|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Puppies in the road (6/3/2008 1:48:34 PM)
|
Fast Reply to no one in particular:
I abhor cruelty to animals.
I have, however, put down my share of them, for various reasons.
Throwing kittens into the river, or in the middle of a busy highway, or in any deadly situation is uncalled for, and should be punished.
I also have a house in the country, and have had my fair share of animals "show up" at my door step. Currently, my daughter lives in that house, and still has about 8 dogs - all strays which were adopted from the roadside. We have had as many as 30 dogs (which is an expensive pain, even if you like animals).
However, I would like to present a different side to "dropping off" animals that some people don't seem to consider.
The majority of animal shelters have limited budgets, and even if they have an adoption program, don't always place many of the animals that work their way through the system.
What happens to the animals in most of those shelters, if they are not adopted?
They are killed.
Sure, there are some "no kill" shelters, but they are relatively rare, compared to all the others. And what happens when they are full, and not accepting any new animals?
Yup. They force you to take any additional animals to a "kill facility".
Some people condemn without exception anyone who "drops off" an animal, rather than taking them to a shelter, because it is "cruel" to drop off an animal, to get rid of them. I'm not endorsing "dropping off" either (I've been on the receiving end too often), but I do think there is a wider way to look at it, other than simply giving it a blanket condemnation.
If taking an animal to a shelter is death, then is that any less cruel than giving an animal a chance at life, by changing their location in life?
Perhaps they suffer, and don't find a new, good home. Perhaps they go hungry. Perhaps they get hit by a car, or otherwise killed.
That's a chance at life, rather than a certainty of death.
Is there no redeeming morality to this at all?
Firm
|
|
|
|
