On the Business of Humane Societies

On yesterday’s post, "Judy Stone Comments About "Euthanasia," Randall Patmore commented:

This seems a trifle harsh as though you are saying that humane societies are only about business and not about the wellbeing of animals at all. I’d be interested to know what proof you have.

I was going to respond, but I’d like some other voices as well, and particularly people whose direct experience relates to humane societies. Violet and Charles were adopted from rescue groups, and Emme was adopted from a local person who found a mommy cat (Emme) and her kittens (and we adopted one: Lars Axl Fokker, who died of feline infectious peritonitis shortly thereafter).

I entered my local humane society several times and left, as many people do, in a puddle of my own tears. It takes a special kind of courage to deal with unwanted "pets" on a regular basis. I don’t have that kind of courage. However, I do happen to know enough about the politics and economics of shelters to know that the millions of healthy cats and dogs killed under the guise of "euthanasia" are not having their well being seriously considered. At least not my definition of well-being.

As I see it, Randall’s comment has the following components begging to be addressed:

• "a trifle harsh"
• "only about business"
• "not about the well-being of animals at all"
• "proof"

It would appear that the millions of animals killed each year would qualify as proof, as those actions–the killings–speak louder than any mission statement expressing care about the well being of the animals.

But that’s me.

What do you think?