"Critics argue that this decision aligns with the patterns Kelly Paolisso uncovered—prioritizing financial sustainability over effective, long-term solutions. By sidelining spay/neuter efforts, these organizations ensure that shelters remain full, keeping fundraising appeals urgent." As a colleague of mine long ago stated, "why would they want to work themselves out of a job." We see the larger organizations focusing heavily on adoptions, but not as much on preventive measures. Common sense would dictate that we focus on minimizing the problem at the source, if we're serious about truly wanting to help animals.
Exactly right, Annoula! I think you put your finger on the reason for all the turmoil in animal shelters across the nation. The national animal welfare organizations are not serious about solving the problem. That is a hard pill to swallow, but once we do we can get about the real work of solving the pet overpopulation related problems.
I agree that there seems to be a conflict of interest, but I wonder who would fund any of those studies except MF or another similar large animal advocacy organization. Studying it just to sort out fact from fiction and improve our shelters doesn't seem to be a powerful enough motivator for federal or state money.
If all this money was instead redirected to fund spay/neuter, we would have a much smaller challenge to worry about. To me, it seems like rearranging chairs on the Titanic - let's instead fund spay/neuter and provide animal services in every municipality.
Maybe we need a study on the outcomes for stray animals and pet owners in municipalities that do not have animal services (a common situation all over the southern and rural areas).
"Critics argue that this decision aligns with the patterns Kelly Paolisso uncovered—prioritizing financial sustainability over effective, long-term solutions. By sidelining spay/neuter efforts, these organizations ensure that shelters remain full, keeping fundraising appeals urgent." As a colleague of mine long ago stated, "why would they want to work themselves out of a job." We see the larger organizations focusing heavily on adoptions, but not as much on preventive measures. Common sense would dictate that we focus on minimizing the problem at the source, if we're serious about truly wanting to help animals.
Exactly right, Annoula! I think you put your finger on the reason for all the turmoil in animal shelters across the nation. The national animal welfare organizations are not serious about solving the problem. That is a hard pill to swallow, but once we do we can get about the real work of solving the pet overpopulation related problems.
I agree that there seems to be a conflict of interest, but I wonder who would fund any of those studies except MF or another similar large animal advocacy organization. Studying it just to sort out fact from fiction and improve our shelters doesn't seem to be a powerful enough motivator for federal or state money.
If all this money was instead redirected to fund spay/neuter, we would have a much smaller challenge to worry about. To me, it seems like rearranging chairs on the Titanic - let's instead fund spay/neuter and provide animal services in every municipality.
Maybe we need a study on the outcomes for stray animals and pet owners in municipalities that do not have animal services (a common situation all over the southern and rural areas).
Amen, Cara! Well said and Right On!