This is a Facebook posting from the page for the municipal animal shelter facility in Benton, KY. I checked the “About” information and it is indeed the pound’s page, not a “Friends of” or other type of page. The pound is closed on weekends.
I can’t speak for anyone who may have posted their pets in need of rehoming on the Marshall Co pound’s page, but experience tells me that these type of posts are often made by caring people who don’t want their pets to go to the local pet killing facility. In other words, these are people trying to find alternatives for their “furbabies” so they don’t end up “sitting in a kill shelter”.
A smart shelter is going to encourage and provide a place for these type of posts, even if it’s not on the facility’s FB page. By publicly shaming people who may not know where else to turn for help rehoming on their own, the pound is increasing intake and decreasing community support. Which will result in more killing. It is odd behavior for a pet killing facility because you know, nobody wants to kill animals. Or so I’ve heard.
17 thoughts on “Alternatives to Shelter Surrender: KY Pound’s “Furbabies” Fail”
Heh heh … Imma post this on their FB page …
For every pesky post they have to delete off their FB page, one pet must be killed. It’s the rules.
They don’t want to do it, so please understand and accept the killings, ok?
wonder how long it takes before it’s removed
i don’t agree there has to be a different way of doing things i don’t believe it can’t be stoped ,I feel very sorry for the people who do it for a job we have to have hope that things will change, has to be a miracle for the pets that die every day needlesley
There’s no need for a miracle, Patti. It already has been done in other places. The No-Kill Equation *works*. But no shelter can do it without the support of the community. And, of course, they can’t change if they don’t WANT to change…
How short-sighted. Helping the community network and re-home pets and keeping them from ever entering their shelter should be one of their highest priorities.
In the practical sense I’m thinking labor, overhead and material costs savings. The fewer pets that enter the shelter cuts down on the risk of the spread of disease.
And,..if they never cross your door, you don’t get a chance to kill them.
Stop trying to drop your logic on us. Our furbabies are sitting in a kill shelter here!
I forgot. You’ve got stats to make ;)
to start with they are full and are trying to save the furbabies they have from being put down so i can understand where they are coming from they are a kill shelter filled to capacity means filled to capacity and their page is to find homes for the furbabies they have i have no clue who you are but until you talk to the wonderful girls at this shelter back off and let them do what they have to do to save the babies they have now
Is this a serious comment or just a Run-On Sentence Lawl? If the latter, please wait for the Run-On Sentence Lawl thread to post your entry. If the former, oh dear.
Sandra, honey, where exactly do you think those folks that were unable to find a home through a little networking help on your Facebook page are gonna take that pet they were unable to place?
I’ll give you a clue…your filled to capacity kill shelter.
Nelson’s Mama- You could not have said it any clearer!!!
Closing their FB page doors to people in the community trying to rehome their pets will result in these “good and caring” girls having to kill more.
is it possible that a shelter would be liable in a situation where someone saw a pet looking to be rehomed… took it… got bit or something… then tried to blame the shelter for crossposting?
just spit balling as to why, besides the ‘dont take the limelight off our animals’ thing, a shelter may decline to post ads for non=sheltered pets.
I have never heard of that being a concern but presumably a simple statement of non-liability would suffice.
This is not only wrong morally, but stupid. So if someone posts a picture of a dog from another shelter that doesnt get saved, it may end up at this shelter and then its another “furbaby needing to be saved”. Shelters need to recognize that they are all in this together. If they are doing this for the animals, which they should, then there should be no problem. If someone goes to the “other shelter” and adopts 10 animals, then maybe this shelter in question can adopt out 10 animals to the other shelter so this shelter has more room “for all the furbabies”. If both shelters are running out to capacity, then thats not good for anybody, especially not the animals. Or at least thats how I see it.