On Mounds casts off humane society
Posted on January 21 at 12:36 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I think the "lies" problem derives from the reporter's choice of words, and frankly, the article should be corrected. She writes that the DCHS "refuted" Ms. Rhode's statement, then cites a facebook post by DCHS denying the statement. That is not "refuting" a statement; to refute is to conclusively prove a fact. The only way the statement could be "refuted" is if the DCHS statements, from an unknown source on facebook, are automatically assumed to be credible, which is not an assumption that I would make. In fact, I don't believe that DCHS offers an example that any county should aspire to, and I think that those who assume otherwise should investigate the politics and history of that organization.
On Mounds shuts down Rock County Humane Society satellite adoption center
Posted on January 18 at 12:32 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
janesvillean, without doing a survey of every rescue or shelter's adoption practices, it's impossible to describe RCHS as more or less strict. There are a number of rescues and shelters that require home visits by someone from the rescue before they will place an animal, and I doubt RCHS had that requirement. The point is that the policies, whatever they are, are intended to ensure that animals are placed in homes where they will be cared for.
On Mounds shuts down Rock County Humane Society satellite adoption center
Posted on January 18 at 12:27 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
If everyone here dissing RCHS and saying they wouldn't adopt there would commit to never dumping an animal there or anywhere else, that would be a step forward. In fact, imagine the different world it would be if the people who like to trash rescues and shelters would instead work to make sure there are no homeless animals -- starting with taking responsibility for their own animals, or not getting them, if they can't be responsible -- so that rescues and shelters wouldn't have to exist. That would be far more productive than throwing stones at RCHS.
On Mounds shuts down Rock County Humane Society satellite adoption center
Posted on January 18 at 12:06 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
dg468: The reason there are so many homeless animals in the first place is that people sell and give animals to people who don't make any commitment to actually provide for the animal once they get it. People are refused for adoption when they are criminals, or are on parole, or they have demonstrated that they have not cared properly for animals in the past or are not willing to do so in the future. Any responsible rescue or shelter has to do basic due diligence before placing an animal into someone's care.
Posted on January 10 at 9:43 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Here is a Cliff Notes version that may be more palatable to the Midwestern version of consciousness: Movie sad, but may cause those who are capable of it to think about the meaning of human existence.
On Survey: Wis. gov recall will cost $9 million
Posted on January 7 at 10:11 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
scooter lost all crediblity to complain about the cost of recalls when he sued to have the state pick up the tab for verifying signatures; a decision that will no doubt be overturned on appeal once away from the right wing activist judges in Waukesha County.
.
Maine, we've all seen your list of teacher's salaries from the wealthiest districts in the state. You don't need to put it up on every story. Also, since the people in these districts tend to have a lot of education and advanced degrees, it stands to reason that they value education and are willing to pay higher taxes to have good schools in their communities.
.
If you don't like your property taxes, feel free to move to rural Wisconsin where they will be less. Or leave the state altogether.
On Euthanasia to control shelter population unpopular
Posted on January 7 at 1:33 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Breeders, and their customers, cause animal overpopulation. No loving companion animal is "inferior" in the rescue world. Those who don't understand these basic points are the ones who perpetuate companion animals' suffering and misery, and they are why rescues have to exist in the first place -- to try to clean up the breeders' messes. To thinking, responsible people everywhere: please adopt, don't shop; don't make things worse.
On Euthanasia to control shelter population unpopular
Posted on January 6 at 10:22 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Evillehousewife, do we have to go through the "rdr" instead of "dr" thing again? I would have thought you would have remembered how I explained this to you the last time you raised it in the thread where you pretended to be a lawyer. Actually, I volunteer with several rescues, so I am confident I know far more about rescue than you do. Also, you are contradicting yourself. First you said rescues won't adopt to anyone because they're too strict; now you say they'll adopt to anyone. Further, yes, I do give away a lot of my services for free. In my profession, we are ethically required to help the less fortunate. As for ethics, I don't think we share the same definition of that term. Finally, your last comment, that it is "ignorant" not to try to financially benefit from contributing to animal overpopulation, demonstrates what is important in your view: money, not animals' well being; cash, not compassion. These attitudes are part of the problem, not the solution.
On Euthanasia to control shelter population unpopular
Posted on January 5 at 10:29 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
And those who are really supposedly in it for the betterment of the "breed" -- assuming for the sake of argument that this show dog stuff isn't really just as bad as the crap they do to circus animals -- then don't do it for money. Breeding dogs and cats for money is just plain unethical with the pet overpopulation problem we have. And it costs society money for all that has to be paid to house and then euthanize breeders' "excess" stock and the stock they sell to irresponsible owners, as most breeders will sell to anyone with the cash, no questions asked.
Page 1 of 27 | Next
On What to do with all those cats, dogs?
Posted on January 21 at 12:52 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Don't get a pet if you cannot commit to keep it for its lifetime. If most people would just do that one thing, the public problems would be much, much smaller in scale. And of course, spay/neuter is key. As for show dogs, I think the problem is it's a slippery slope. The show breeders sell or dump their cast-offs (i.e., the ones who aren't good enough to show or breed), and they can't make the purchasers agree not to breed without looking like hypocrites, and so those people don't spay/neuter, and they give offspring to others who don't spay/neuter, etc. Show, hobby and other supposedly justified breeders should do a better job of coming up with rules for their members that avoid contributing to pet overpopulation.