DISCLAIMER: THE
FOLLOWING IS AN ‘OBSERVATION’ AND AN ‘OPINION’.
IT IS NOT A JUDGEMENT OF ANYONE ANYWHERE NOR IS IT A GENERALIZATION AS
THERE ARE MANY OUT THERE TO WHICH THIS DOES NOT APPLY. IT IS AN ATTEMPT TO OPEN AVENUES OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN TWO OBVIOUSLY OPPOSITE SIDES OF AN ISSUE.
I’ve been seeing a lot of posts on Facebook lately, more
than usual, by very well meaning animal welfare folks who would like to deter
people from surrendering their pets to shelters. It seems that the popular approach is to
either shame them into not doing it or changing their minds about doing it by
exposing them to horrific videos and photos of what happens to animals when
they enter the shelter. First of all for
a vast majority of those people who surrender their pets to a shelter it is a
heartbreaking and extremely difficult decision based on their belief, whether
accurate or not, that this is the last resort and is the only option they have
left. Plus they usually have the belief
that the shelter is actually a sanctuary; a ‘real’ shelter for animals and that
everything possible will be done to place their pet in a better situation than
their own.
Shaming people and appealing to their pity really doesn’t
work because if it was a successful approach to this issue the surrenders to
shelters would have plummeted by now because this is the same old approach that
has been used for years by most animal welfare people. If it isn’t working when you do a bit of it
then doing a whole lot more of it will not change anything. In addition when doing more of something that
is ineffective doesn’t work it seems to lead some in the animal welfare
community to think even less of the public and only works to reaffirm their
suspicions that most people who aren’t in the animal welfare community are
sorry pieces of shit who could care less about the animals they take into their
homes. It is a truly vicious cycle
because we can’t help people when we have a negative perception of who they
really are and what their motivations are so the public finds it difficult to
want to work with or reach out for help to an organization who publicly judges
and condemns anyone who would surrender a pet to a shelter. This attitude, on both sides, and the vocalization
of it sets up an impasse where there is little or no hope for resolution.
It takes effort to complain about the POS people who ‘dump’
their pets at a shelter and effort to post opinions about it all over the
internet. So why not apply some of that
energy, drive and effort into coming up with better ways to help people avoid
this heart-wrenching decision and action of surrendering a pet to a
shelter? Why not look at the reasons
people give for surrendering their pets and then put energy into creating
easily accessible and highly public programs to help people who are in need of
help with their pet whether it be a behavior issue, a new baby in the family, a
divorce, loss of a residence, loss of income or whatever?
If there are already programs in place to help people avoid
this decision then advertise them.
Advertise them instead of the information that is advertised to shame
people or show them the darker side of shelters. Advertise them until they have saturated the
public’s view of shelters and what they represent. Typically by the time a pet owner has made
that trip to the shelter or called the shelter for information about
surrendering their pet they have already made up their minds and are no longer
open to other options because by then they believe they’ve exhausted all of the
options and have prepared themselves for the pain of surrendering their
pet. Some shelters need to work much
harder to get the word out to people so that they understand that there is help
BEFORE they decide they must give up their pet.
Have highly publicized community events that invite people in who have
pets and that show them the many programs that exist to help them keep their
pets safe, healthy and behaviorally balanced.
Get the word out that there is low or no cost spay neuter, training
classes and assistance in the care of elderly pets. For a shelter the public can be their biggest
ally or their biggest burden BUT most people in the public do not want to
support any organization that publicly appears to lack compassion for humans and
appears only to have compassion for the animals that they exist to care for.
‘To care for’. That
leads to another side of this issue. Am
I the only one who finds it hugely ironic and even a bit twisted that when
those animal welfare people who are so vocal about the POS pet owner that just
‘dumped’ a pet at their shelter speak out about a surrender they act as if it
is the absolute WORST thing that anyone could ever do to a pet? Aren’t shelters called shelters because they
are there to shelter the animals from harm, to save their lives, to improve
their lives, to protect them from those who would abuse or neglect them? How can it be a ‘shelter’ and at the same
time be the absolute WORST place for a human being to
take a pet? Isn’t it up to those who
operate the shelter to ensure that their facility is a safe place for animals
to go where all options are exhausted before a pet is euthanized for behavioral
issues, for health issues or to make room for new intakes? Isn’t it up to those who operate a shelter to
reach out to and involve the community in a positive manner to obtain those
additional funds they may need to ensure that their shelter kills as few
animals as possible? Isn’t it up to
those people who operate a shelter to constantly look to new ways, new options
and new resources so that they kill as few animals as possible? Low/no kill is a possibility. It is being seen more and more around the
country and even around the world. If
people in one community can make it happen then people in other communities can
make it happen. Rather than squabble
over the possibility and/or viability of a ‘no’ kill shelter and what ‘no’ kill
actually looks like why not seek out those who appear to be doing it
successfully and find out how they are doing it? Again it takes as much, if maybe not more,
energy to resist change and to defend one’s policies and practices as it does
to learn how others are changing and implement those policies and practices
into one’s own shelter.
Saving lives requires a focus on the solution; not just on
the problem. In the medical field, with
humans, the professionals don’t just sit around complaining about cancer and
other diseases blaming the humans who contract them for the actions that may or
may not have led to their contracting the disease. They focus on the solution, the root causes, on
prevention and on the healing. They
improve their practices, their methods, their facilities constantly. They actively seek out others in their field,
and even outside of their field, they find out from other people in the medical
community what is working for them and then adopt it for the betterment of the
people in their care. They typically
don’t just sit there nursing their own ego when others are more successful at
helping people than they are and make excuses why their success rate is lower
than some others.
In the end if the animal welfare community feels that the
public needs to step up and become more responsible pet owners isn’t it fair
for the pet owning community to feel that shelters need to step up to become a
true ‘shelter’ for animals in need?
There are always two sides to every issue but no issue can ever be
remedied when one side or the other can only see their own side and only seeks
to defend their reason for being and doing what they are and what they do. Concurrently somebody somewhere has to extend
the olive branch and make the first move, reach out the first hand to connect
in a positive manner to others. Why sit
and wait for the other side to wake up?
Why not be the first to begin the healing process and truly create a
partnership between shelters and the community?
Why not manifest change within so that change without will
occur?
THIS IS NOT A RANT, THIS IS NOT AN ACCUSATION, THIS IS ONLY
AN IDEA OR TWO TO SHARE.
No comments:
Post a Comment