A recent Sun article initiated by the Toronto Humane Society's request for euthanasia numbers from Toronto Animal Services blasts TAS for its high kill rate.
I can only speak for the dog side of things but that number is 837 dogs euthanized for 2007. I wrote about the last time THS made this announcement a little while ago in which I compared the rate of euthanasia in Toronto to the rate in Calgary. Calgary animal services is much trumpeted by the animal welfare community, and deservedly so, as a model of how city shelters should be run. As it turns out, the percentage numbers of dog euthanasias per dog population between Toronto and Calgary aren't that different.
Now Toronto Humane Society once again trots out the same number, just presented differently, to try to show their moral superiority over Toronto Animal Services. Specifically, THS compares their own euth rates to TAS' much higher euth rates.
Before I go into the numbers, I think it's important to remember that the mandate for TAS and THS are two different things even though THS may like to imply otherwise when they publicly compare euth rates. THS ostensibly is there for the animals. TAS, on the other hand, is a city run facility which is there to serve and protect the public, ie. people.
From THS' own website:
The difference between the Society and animal control agencies lies in the focus of each organization's protection arm. Your local animal control agency is generally charged with the duty of controlling animals. They are the ones you call when a dog is running at large or barking too much. The license your pet wears comes from your local animal control agency. Most animal control agencies are also the ones you contact if there is a dead animal in your yard, road, or neighbourhood.
The Toronto Humane Society works to ensure quality lives for all animals. Our main concern is for the well being of the animal.
So, comparing euth numbers between these two agencies is, right from the outset, somewhat akin to comparing apples and oranges.
Here are some other differences between THS and TAS.
THS claims to have an open admissions policy but they reserve the right to refuse admission to dogs they don't want. Let's take a look at the THS website again:
Q: How do I surrender an animal to you for adoption?
A: At present our Shelter has no extra room. If you need to surrender your pet, as space becomes available, you will need to make an appointment with a Feline or Canine coordinator.
How does this make THS an open admissions shelter? I'm not sure.
And guess where the owners end up going instead to dump their unwanted animals? Well, to TAS of course, because TAS has an open admissions policy that is actually an open admissions policy meaning they are obligated to accept every animal that is brought to them including the "unadoptable" ones rejected by THS - many of which will end up getting euthanized.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me THS gets to keep its hands clean because TAS ends up having to do the dirty work.
Another major difference at TAS is that TAS offers low cost euthanasia to the public for those who can't, or won't, pay the much higher vet fees. While this service, like any service, is open to abuse, it means that people don't have to just watch their old or sick animals endure long deaths simply because they can't afford vet euthanasias. This service bumps up TAS euth numbers significantly. (And FYI, I've never known any TAS staffer to euthanize a healthy, behaviorally sound dog just because the owner brought it in and asked for it to be done.)
And finally, there is court ordered and DOLA enforcement. It's a mighty unfortunate aspect of TAS' mandate but they are required to carry it out. Again, another bump up in euth numbers.
So here are the 2007 dog euth numbers for TAS as presented by THS:
1834 adopted/returned to owner
227 euthanized due to significant behavioural problems
162 euthanized due to health issues
112 euthanized due to court orders and DOLA (anti-Pit Bull laws)
336 owner requested euthanasias
If we take away the euthanasias due to health reasons, legal reasons and owner requested that leaves 227 euths. Even if we ignore the fact that THS can turn away unadoptable dogs which in all likelihood end up at TAS and make up a portion of that number, 227 euths out of 2707 admitted, while still too many, is not nearly as bad as THS would like people to think.
Is everything perfectly hunkydory at TAS? No, of course not. It does have its share of bureaucrats but at the same time there are many dedicated staffers whose main goal is looking after the welfare of the animals in their care while also honouring the public trust.
