[Deni]

I will post pics of my babies that own me.. Cowgirl and Gizmo!!!

[sweetdaisy]

Originally Posted by mranderson

Be it $30,000 or $35,000. People with incomes that high can afford the fees. If nothing else, pay for it with plastic.

If we have low cost or free services to people with incomes that high, then we need to make every service that high. Such as medicaid, food susbdies (which use to be called food stamps), etc.

What point are you even trying to make with your ridiculous statements? Pay for it with plastic? Let me explain to you how credit cards work...they actually have to PAY BACK what they charged, with interest. Therefore charging a $100 surgery will cost them MORE in the long run. How does that benefit anyone?

The fact is, there is low cost spay/neuter service available to low income people. That is because people with incomes $35K and lower usually will spend their money on other necessities before they will pay to neuter an animal. For once, can't you just be happy it's available and stop complaining about it (and everything else unrelated to the thread)? Geez...

And as an added note, Anderson, I was clarifying the income level so anyone who may be reading this and would qualify could use the services.

[mranderson]

Originally Posted by sweetdaisy

What point are you even trying to make with your ridiculous statements? Pay for it with plastic? Let me explain to you how credit cards work...they actually have to PAY BACK what they charged, with interest. Therefore charging a $100 surgery will cost them MORE in the long run. How does that benefit anyone?

The fact is, there is low cost spay/neuter service available to low income people. That is because people with incomes $35K and lower usually will spend their money on other necessities before they will pay to neuter an animal. For once, can't you just be happy it's available and stop complaining about it (and everything else unrelated to the thread)? Geez...

And as an added note, Anderson, I was clarifying the income level so anyone who may be reading this and would qualify could use the services.

It is simple. People with incomes as high as their maximum can easily afford things. They do not need help.

[sweetdaisy]

Originally Posted by mranderson

It is simple. People with incomes as high as their maximum can easily afford things. They do not need help.

As always, your absurd comments never cease to amaze me.

[bandnerd]

Combined my husband and I are fine financially, but I will say that we still appreciated and used our free neuter certificate we received from Pets and People when we adopted Tolstoy.

Just because people make more money than the poverty level doesn't mean they can always afford everything so easily.

[OKCCrime]

"Unfortunately, this animal; there's nothing medically wrong with this animal.
Unfortunately we have to euthanize because of space," Gannon says.

Fallacy!

Euthanasia is defined as
"the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy"
(see euthanasia - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

Gannon kills these healthy animals.

Calling it euthanasia, is euphemism. An ugly one at that.

Not all euthanasia's are because of over-population. City policy requires all pit bulls, unclaimed by the owner, to be put down. They're not adoptable.

They are not adoptable only because of city policy, not for some other more sensible reason. Many pit bulls can be successfully adopted. For example, the Tompkins County SPCA successfully adopted 86% of it's pit bulls.

In general, it's a case of too many wagging tales and not enough homes.

Just not true.

According to the statistics in this
book more animals already in homes pass away each year (thus opening a space in a home) than are admitted to shelters.

People are willing to adopt animals, but everyone hates actually going to a shelter where that majority of animals are being killed. Easier to avoid the problem than contribute to fixing it.

I can't help but feel from the article that the shelter is giving excuses for killing, trying to make themselves and the public feel that it is necessary and OK to kill healthy animals, when it is not.

Furthermore, I have to disagree with the statements in this thread that blame irresponsible pet owners for the problem and thus the killing. While that is an excuse, it is just too easy. True, pet owner education and spay/neuter programs will reduce killing but changing the way shelters operate can result in more immediate reduction in killing. For example from their website, "The Oklahoma City Animal Shelter is open for adopting or reclaiming pets from noon to 4:45 p.m." Not many working individuals can adopt animals during those hours. Having just one evening open for adoption will result in fewer deaths.

OKCcrime

[East Coast Okie]

It has been my observation that plenty of people not only don't consider the cost of spaying when they get a pet, they don't even consider the cost of vaccinations, medication and FOOD. They want their children to have the valuable experience of seeing puppies be born but don't teach social and fiscal responsibility. Plus, it would be "cruel" to deny a dog a sex life. Sigh. The idea that all these pups are being slaughtered is sickening. Breaks your heart, doesn't it? And so avoidable.

Also, how the shelter's operate, hours, etc., affects dogs already born. If never conceived, they aren't an issue. Reduce the pet population at the source and there are probably plenty of people available to adopt the adoptable animals at the shelter. I also don't agree with a one to one correlation on pets dying at home and opening up a slot, so to speak. Many people are elderly and don't plan to replace their dog. In our home, we recently lost our old dog and aren't in the market to get another for another 5 - 6 years since we have two more and don't want an "overlap" (have three dogs) for more than a couple of years.

