devilsadvocate wrote:

I see what you're getting at, though I note that a) this is rapidly changing (many laws on felony animal cruelty are recent), b) speaking of euthanasia, just read this. Euthanasia is becoming legal in several states, and the illegality isn't a matter of the "sanctity of life" but of the power of the religious lobby in this country. I doubt that within a generation that euthanasia will be illegal. Particularly as someone who has seen a grandfather die of a terminal illness and also put to sleep a dog in her final moments of terminal illness.

But your point is well taken. That said, not sure what conclusion I can draw from that.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
I find it very inhumane that a dog or cat is killed because there is no space. The street is not ideal but it's preferable than death!!

We don't even kill convicted criminals because lack of space... You people are cruel

You still don't get it? Society has made the determination that human life is always more valuable than animal life.

It may not be a determination that everyone agrees with, especially with certain types of people, but that is the logic.

a) accuracy aside, not sure what this has to do with anything

b) it actually isn't true. Dogs seriously hurt and kill people all the time as part of their jobs (guard dogs, police dogs, etc.) and society recognizes that this is acceptable. Society spends an enormous amount on pet care. The amount I alone spend on my dog would save dozens of children in Africa every month. Plenty of people die even in this country due to lack of funds for healthcare - and yet we spend on our pets and not on them. A large portion of society would save their dog before a random stranger (I certainly would without hesitation). This isn't consistent with your statement.

Your examples are at the individual level. I'm talking about a societal, institutional level.

The enormous amount spent on pet care is the result of individual choices. I get that you're arguing that the looking at these choices in the aggregate = the will of the people and society, but that isn't the case.

The laws in every state uniformly consider human life > animal life. I challenge you to find even a single state where the penalty for assaulting an animal is equal to or greater than assaulting a human. Generally, "mild" abuse of an animal will never get you in trouble whereas major animal abuse could get you charged under animal cruelty laws. My understanding is animal cruelty is a slap on the wrist in many states. While it is treated more seriously in others, the punishments pale in comparison to the human equivalent of aggravated assault or something of the like.

Another example of our notion of the "sanctity" of human life above animal is how we can euthanize very sick dogs but not terminally ill people. Because society believes their lives aren't as important so it is ok to kill them.

And of course, the original topic, which is the permission to kill animals with no home but not people. It's all directly related to society's determination that human life is worth more than animal life.

Please don't confuse me for agreeing with any of this. In fact, I agree with your views on matter. But I'm explaining the answer to Vindication's question. Personally I think a lot of this was originated (and subtly driven) by the meat industry. If society truly placed animal life on the same level as humans, it would be far harder to justify treating animals raised for slaughter as abhorrently as they presently are treated.

bearbear2013 wrote:
LHS does in fact turn away animals, they're not supposed to but they certainly do.

Information from LHS IRS form 990:

LHS brings in a little over a million dollars a year from grants & contributions according to public records for years up to 2013: they received $700k in grants and contributions for 2011 and almost $900k in grants and contributions for 2012.

Of the average $1 million in grants/contributions they bring in yearly:

$600k went to salaries for 2011 and $609k in salaries for 2012

Less than $48k is spent yearly on vet bills

Under $20k is spent for food

Less than $5k is spent for building repairs

If you don't know what's going on at LHS, go and find out...

JCishome wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
I find it very inhumane that a dog or cat is killed because there is no space. The street is not ideal but it's preferable than death!!

We don't even kill convicted criminals because lack of space... You people are cruel

Take a look the dog packs running around Tijuana or Detroit sometime. They've reverted to a feral state. People around here get upset when somebody rides their bike on the sidewalk - you think they'll like dogs tearing each other to pieces on the streets? So yeah, it's a sad reality but sometimes unadopted dogs and cats have to be put down. Tell people to stop being a**holes and allowing animals to breed indicriminately. Problem solved.

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
I find it very inhumane that a dog or cat is killed because there is no space. The street is not ideal but it's preferable than death!!

We don't even kill convicted criminals because lack of space... You people are cruel

You still don't get it? Society has made the determination that human life is always more valuable than animal life.

It may not be a determination that everyone agrees with, especially with certain types of people, but that is the logic.

a) accuracy aside, not sure what this has to do with anything

b) it actually isn't true. Dogs seriously hurt and kill people all the time as part of their jobs (guard dogs, police dogs, etc.) and society recognizes that this is acceptable. Society spends an enormous amount on pet care. The amount I alone spend on my dog would save dozens of children in Africa every month. Plenty of people die even in this country due to lack of funds for healthcare - and yet we spend on our pets and not on them. A large portion of society would save their dog before a random stranger (I certainly would without hesitation). This isn't consistent with your statement.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
I find it very inhumane that a dog or cat is killed because there is no space. The street is not ideal but it's preferable than death!!

We don't even kill convicted criminals because lack of space... You people are cruel

You still don't get it? Society has made the determination that human life is always more valuable than animal life.

It may not be a determination that everyone agrees with, especially with certain types of people, but that is the logic.

JCman24 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCman24 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
I know of two volunteers that contracted ring worms after being there for brief periods of time.

I bet you don't know what ringworm is.

Seriously?? My auto correct feature split the word in two, hence the improper writing of it. But, yeah, I personally know two people that contracted the fungal infection knowd as ringworm and I don't know what it is. OK.

That was a pretty convenient stretch of time in which to look it up!

vindication15 wrote:
I find it very inhumane that a dog or cat is killed because there is no space. The street is not ideal but it's preferable than death!!

