- About Us
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Weekly Ads
Euthanizing animals OK
I have noticed lately a rise in the amount of animals that have been left behind to fend for themselves. I understand that the city and county animal shelters are overrun with animals (sometimes to the point of quarantine because they are sick), however, if someone is unable to keep a pet, for whatever the reason, there should be a safe place for them. Our shelters here are no kill, but Ive noticed a rise on the lost and found board where I work of found, declawed cats wandering the streets of Oak Harbor and in the dead animals on the roads.
What is more humane, giving people no option other than dumping them off hoping someone will take them in or giving each animal a chance at a good home through adoption from our local shelters that we donate money to, even if it means the pet may be euthanized within a few weeks of entering the shelter? I can promise you its not easy to pick and choose the ones that need to be on the list for euthanasia (I have been there), but I believe it is a necessity (for space, disease control, and humane treatment at the end of an animals life).
I believe that animals living in cages for a year plus is more inhumane than the minute it takes to humanly euthanize an animal with a needle. You may not agree but I would like you to start to pay attention to the amount of animals that are alone and dying outside the shelters because somehow our morals of having a no kill shelter wont make room for them to die with the love and diginty these animal deserve. After all if we cant take care of the animals all the way to end, what will take care of them in the end?