The pit bull problem is another heart breaker. I would never have a pit because I have found them to be unpredictable. But they are sooooo lovable! I work with children in the court system and one of my "kids" was visiting a family member with a sweet, sweet pit. I've met her. Unfortunately, the dog bit the little boy and they hadn't taken the responsible steps of getting her rabies vaccination. The little boy is in the process of having to take rabies shots, the dog is in quarantine and we all know the poor thing will not be returned. Again, so avoidable and such a heart breaking situation.

[sweetdaisy]

OKCCrime, I have alot of respect for you due to your patience and rescue of Jack the Pumpkin King, but some of your statements need rebuttal.

The easiest item for me to point out is that the OKC Shelter is open Tues thru Sun from noon to 5:45pm for adoptions/reclaims. Plenty of people are able to make it out on Saturdays and Sundays.

Yes, pits are not allowed to be adopted out from the shelter (though they can be reclaimed if proof of ownership is shown). However, many of the people who want to adopt pits aren't looking for something to cuddle with...I've actually heard kids saying they wanted to adopt a specific type of dog because it's "mean" or will fight! The city is not allowed to "choose" who can adopt an animal, so the city chose to not allow pits to be adopted from the shelter. Sadly, it's for our protection as well as the dog's protection.

Euthanasia - defined by dictionary.com - painless death. That is what is done b/c of space issues. Because more animals come in than go out. Because there are other organizations that have animals available for adoption besides city shelters. Because of breeders. Because people think it's no big deal not to spay or neuter. Because of the fact that not everyone who loses a pet wants another one to replace it. (I can personally think of 4 people off the top of my head that have lost pets and don't want to replace them.) Because people are fickle about their pets..."it's just a dog/cat/hamster". Because people don't want to take the time to train their pet properly and get annoyed when FiFi won't stop barking at the doorbell. It's truly heartwrenching, but it's a fact. I know of an animal that was taken back to the shelter b/c it didn't bark enough. Huh? I'd LOVE that!

While the book you reference is actually on my "to read" list, I don't buy into the full message (though I acknowledge I need to read it before I can completely disagree). I've seen the overcrowding/euthanasia/etc and it's heartbreaking, but adoptions also come in cycles. There is not a steady stream of people all the time...sometimes that shelter is full to the brim, and other times, there are way too many animals, and some have to be put down. Until someone can cure the cyclical nature of the consumer, it will continue to be a problem.

Incidentally, the shelter (and city) is working toward a goal of "No Kill" for adoptable animals by 2010. If you're really that disturbed by what you read, you should find out more about the goal and see how you can help reach it. The shelter always needs volunteers for outreaches and fostering of animals. If you have the time, you should consider it...it's very rewarding.

[sweetdaisy]

Oh, and I forgot to mention, the shelter has "adoption specials" to try and increase the number of animals adopted, so it's not as though they don't try.

Special rates
A special reduced rate of $25 will be charged to adopt animals that meet any of the following criteria:

• eligible for adoption more than 14 days
• two or more pets adopted together ($25 each)
• pets four years of age or older

And, they have lowered the "normal" adoption fee to $50.

[OKCCrime]

Originally Posted by sweetdaisy

OKCCrime, I have alot of respect for you due to your patience and rescue of Jack the Pumpkin King

Thank you.

Originally Posted by sweetdaisy

the OKC Shelter is open Tues thru Sun from noon to 5:45pm for adoptions/reclaims. Plenty of people are able to make it out on Saturdays and Sundays.

Undisputed. My point is just that simply extending or shifting one day's open hours to evening hours WILL increase the number of animals that escape death at no to very low cost.

Originally Posted by sweetdaisy

The city is not allowed to "choose" who can adopt an animal, so the city chose to not allow pits to be adopted from the shelter.

I was not aware that the shelter could not choose to whom they would adopt an animal in the way that many other shelters place regulations on to whom they adopt out animals. If that is shelter policy or even city code, we should work to get this changed. It doesn't make sense. Pit Bull Rescue Organizations often set higher hurdles for adoption in order to be sure to avoid negative outcomes.

Originally Posted by sweetdaisy

Euthanasia - defined by dictionary.com - painless death.

This is in fact the second definition provided by dictionary.com. The first is "the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition". Enough battling of the dictionaries however. I was just pointing out how we choose and use words to justify our actions and assuage our guilt in this situation (as I suppose we do in many other ethically tenuous situations).

Originally Posted by sweetdaisy

not everyone who loses a pet wants another one to replace it. (I can personally think of 4 people off the top of my head that have lost pets and don't want to replace them.)

