Bias
Wave 914
Tuesday
The 26th of August, 2008 at 02:32 PM
Bias is a major problem among newspaper articles, journals, and other information sources. Depending on how well written the article is, you may not even notice that you are getting pushed one direction over another. I have a perfect article to which I was looking for responses.
The problem: Many stray animals are brought to humane societies. Due to shear volume, behavioral issues, and medical issues, some of these animals are put to sleep. Is there a way we could avoid euthanasia in these cases? The reality is that there are an overwhelming population of animals that do not have a home. Is there a place we could put them all? Whether it is in a shelter, foster home, or up to adoption... these are all questions that need to be addressed.
The answer: Is difficult. There are a few shelters in the Twin Cities area. The majority are open-door shelters who will euthanize pets for the above reasons. Other shelters are selective on their admissions but are no-kill shelters. Then, there are rescue agencies that try to fill the gaps.
I would like you all to read the CityPages article. Realize that this article has a considerable amount of bias on euthanasia. Try to keep your head when reading these things before coming back with a reply.
I was wondering, how would you attempt to solve the endless questions revolving around euthanasia, no-kill shelters, and humane societies? What do you think is right, what do you think is wrong? Who do you side with when it comes to shelters: no-kill shelters or the humane societies. Why? Drop your thoughts here, I hope this turns out to be an interesting discussion.
Previous | Archive Home | Next
Comments
Shayla
August 27th, 01:55:26 PM
The unfortunate thing about the situation with humane societies in general is that most people are not terribly educated on the manner. There are so many people out there that are bleeding hearts for animals, and while I think it’s great so many people have compassion, it’s also bad because it’s how generalizations are spread.
Humane societies have to come face to face with euthanasia. On a regular basis. There’s no getting around it. Even no kill shelters do have to euthanize some animals. Some pets are simply unadoptable, for whatever reason. Often times behavioral issues. Is it ethical to adopt out a dog that you know has the potential to bite? Or a cat that has constant issues with inappropriate elimination? It’d be setting these animals up for failure, and probably land them back in the shelter. And isn’t it more humane to end their life than to let them spend out their days in a lonely kennel?
The question also arises as to whether shelters should even be accepting these animals. But the possible alternatives to accepting these animals are far worse. If people are set on getting rid of their animals, they will find a way to do it. And their way is bound to be less humane than lethal injection.
Some pets come in with serious medical conditions, and while it is POSSIBLE to treat every animal that comes in to the utmost degree of its need, it just isn’t feasible. This is due to several things. One is money. These establishments are not rolling in gobs of money. Veterinary care is expensive, and to spend thousands of dollars on an animal that will be adopted out for $125 isn’t wise. Also there is the problem of proximity. So many animals in such close quarters - if one animal is contagiously sick with a disease, it has a great propensity to spread. So now you’ve got your money problem ten fold.
I can see how people are saddened by the number of pets euthanized each year, but there’s really no other way to do it. Shelters would be overrun with animals, which is not a healthy environment. I think the main source of these issues is uneducated pet owners. People need to do their homework. Train their pets correctly. Explore all options for working with behavior issues.
I’ve been long winded and I have to go to class, but that’s my soap box.
Alex
August 29th, 05:08:40 PM
I agree. Humans created domesticated animals (either through breeding or encouragement of self-domestication) and have to deal with the consequences; one of which is the harsh reality of population control. Domestication through a mutualistic relationship can provide populations the opportunity to outgrow their niche in the predator/prey balance. For example, you get a bunch of cats breeding in a house in the city, and then running feral around the neighborhood killing a bunch of songbirds. Bad news!
If we can find enough folks to take those cats in: great. If we can’t, certain steps must be taken to mitigate the environmental impact of all these extra predators.
The article commits a classical logical fallacy of appealing to emotion; this is sloppy journalism and it reveals a clear bias. We need real information, not half-butted journalism, on which to base a good discussion. But, as I’m sure you are all aware, people don’t want unbiased factual news, they want entertainment AND something masquerading as neutral that they can point to in support of their unyielding opinions.
Does it make me sad? Very. Do I acknowledge the necessity? With my current information: yes.
