The 'Ville Voice header image 1

Introspection Instead Of Blame Would Help LMAS

November 9th, 2011 by jake · 5 Comments

Greg Fischer promised Louisville Metro Animal Services would be a no-kill shelter.

But the communication from LMAS itself proves to us that they have no comprehension of what no-kill means.

Like this:


It’s National Animal Shelter Appreciation Week. A campaign designed to acknowledge and promote the role shelters play in our community. An initiative focused on increasing public awareness of animal welfare issues and shelter services.

So what do they do?

They point the finger rather than looking inward. Blaming irresponsible pet owners and overpopulation rather than truly taking another approach to sheltering.

Tags: Bad Behavior · Criticism · Dogs · Greg Fischer · Metro Government · Oops

5 responses so far ↓

  • 1 TRANSPLANTED TO KENTUCKY // Nov 9, 2011 at 11:00 am

    Simply unbelievable!!!! Louisville Metro Council passes a NO KILL resolution. At the heart of the NO KIll philosophy is the belief that blaming the public is not consistent with building a NO KIll program. Instead, it is essential to make the public your partner in this endeavor. Does LMAS know how to read? or study those successful shelters who adopt and practice the NO KILL equation? Same s–t different day. We will never be NO KILL-save a few and kill the rest- that’s the LMAS mission.

  • 2 fleur-de-gris // Nov 9, 2011 at 11:28 am

    while i wouldn’t defend the lmas record at all, i don’t understand why it’s wrong to raise awareness that overpopulation is the root problem.

    certainly the shelters are NOT the root problem, right? just the managers (effective or not) of problems caused by others? they have a better chance of managing the fact that their system is overwhelmed if they can better educate the public regarding how to improve the situation on the ‘supply’ end.

  • 3 jake // Nov 9, 2011 at 11:31 am

    Pro-tip: Click here or google “no kill” for yourself.

    Or, actually google for Greg Fischer’s empty promises.

  • 4 samantha ell // Nov 9, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Looks like that is straight out of Jennifer Gerber’s handbook. “If the public didn’t bring them in, we wouldn’t have to kill them.” If the public vaccinated, we wouldn’t have parvo or distemper.

    I hear that drinking that cool-aid kills.

  • 5 Jessica Reid // Nov 9, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    Hi fluer-de-gris,
    Definitely read the link Jake gave you but I think this is the most common mistake people make. It’s understandable after all of us hearing all our lives “public irresponsibility” is to blame. Me too – until I educated myself.

    If you don’t mind – I’m going to copy and paste your first question and explain why those who support the current no kill model feel differently:

    Certainly the shelters are NOT the root problem, right? It depends on how you define that. Are they the #1 killer of pets? Yes. Are they the ones bringing them into shelter? Yes and no. There are some owner drop offs, but there are even more stray pickups and confiscation – some warranted, some not.

    For instance – feral cats – they should be picked up, altered, and released. That way the population is actually controlled and begins to lower. Whereas, the current kill model means picking them up, labeling them as “unadoptable” and killing them – meanwhile, the population continues to grow because other cats simply move in. If catch and kill worked, we would not have feral cats anywhere.

    Shelters should be beacons and examples of how to treat pets and value them. As long as euthanasia is used as a means of “population control”, they are devaluing the pets and themselves and the incredible role they could actually play by becoming *examples* of how to treat pets.

    Shelters should be there to scoop up those pets in need and help them – not destroy them. We are in a different world than 20, 30, 50 years ago. People value and love pets like no other time in our history. They live in our homes and even sleep in our beds. LMAS killed around 7,000 pets last year. Of that, in the no kill world, 10% were truly hopelessly ill or injured or too dangerous had to be euthanized. That leaves around 6,300 to be saved through adoption, *comprehensive* foster programs, volunteers, and rescue groups. There is no reason LMAS cannot gain less than 2% of people wanting a new pet, first pet, or additional pets to adopt as its customers – other than they stand in their own way and are focused on enforcement rather than smart business – like not killing your product.

    So, for me, the shelters are the ROOT of the problem due to their refusal of trying something new and opening their doors wide to say “we want and welcome change, bring it on” and actually setting a date to be No Kill.

    I believe it’s a matter of will and can happen tomorrow not some lofty goal for the future.

google

couk