True enough. However, I can personally think of 4 pet owners who if prodded would willing adopt another pet. Heck, when my last dog passed away, we wanted to adopt another but waited over a year for fate to hit us on the head when we rescued Jack. We're blessed with Jack, but we should have adopted another pet earlier, or at least fostered in the meantime. We would have easily adopted earlier if our local shelter or rescue organization had reached out to us telling us of the need to save lives, helping us find that right animal. To my knowledge, and I may be mistaken, the OKC shelter doesn't have such an outreach program, and it is a shame. It would result in fewer killings.

Originally Posted by sweetdaisy

Because people are fickle about their pets..."it's just a dog/cat/hamster". Because people don't want to take the time to train their pet properly and get annoyed when FiFi won't stop barking at the doorbell. It's truly heartwrenching, but it's a fact. I know of an animal that was taken back to the shelter b/c it didn't bark enough. Huh? I'd LOVE that!

Yes, I hear what you are saying about other people. I've heard even more tortured stories about animals left at the shelter. However, these are not excuses to kill animals in mass proportions (The OKC shelter alone killed over 18,000 cats and dogs in 2007). I understand that these other people are contributing to the problem. Unfortunately, changing people is a tough battle to fight. Instead we can dramatically reduce or eliminate the killing by changing our shelter and it's policies. Other shelters in large cities have succeeded in doing just this. So can ours.

Originally Posted by sweetdaisy

the book you reference is actually on my "to read" list .....
Until someone can cure the cyclical nature of the consumer, it will continue to be a problem.

The book is "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America"
authored by Nathan J. Winograd, who established the nation's first no kill shelter.
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/

In this book, Winograd describes just how he cured the 'cyclical nature' of the problem and lays out a road map of programs and policies that shelters can implement to dramatically reduce the number of animals killed.

If you do not have a copy of this book, I'll gladly buy you, or any member of OKCTALK a copy if you (they) will promise to immediately read it and discuss it on this forum. Just send me an email - support@okccrime.com - include your name and mailing address and put Redemption in the subject line.

Originally Posted by sweetdaisy

Incidentally, the shelter (and city) is working toward a goal of "No Kill" for adoptable animals by 2010.

As pointed out in Redemption, many shelters have co-opted the no-kill movement by announcing no-kill 'trajectories' or announcing low-kill plans. In many cases this is just a ploy to get the public off their back with hopes that their feet won't be held to the fire down the line.

I know nothing about the plans put in place by the shelter to reach this goal by 2010. However I'm very skeptical we will reach it.

The OKC shelter just isn't doing so well on it's trajectory.
2006 kills - 19,365
(from http://www.projectanimallife.com/)
2007 kills - over 18,000 (from http://www.okhumane.org/articles_okl...ticle_0007.htm)

That puts us on course for 14,000 kills by 2010, i.e not no-kill.

Originally Posted by sweetdaisy

Oh, and I forgot to mention, the shelter has "adoption specials" to try and increase the number of animals adopted, so it's not as though they don't try.

They try, but no where near enough. Only 4000 adoptions last year and 18000 killings.

Originally Posted by sweetdaisy

If you're really that disturbed by what you read, you should find out more about the goal and see how you can help reach it.

Money -> Mouth. I hope my offer to buy Redemption for any and all comers has some impact. Oh yeah and then there is Jack, our contribution to the OKC unadoptable stray problem.

Okccrime

----
http://okccrime.com

[sweetdaisy]

You have some great comments, Okccrime, but alas you disappointed me by just complaining about the issue and not making a committment to see what you can do to help fix it.

However doubtful you may be, there are numerous volunteers who get together with representatives of the HSUS, the OKC Shelter, other resuce groups, etc. on at least a monthly basis to progress in this goal. Emails fly back and forth, people are working on this constantly, with backing of Mayor Cornett, as well.

I might also offer the comment that the OKC Shelter cannot make these changes on their own. It requires assistance from rescue groups, education programs, the public, etc.

While I do appreciate what you have read in the book (and though I appreciate the offer, I will happily purchase my own), and I can guarantee the folks involved with OKC's progress have read the book, you seem to want to be a bystander pointing out flaws rather than gaining a full understanding of our city's challenges and seeing what you can do to help it.

We can argue until the cows come home, but I can stand firm on what I say because I AM involved in it and I am member of the groups who are fighting to make this work. I've seen the difficulties we face, and they aren't all just related to the number of animals that come through the door.

As an add: I appreciate your contribution of Jack.

[OKCCrime]

Originally Posted by sweetdaisy

I appreciate your contribution of Jack.
...
I am involved in it and I am member of the groups who are fighting to make this work.

Thank you, I sincerely appreciate your efforts too.

We clearly have the same goal, to save the lives of animals. Where we might differ is on our views about how to achieve those goals.

Originally Posted by sweetdaisy

alas you disappointed me by ... not making a commitment to see what you can do to help fix it.

