the Peninsula Humane Society in California. The debate over human suffering versus death continues in the context of physician-assisted suicide, says White, but in the animal field, any thoughtful discussion on the subject is often overtaken by a sole focus on ending euthanasia. White's arguments stem in part from something he once witnessed at a shelter that held animals indefinitely-dogs running to the end of the cage, barking, leaping, and landing in a continuous pattern. "And I'm not a psychologist, but it sure seemed like something to me that would be described as 'psychotic behavior.' And that to me is suffering, induced by the industrial warehousing of those animals.... And what I've said ... in relation to the `no kill' movement is we are frankly more committed to not allowing an animal to suffer than we are to ending euthanasia." White's concern is echoed by those working in both open-admission and responsible "no kill" shelters. But the growing trend of coalition-building among humane societies, animal control agencies, and breed-placement groups is creating, in some cases, the potential far such comprehensive partnerships that it