this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
499 points (97.5% liked)

News

31616 readers
2326 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] greencactus@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Correct me if there is data suggesting otherwise, but I dusagree that the "not kill" laws are stupid - I think the problem is that shelters don't have enough funding to care for all dogs. A law which protects animals from getting killed cannot, in my opinion, be a bad law - because every life, even that of a dog, is worth fighting for.

[–] Woht24@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Well you can't really have evidence on something that is opinion from first hand experience.

The reason I disagree with them is that the majority of these dogs are going to spend a year or more essentially locked in a medium security dog prison before being put down because they were never suitable for readoption in the first place but you've got to play the game before they can be put down or wait for them to bite one of the handlers.

I agree, money would solve the entire problem but it's a struggling industry and I just don't see it happening anytime soon. Until it does, the no kill laws are hurting more animals than they save.

[–] greencactus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I understand. I'm living in Germany, so our laws also probably differ as well - but is there a law which permits that if a dog e.g. doesn't get adopted within a year, it may be euthasized? I thought that a "no killing" law is absolute and that an animal in a shelter never is allowed to be killed, no matter the circumstance.

[–] Woht24@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No kill at least in Australia means you can't put animals to sleep due to over capacity, time frame etc. The only time they can be put down is when they've attacked or are showing high signs of aggression and the behaviour assessor finds they aren't suitable for readoption.

At that point, it becomes a duty of care to put the animal down as it's cruel to keep it in a kennel for the rest of its life and it can't be trusted as a family pet.

[–] greencactus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

I understand. I think you raise an interesting thought... I get where the law is coming from, but it also makes sense that the way it is treated now makes it so that dogs who would live their entire life in captivity only suffer more.

Thank you for your insight - I appreciate it and will think about it.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You paint a picture but where is your data on most of the dogs being unsuitable?

[–] Woht24@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't need to provide anything to you. I have plenty of industry data that's not available to be shared, there's plenty of public data for my state, but unless you're in New South Wales, Australia - it will be irrelevant to you. This is a first world, world wide issue.

Go on to Google and search 'dog attack, seizure and euthanasia rates' for wherever you are, even better to specific pounds, animal facilities and rescues and do the math yourself.

Alternatively, go volunteer at your local shelter, you're very concerned about these animals and every shelter desperately needs more help. Go help first hand and tell me how many of those dogs you'd let in your house with your kids and your loved ones.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I do volunteer at my local animal shelter. I have plenty of data but I can't show it to you is pure nonsense.

[–] Woht24@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Cool man, go fuck yourself.

[–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I think the problem is that shelters don't have enough funding to care for all dogs.

Well sure. Who’s gonna cover that funding gap? Not me.

So, what, let the excess or aggressive dogs starve but treat them nicely until they do? Let them run feral?

Or humanely put them down?

Edit: Y’all downvoting me should go volunteer at a local shelter for a while. I love dogs. I absolutely love dogs. But because of irresponsible owners and breeders we often have too many dogs and full shelters. Resources are not infinite.

It is cruel to keep dogs alive in increasingly smaller spaces, or hoard them, as we run out of room because you feel guilty about putting them down.

I’m not saying I’m opposed to rehoming, rescuing, or fostering dogs. Or opposed to shelters in general! I think those practices are important. Our current dog is a rehome.

But even PETA will point out the dangers of making all shelters no-kill, like some states are doing.

Spay and neuter your pets. That’s the real solution here.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Since the 70s massive strides have been made mostly by promoting fixing your dog in a timely fashion including low cost spay and neuter or "last litter" programs where they help you adopt out the puppies and fix the mom so they don't have another.

Both kills and intake are a small fraction of what they were in the 70s down as much as 80% despite a concurrent increase in population in that time.

[–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Yep, spaying and neutering is the true path forward. End animal homelessness at the source.

[–] greencactus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Well, I will be honest with you - I'd gladly pay my part so that an animal doesn't get killed. Of course no one be able to fix the issue alone (except Elob Musk and Bezos, probably), but I think that we as a society can do better than kill animals because we don't have enough money to keep them alive in a humane manner.