Hundreds of small animals meant for adoption may have been frozen, fed to reptiles

[Bogertophis]

While we're assigning blame, why did San Diego, a no kill shelter, send animals to Tucson, a kill shelter? Did they really expect that a smaller shelter would be able to adopt out animals that they couldn't? Or did they send them for Tucson to do their dirty work for them? Is that how San Diego manages to keep its no kill policy? By sending its excess capacity to kill shelters? Wouldn't that be scandalous?

In the world of pet shelters & rescues, it's not unheard of for shelters with too many animals to ship (drive) them to another area where "neuter & spay" policies have actually gotten the desired results & there's actually too few pets available for adoption. That's a good thing, but it's still very costly & hard to find volunteers willing & able to do the transporting. I've even heard of a program where pilots volunteer to fly pets to remote areas to get the dogs homes where they're wanted & needed. It's great when it works. I know they've flown dogs from very crowded kill shelters in Los Angeles to states in the northwest, but obviously this is a slow process- it's normally a small privately-owned plane so they can only take so many at a time.

While we're discussing shelter issues (& specifically, doing the dirty work for others), I have to say that while I love the idea of a "no-kill" shelter as much as all animal lovers do (& our local shelter is a "no-kill" too), it's an idea that's both good & bad for the animals housed there. In reality, most of the shelter space is taken up by large & less-adoptable dogs (especially pit bulls & pit-mixes) which many adopters cannot or will never adopt. When you have a long waiting list for unwanted dogs to be accepted into the only shelter around, that means that many dogs that are very adoptable get no help, & as a result, many desperate people just dump them- or worse.

Meanwhile, unwanted dogs sit in the shelter way too long, & develop personality issues that make it much harder for them to ever adapt to a home. All dogs need training & socializing- it's hard to achieve that even in the best of shelters, & the problems they come in with often just get worse. So while I can't imagine ever working in a "kill" shelter (& the only ones I've ever visited left me in tears & haunted by the sad state of so many loving animals) I think we also have to consider the quality of life issues for the long-term un-adopted residents...is that fair? wouldn't euthanasia be kinder? (I often think it would be kinder.) & in the long run, that would help get homes for the more adoptable ones that otherwise are turned away. Basically I'm saying that the "kill" shelters are actually doing the dirty work for the "no-kill" shelters. In a way, "no-kill" shelters make the problems worse, but people feel better about it because they don't see the big picture.

It's a nasty situation brought about by humans breeding too many pets- either on purpose or by neglect, or a desire to sell or merely enjoy pups & kittens for a while, while ignoring the reality of overpopulation. It bears mentioning that BPs run the risk of a similar situation- not enough homes with the skills, time, money, & dedication to take good care of them for life. Please think about that before you breed them.