Last night, our group met to discuss our project over some really delicious spaghetti! We all kind of chatted about how we see the project going, and I'm glad that we all didn't have the same opinion on what should go into it. This weekend, I researched PETA's stance on pet overpopulation, and started reading about the downside of "No Kill Shelters". We had originally thought to interview some people that run a no-kill shelter, but now I really feel that the only way that I would feel comfortable introducing that element into our project, is to also interview someone who would represent the other side opinions on these shelters. (We were thinking about trying to do a road trip to VA to meet with PETA) Dom really brought up a good point about the shelters, that they eased the minds of the people who really care about the animals (people who run them) but they sometimes over look the overall well-being of the animals who are turned away, or are left to eternal confinement in an over-cramped environment. I find it really hard to have a negative outlook on people who are just trying to help these animals, I know that they have good intentions for them, but so do people who decide that they can keep over 100 cats shut up in their houses. They feel that they are saving them, but in reality they are dooming these animals to a feeble existence... (as does the law as well; these people are usually charged with animal cruelty.)
Animal Rights Uncompromised:'No-Kill' Shelters
Some people have suggested that the solution to companion animal overpopulation lies with so-called "no-kill," or "limited-admission," shelters. Sadly, these facilities often have major problems that affect animals. Animals at "no-kill" shelters who have been deemed unadoptable may be "warehoused" in cages for years. They become withdrawn, severely depressed, or aggressive, which further decreases their chances for adoption. Cageless facilities avoid the cruelty of constant confinement but unintentionally encourage fighting and the spread of disease among animals.
One PETA staffer who used to manage a "no-kill" shelter had a change of heart after seeing a pit bull who had lived in a cage for 12 years. He had gone mad from confinement and would spend the day slamming his body against the sides of his cage, becoming so enraged that the workers were afraid to handle him. After witnessing this miserable life, she realized that some fates truly are worse than death.
"No-kill" shelters and "no-kill" rescue groups often find themselves filled to capacity, which means that they must turn animals away. These animals will still face untimely deaths—just not at these facilities. In the best case scenario, they will be taken to another facility that does euthanize animals. Some will be dumped by the roadside to die a far more gruesome and horrible death than an injection of sodium pentobarbital would provide. Although it is true that "no-kill" shelters do not kill animals, this doesn't mean that animals are saved. There simply aren't enough good homes—or even enough cages—for them all.
Open-admission shelters are committed to keeping animals safe and off the streets and do not have the option of turning their backs on the victims of the overpopulation crisis as "no-kill" shelters do. No one despises the ugly reality of euthanizing animals more than the people who hold the syringe, but euthanasia is often the most compassionate and dignified way for unwanted animals to leave the world.
http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-nokillshelters.asp
Another big topic that we went over was our time line. With all of the information and topics that we would like to cover, we don't know if 10 min.'s is going to be enough time. We decided that we would get the coverage that we felt was necessary, and then start editing. We would aim for 10 minutes, but if we went over, then we would have to.
I'd really like to put up youtube.com clips on here. Can anyone tell me how to do that???
No comments:
Post a Comment