Huh? I believe I just made a significant financial commitment towards the education of OKTALK members on the 'no kill' movement by offering to purchase, any and all comers, a copy of Redemption. Just because my contribution is a different one than yours, please do not discount or denigrate it.

Furthermore, please consider that rebuking me isn't likely to make me engage and make more of a commitment than I already have. Take some inspiration form positive dog training methods (they work on people as well). Reward the best behaviors and ignore the others. Don't punish bad behaviors, redirect them. Punishment leads to more problems than it solves.

Originally Posted by sweetdaisy

you seem to want to be a bystander pointing out flaws rather than gaining a full understanding of our city's challenges and seeing what you can do to help it.

On the contrary. I think it demonstrative of my desire to understand the problem that I am actively reading up on this issue, researching statistics and engaging in conversations in the public commons. Just because someone is not a shelter volunteer or employee, it doesn't mean their viewpoint is invalid or unworthy of consideration.

Originally Posted by sweetdaisy

We can argue until the cows come home

I'm sorry if I seem unduly argumentative. My only desire with my posts is to place a counter-point to the prevalent view of the public and the views represented in this thread. Mass killing of animals (on average, 50 animals per day at the OKC shelter) is not OK and it is not necessary or humane.

I actually enjoy discussing this issue and think it does good to talk about these issues in a public forum where everyday pet owners are likely to read and contribute to the discussion.

If we don't stop to take a look at the signs along the path, we'll never know if we are on the right one.

OKCcrime

[East Coast Okie]

Honest differences in opinion regarding how best to contribute. Thanks to everyone for the interest and support of protecting animals. I am proud to stand with either one of you against the yahoos out there who think dogs are, essentially, livestock.

[PRWebber]

Originally Posted by Deni

here is a good way to judge if you can afford a pet? Can you afford the vet bills once a year for check ups and shots? Can you afford to have them fixed? Can you afford good food and fresh water for them ? Mostly can you afford to love them before you love yourself..

Remember our pets are innocent they cant tell you they are sick or need something. It is up to you to make sure your pets live a long great life in a home that can 1. take care of them and 2. love them forever!!!

Please be responsible and take care of your furry friends.

I absolutly agree! And why oh why do people have a dog and just leave it in the backyard exposed to the harsh elements? I never could understand this.

[OKCCrime]

Originally Posted by PRWebber

I absolutly agree! And why oh why do people have a dog and just leave it in the backyard exposed to the harsh elements? I never could understand this.

I don't like the fact that some people keep their dogs outside all of the time. However, I understand how and why it happens so often.

Family buys puppy. Family plays with puppy but doesn't train puppy. Family doesn't buy puppy any chew toys. Puppy chews everything in sight. Puppy grows up to become Cujo. Cujo gets put outside when he runs around in the house. Cujo gets put outside when he chews on the furniture. Cujo gets put outside when the family is away during the day. Putting Cujo outside becomes rewarding for the family because it keeps the furniture from being damaged. Cujo's desire to chew on furniture grows as his access is increasingly limited. Cujo goes right for the antique chair leg as if it were a t-bone steak whenever he gets let inside. Cujo keeps getting put outside more and more often. Cujo rarely gets let inside. Cujo becomes an outside dog. Cujo misses the puppy days when he slept in a warm bed each night with Timmy. Cujo wonders why he has to bark so much and so loudly to get his owners to pay any attention to him. Family thinks they must have gotten a bad dog from the breeder. Neither Cujo nor the family is happy.

[PRWebber]

Originally Posted by OKCCrime

I don't like the fact that some people keep their dogs outside all of the time. However, I understand how and why it happens so often.

Family buys puppy. Family plays with puppy but doesn't train puppy. Family doesn't buy puppy any chew toys. Puppy chews everything in sight. Puppy grows up to become Cujo. Cujo gets put outside when he runs around in the house. Cujo gets put outside when he chews on the furniture. Cujo gets put outside when the family is away during the day. Putting Cujo outside becomes rewarding for the family because it keeps the furniture from being damaged. Cujo's desire to chew on furniture grows as his access is increasingly limited. Cujo goes right for the antique chair leg as if it were a t-bone steak whenever he gets let inside. Cujo keeps getting put outside more and more often. Cujo rarely gets let inside. Cujo becomes an outside dog. Cujo misses the puppy days when he slept in a warm bed each night with Timmy. Cujo wonders why he has to bark so much and so loudly to get his owners to pay any attention to him. Family thinks they must have gotten a bad dog from the breeder. Neither Cujo nor the family is happy.

You certainly have that right. And how horrible that it does.

[Karried]

I can't even watch Oprah today... no way...

Puppy mills and Kill Shelters.. I lasted about 2 mintutes before sobbing hysterically, I can't take it... sheesh, guys, if it's the last thing you do.. go spay and neuter your animals.

Anyone have a new link for discount or free Services in the metro?