We don't even kill convicted criminals because lack of space... You people are cruel

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCman24 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
I know of two volunteers that contracted ring worms after being there for brief periods of time.

I bet you don't know what ringworm is.

Seriously?? My auto correct feature split the word in two, hence the improper writing of it. But, yeah, I personally know two people that contracted the fungal infection knowd as ringworm and I don't know what it is. OK.

JCman24 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
I know of two volunteers that contracted ring worms after being there for brief periods of time.

I bet you don't know what ringworm is.

vindication15 wrote:
I find it very inhumane that a dog or cat is killed because there is no space. The street is not ideal but it's preferable than death!!

We don't even kill convicted criminals because lack of space... You people are cruel

thor800 wrote:
There are space issues that need to be considered also. Ideally a shelter would be able to accept as many dogs as possible but if there aren't as many adoptions with limited space - what other options are there ?

bodhipooh wrote:
I know of two volunteers that contracted ring worms after being there for brief periods of time.

vindication15 wrote:
If they can turn away strays - back into the streets, then the only reason why they would kill animals is because the animals are suffering but from the posts I gather that is not the case?

What is the issue with a non violent stray dog or cat in the street? In fact, i would argue that a non violent homeless person does more harm than a non violent stray - and the harm done is decreasing my property value.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

CatsnDogs wrote:
dtjcview - you can support grassroots non-profit animal organizations that do not kill. Local groups are Companion Animal Trust, Hudson County Animal League, Jersey Cats, to name a few. None of these receive municipal funding and rely only on donations.

www.companionanimaltrust.org

www.hcalnj.org

www.jerseycats.org

Thanks - I appreciate the links - I'll check them out.

vindication15 wrote:
If we do not kill homeless people because of overcrowding of shelters, why do we kill stray cats and dogs that can just be turned away from overcrowded shelters?

vindication15 wrote:
Let me first say I am in no way arguing for this but i make a point only for logical reasons.

If we do not kill homeless people because of overcrowding of shelters, why do we kill stray cats and dogs that can just be turned away from overcrowded shelters?

Now if it is a violent cat or dog that has harmed someone than just like a murderous human being, it should be killed.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JCishome wrote:
I'll admit I'm not overly well-informed on this, but the "no-kill" idea does seem like a lofty yet unrealistic goal for Jersey City. Consider that a lot of the dogs they're taking in are pit bulls or mixes, and those are very difficult to adopt out (unfairly, by the way - they're very often sweet, loving dogs). I suspect that a lot of those no-kill shelters are dealing with a lot of smaller, more benign-looking dogs.

I don't object to what they do. I just object to funding it through charity contributions. It's a service the city MUST provide. I'd rather support efforts to save animals, than efforts to round up strays and kill them.

Like - I wouldn't donate to running the county prison service - my taxes already pay for that.

PS: hcalnj.org looks like a good alternative. I'm a sucker for both cats and dogs.

Why MUST they provide this service?

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JCishome wrote:
I'll admit I'm not overly well-informed on this, but the "no-kill" idea does seem like a lofty yet unrealistic goal for Jersey City. Consider that a lot of the dogs they're taking in are pit bulls or mixes, and those are very difficult to adopt out (unfairly, by the way - they're very often sweet, loving dogs). I suspect that a lot of those no-kill shelters are dealing with a lot of smaller, more benign-looking dogs.

I don't object to what they do. I just object to funding it through charity contributions. It's a service the city MUST provide. I'd rather support efforts to save animals, than efforts to round up strays and kill them.

Like - I wouldn't donate to running the county prison service - my taxes already pay for that.

PS: hcalnj.org looks like a good alternative. I'm a sucker for both cats and dogs.

JCishome wrote:
I'll admit I'm not overly well-informed on this, but the "no-kill" idea does seem like a lofty yet unrealistic goal for Jersey City. Consider that a lot of the dogs they're taking in are pit bulls or mixes, and those are very difficult to adopt out (unfairly, by the way - they're very often sweet, loving dogs). I suspect that a lot of those no-kill shelters are dealing with a lot of smaller, more benign-looking dogs.

CatsnDogs wrote:
dtjcview - you can support grassroots non-profit animal organizations that do not kill. Local groups are Companion Animal Trust, Hudson County Animal League, Jersey Cats, to name a few. None of these receive municipal funding and rely only on donations.

www.companionanimaltrust.org

www.hcalnj.org

www.jerseycats.org

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Is LHS a kill shelter? Because if it is - they lose every single penny from me.

A "kill shelter"? Really, this is how you want to frame it?? Are you one of those people that frames the abortion debate as "pro-life" and "pro-death"???

Some shelters choose to be "no kill", but that doesn't make the other shelters "pro kill"!!

For historical perspective on this issue, you should search the forums here. The former head of LHS tried to implement a "no kill" policy without a mandate to do so. The results were disastrous. In order to become a "no kill" shelter, you must have a HUGE network of fostering volunteers, plus on site volunteers, plus strong relations with local rescue organizations. Overnight, she tried to make LHS into a "no kill" shelter and the obvious, logical results were an overabundance of cats (at one point, they had over 300!) excessive volunteer turnover and spread of disease. I know of two volunteers that contracted ring worms after being there for brief periods of time.

People love to have lofty dreams of how things should be, but fail to account for the complexities of reality.

Oh, sorry, forgot to address your question: Is LHS a kill shelter? No, they are a humane shelter doing the best it can to provide a much needed service to our community and that of surrounding towns.