ANOTHER VIEW: No Kill Shelters Can Be Cruel | News – California News

ANOTHER VIEW: No Kill Shelters Can Be Cruel | News – California News

A puppy is born with a swollen head and has no chance of survival, as so decreed by a veterinarian.

Because the shelter alleges that it is “no-kill,” a shelter employee, a “no-kill” ideologue, insists on fostering the puppy with hopes that he will be all right. This employee has no medical knowledge or ability to soothe this baby as there is no treatment for the condition and his system is too frail to survive pain killers.

The puppy, however, is suffering horribly. He screams when touched and his breathing is labored. The zealot, bathed in self-righteous glory, watches the puppy die slowly, unable to touch him, for 15 tortuous hours, proud to worship at the “no-kill” ideology altar. The employee returns the little body to the shelter, where his death is classified as “died in care,” or lack thereof, rather than “humanely euthanized.”

“Died in care” has become the new statistical catch-all for permitting animals to suffer in agony and die while perpetuating the lie that the euthanasia rate is low or non-existent. In other words, if cages are overloaded and animals kill each other, if animals are allowed to die like this puppy, if animals are given to hoarders or incompetent/fake rescues in an endless game of three card monte where they live for years cramped into feces-filled airline crates, the shelter administration can statistically present the shelter to the public as “no-kill,” thus turning their back on the suffering and thereby condemning these pets to a fate worse than death. It is shameful, cruel and conscience shocking.

Of…

click here to read more.

Share this post

Post Comment