[Weatherlight]

I used to think this was inevitable in every city in this country, the AW movement had to wait for the public to quit buying, breeding, and dumping completely, until everyone became more caring and involved. I thought individual no-kill shelters and rescues were just letting the rest die in the local kill facility and not changing that number at all. I was wrong. After I saw how obvious it is that good no-kill shelters and rescues place more animals than otherwise would have been placed, Nathan Winograd's work has me convinced that things can be accomplished even beyond this.

Not in some far-distant utopia, where everyone cares lots about cats and dogs and there are no breeders and everyone is willing to go to any length to adopt instead of buy, but now and in the past, communities have been leaping towards, at least loosely, no-kill. In different parts of the country, different types of communities.

I say "loosely" because they usually put down animals for health or behavioral reasons. Sometimes, to display the "no-kill" label, cities say they put down 0% of the animals with no health or behavior problems, keeping quiet that barking, hissing, jumping on people, fleas, mites, small cuts and scrapes, etc count as health/behavior problems.

But look into the no-kill movement. You might be surprised. There were great ideas, proven by practice, rather than mandatory s/n and leafletting.


Some people (rare in this country) have unaltered dogs who never breed. They go for walks, play with other dogs, etc but the females wear, er, something over their behinds and are taken outside carefully when in heat. I think for the majority of owners, though, mandatory s/n would be far better than letting them "decide for themselves."

In practical application though, will enforcement take the law seriously and try to catch people who don't comply? If they try, will they be able to find many people? How much would it cost to hire extra law enforcement?


The cost of s/n varies a lot. Some vets might charge $300 for a spay on a large dog. It is low-cost clinics that let you get away with $5 - $60 or whatever. The difference is paid by the organization and/or vets' volunteered/reduced-cost time.


It's my personal belief that no one is fully responsible for their care, as they never got the choice of whether they want to be in charge of taking care of themselves or not. If they cannot or will not take good care of themselves, whoever caused them to be at that point should pay. If there is no such party, it is best that others volunteer as they are able; hopefully, people will care and share the burdens. However, everyone is fully responsible for the dependents they choose to have. They chose their dependent, so they are responsible for everything involved in caring for that life. If ever money was the limiting factor for preventing significant suffering and death involving my dependents, I would feel horrible, but I am aware that the risk is there and understand that I must avoid it. I will beg, borrow, and (maybe) steal, I will live off of rice and ramen if it seems I must. But if I fail? I am the one who failed my dependent for not paying for necessary care.

I'm taking that risk. I feel that my financial resources are such that it's a small risk. And I can't imagine telling a vet "Sorry, but go ahead and kill my child, because I have the money to try to help hir but don't feel like parting with it." I very much hope that things only get better, not worse (eg all humans become incomeless, credit is wiped, every animal is sick at the same time with thousands of vet bills, all friends can't or won't help, etc)...that would be hell.

One friend of mine is a lot more utilitarian about her dependents than I am. She figures that with the money she'd save by killing a sick dog of hers, she could adopt another dog from a kill shelter, and she and that dog can live together happily (for a while). True, but... She even polled some people at her dog day care and reported to me that none of them would spend over $9k on vet services for one dog. Well, wonderful! Would they go up to $9k on doctor fees for themselves if they needed it as minors, then say "Oh, darn, that's my limit. I'll just die like this, with not even palliative care, because I don't want my parents to spend more money on me, even if they can afford it"? Would they do it as were adults, if it was their money? Would they do it to their own human children? Especially her, who claims to be for animal rights and not be speciesist. Put your life where your mouth is? =\ (Now that I think about it, sadly, she might.) I don't want the "live naive utilitarian vs raise the standard" debate in this thread, but I am not going to show the world that it is fine to treat your own family members as disposable even if you can't save everyone else (just as deserving as they are); that's not something I want to lead by example.


Years ago, I was led to believe that euthanasia of cats and dogs was done by painless injection, while they were calm and peaceful and naive, by careful and caring and heartbroken shelter employees. All 3 are wrong, and can be in various combinations. Even injection can be a painful, horrible death, depending on what it is and how it is done.