Rolling out the euthanasia numbers with no context in an attempt to pursuade people that Toronto Animal Services is up to no good is at best misleading and at worst - and this is of course what's important - a great disservice to the abandoned animals of Toronto. Instead of making peace and working together to help further the cause of animal welfare in this city, THS continues at playing negative ad campaign politics.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
34 comments:
I saw this article yesterday. Saw the front page "city kills 25 0000 animals" well of couse I paid $.50 to buy the paper (why I support this media crap called "The sun" is beyond me)anyway the article is so old. Those numbers have been passed around for years with no truth or mention of TAS euthanization program or the fact that daily people drop off their pets they don't want anymore. Why is TAS being punished??? Why does the Humane society feel the need to punish TAS and taint the public perception. Pretty ironic that a glowing article was printed in the globe only days before the sun article came out. Bull shit I say!!! The sun article was so one sided, biased and vague. It sucked. Frusterating for sure
Susan
I hate the consistent spatting between the THS and TAS, I think it almost disguises issues at hand which is animal welfare and how we, in a city with a large ratio of animal-ownership, cope with controlling humans and animals alike..
That being said, while the THS has that sign saying they won't accept dogs, I've personally witnessed on at least 3 occasions in the past 6 months (since most of that time they say they are full) that if somebody comes in with a dog and is hellbent on not taking it out and there's any risk/concern they might just dump the dog, they've taken the dog. I've also left a volunteer shift there before and seen a tumor-ridden sick dog tied up outside, the poor vet tech was on her own all night and still managed to take the dog in (who later got adopted.)
I really wish there were more stories of the people who work long and hard hours for these animals, rather than statistics or the lack of/misdirected resources that I'm sure both groups suffer from. This tabloid journalism doesn't help much either, but it sells. 50cents at a time..
I will have nothing to do with Toronto Humane while Tim Trow is in any way associated with it. I saw its deterioration after he came into power (and power is the word).
You've hit the nail on the head noting the different mandates of THS and TAS. If people want a change at TAS, they have to effectively lobby their city councillors. However, I find that under David Miller this is a very animal-unfriendly city council and think that it will take organized and long-term action to have any effect.
Susan, I suspect the Sun article was just fed to them and they reprinted it with some editing. Just the way journalism works these days with not enough effort being put into fact checking press releases.
Ellstar, I know there are good people at THS and I don't mean to belittle their efforts. It's the top brass there with their us vs them attitude that need to grow up. It's good to hear they will sometimes take in animals if the animals are dumped at their doorstep but that's what they're supposed to do all the time if they have an open admissions policy. And then to use the results of that difference in policy to make political jabs against TAS is hypocritical.
Social Mange, having had to deal with council in the past, I'm surprised anything gets done - unless it's got to do with building more condos. The bureaucracy there just seems to morph from one gelatinous glob into another and the best you can do is poke it with a stick.
That sounds a lot like the issues we have between our "open admission, take everything no matter what and never euth for space" shelters, vs our local "no-kill, even if the animal is suffering and we have a 3 year waiting list to take in your animal" shelter.
Drives me crazy
There was an email that went around the DogsToronto yahoo mailing list about this yesterday. I've put some highlights below. I was going to publish a blog posting about this, but didn't have time/space. I'm glad you did.
Following are snippets from said email:
---------------------------------
Keep in mind that Toronto Animal Services must euthanize all pitbull terriers if they are not claimed. Due to the new Ontario legislation Pitbulls are classified as a public health risk, so if an owner does not come forward they must euthanize under this law, they cannot adopt them or send them to rescue as they are a government run service. Doesn’t seem that bad consider they take in many hit by cars, pitbulls, and animals in distress.
The funny thing with statistics is that you can play them any way you want THS always plays Toronto Animal Service numbers in a negative light.
At the end of the day Toronto Animal Service works with rescue and surrenders to rescue whenever possible, whereas THS will leave animals living in the shelter for 5+ years rather than surrender them to rescue to help them find the right home.
----------------------------------
Anyway, thanks again Fred for posting!
DogsDeserveFreedom
THS has nothing to crow about. Some of their rehoming practices have come under scrutiny. They carry Peta ads on their website. They are privately funded and a charity so they can give tax receipts. They have dogs who have been at the shelter for years now.
If anything, the Ontario Liberals should be taking heat for killing dogs only because of their looks. Where's the outrage?
Overall, the way you've broken down the figures shows me that you are doing very well. Taking out McGuinty's executions & owners seeking help at the end, you are left with 389 shelter kills, or about a 14% kill rate for health/serious behavioural issues.
With an 86% save rate at an open admission animal control facility, especially in view of the climate of dog-hating hysteria that the Liberals engendered with their bullshit, I'd say TAS should give itself a pat on the back. TAS can call itself a No Kill facility with these kinds of results.