Kellie Rosenberg
September 3rd, 07:37:08 PM
When John was reading this article to me at Champ’s, we both started laughing...not because we thought that euthanasia was comical, but because of how naive the author is at what the real issue is. Uneducated, thoughtless, lazy pet owners are why so many animals are brought to their death every day. Everyone wants the cute little puppy or the bird that can talk right then and there. They don’t take the time out to research what it takes to own that certain pet and how they can prepare themselves once taking in that animal. It makes me sick to know that so many healthy, wonderful pets are euthanized each year. But my anger is directed towards those to decide to surrender their pet(s) to the people who have the unfortunate job of having to end that pet’s life. I couldn’t imagine having to be the person that ends that animal’s life knowing that if only the owner had been more educated and dedicated. Most humane societies (kill or no kill) do such great work with client education and housing animals. The author of this article should really open his eyes and see the big picture. If he wants to make a difference with animals, he should really focus his anger on those who don’t take the responsibility of their pet(s). And if he or anyone else who wants to preach about how awful kill shelters are, maybe they should ask themselves how many animals are they willing to take in to their home to reduce the numbers of euthanasia.
Shayla
September 4th, 08:39:16 AM
Well said, Kellie! I agree on all accounts!
John
September 4th, 02:15:15 PM
I agree with Kellie. Answers do not need to come from the humane society, but they should come from pet owners. In my experience, I have seen many people come in with pets that have them for purely aesthetic values. They like to know that they have the perfect family by adding in that lovable little dog. What they didn’t know is that dog needs routine vaccines, preventative care, routine bloodwork, annual examinations, and if necessary emergency surgery. They are more than just a pet, they ARE a member of the family. At least they are supposed to be. And when some owners are prompted with the question of whether or not to help their animal, invariably some surrender due to financial concerns. Would we surrender if one of our children was sick? No.
Long story short, I had a happy puppy come in that ate a corn cob one day. I immediately informed the owner that corn cob ingestion = SURGERY. I recommended taking x-rays with contrast. On the pictures, we could not see the corn cob in the stomach, but we knew it was there. The owner said they could not afford surgery so they decided to wait. That golden retriever vomited about 20 times over the course of the night and became very sick the next day. We took another x-ray, the corn cob moved from the stomach into the intestines overnight. The owners requested that the dog be put to sleep. As a veterinarian, my job is to help animals when they are sick. This dog was healthy and happy the day before, despite the fact that it had a corn cob stuck in its stomach. I knew the dog would become worse if nothing was done, but the owner wanted to wait. If the owner would have forked out the money to do what was right and cure this dog, it could still be here today. Ethically, the right thing to do was to save this animal. Financially, we cannot save every animal. Especially when owners do not provide the proper care and supervision necessary for their pets, which eventually leads to terminal health problems.
This is a difficult topic for so many reasons. Any other thoughts on ways we can address the humane society issues?
Kellie Rosenberg
September 4th, 07:43:17 PM
I think we should take these comments and send them to City Pages in response to this article! Any objections?
Kellie Rosenberg
September 4th, 07:59:37 PM
It looks like there are already 190 so responses to his article....most seem to be in favor of how we feel =) I’m still planning on posting my my comment on the website though!
Shayla
September 4th, 09:35:28 PM
I think that’s a fabulous idea, Kellie.
Joy
September 5th, 03:28:14 PM
The article does nothing to help the situation and I feel it was written out of naivete and inexperience. About six years ago there was a documentary on HBO (I forget the name now) focusing on a shelter who had rigorous criteria for putting dogs up for adoption. The dogs who passed the health and behavior tests were put up for adoption, and those who had issues with aggression, health, or unsociability were euthanised after a last meal of McDonalds on the way to the vet. The program showed the heartbreak involved in deciding which dogs lived and which ones did not. It also showed footage of dogs from no-kill shelters across the States who paced nervously in cages, each one sentenced to a life behind bars with no hope of adoption, going mad from their confinement and lack of human interaction. Until watching that documentary I may have sounded very much like the author of the City Pages article, uninformed and misguided in my love of all critters. After giving consideration to the reality of all the unwanted, unadoptable animals in this imperfect world, I feel that euthanasia is not always the worst of all possible options.
Great topic, thanks for bringing it up.
2 Weeks Past
Comments have exceeded the two week time limit and further comments have been closed.