THS is way too much of a finger-wagging bluestocking for my liking these days. They should worry about their own problems - remember a couple of years ago? - and let others do their best to help animals and people.
Hi Fred,
Saw Mr Pocklington`s piece this morning. Not bad.
I am always upset with any kill rate from anywhere. My irritation comes in play when I think that every one of these animals has an owner somewhere. Why aren`t they allowed to take the animals home? Are the fees to high? Why would an organization allow dogs or cats to die when there is someone willing to take them? Or when an owner says to kill their dog, dont you intervene when the dog is salvageable and take the dog into care? There are hundreds of rescues out here who support life and No Kill.
Around here, the city pays the pound every time it kills an animal. That makes it a very lucrative way to make a living. I hate it. It has to change. I feel that most pounds could afford to ease up on the release costs a bit so more animals live.
I know it will never happen.
Until cities speak for all animals ,and reward people for saving them with lower tag and release fees, we can never achieve No Kill . Its all about money and profit. Kill animals and get rich.
Something like the HSUS and Peta.
But this time its made in Canada.
Canada where there is a home for every single dog and cat if given a chance.
Caveat, I'm surprised THS website has PETA ads. Their strategies towards unwanted pets are rather divergent. Perhaps they're doing it for the money.
Heather, what piece was that?
It would be interesting to know where the budgets go for both organizations, although like the euthanasia statistics, it's easy to spin the numbers. A big spend on PR and sunshine salaries for some, I'd guess, but how much, really, for the animals?
Finger-wagging bluestocking, LOL!
Your post reminds me of Nathan Winograd's comparison of the ASPCA and SFSPCA and their respective city pounds in his book, "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation".
I`m stupid some days.
Its Worthington.
Pocklington is a different can of worms that I have been following.
Sorry for the misinfo.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2009/04/03/8986176-sun.html
redstarcafe, I think one of the problems with TAS is that they don't actually spend enough on PR (like nothing?). People generally don't know what TAS does nor how they do it and TAS ends up letting its detractors control the message.
I know part of it is that they don't want to get into a mud slinging contest with THS, and that's understandable, but, man it gets frustrating sometimes to watch them get maligned and their only response is silence.
Heather, thanks, I'll check it out.
Fred, from my perspective, TAS has taken the high road.
On the other hand, back in early 2008, Sue-Ann Levy wrote a piece, also in the Sun, about their budget increase referring to an increase of $800,000 to $2 MM including 26 new full time positions.
One "concerned citizen" called the licensing program a PR exercise, and I know that there has been more recent flak about the summer-student door-to-door campaign.
Well, I guess it is PR but with a point. I hope the new FT positions were agents and shelter workers.
I DONATED TO TAS AND I RECEIVED A TAX RECEIPT TOO.
on another note, in regards to PR, I thought it would be a great idea, when walking dogs up for adoption for them to wear a vest or sash that sais "adopt me at tas and the phone number" something to that effect. Half the time when we are walking the dogs, as volunteers, people just think that the dog is our own . With so many events happening at direct energy building, this type of advertising could work quite well. Another option would be for us volunteers to wear t-shirts that say "volunteer dog walker" or "adopt this dog" with an arrow pointing down. I don't know, but more advertising could be done easily and cheaply. I could even make my own t-shirt.
Susan
restarcafe, yes, TAS is taking the high road - unlike me who gets dizzy at those heights:)
I can't speak on the TAS budget as I don't know anything about it really, but I do know that any accounting information coming from The Sun is highly questionable.
For (another) example, this morning, there was an editorial by Worthington in the Sun, http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2009/04/03/8986176-sun.html, about how the THS had said they could do what TAS does for $500,000 a year.
If you think about it, $500,000 barely pays for a dozen salaries (especially if you include benefits, health care, etc.) If anyone thinks THS or any organization can, run 4 shelters on opposite ends of the city with a fleet of vehicles and full time animal care staff and officers on $500,000 a year, they need to go back and learn some arithmetic.
Or maybe Worthington just thinks animal services is a simple matter of buying a few more cages and stacking them up in a warehouse.
Actually, the whole editorial is misinformed. It claims that TAS was started when the city contract with THS ended in 2003 but that's misleading. The city actually already had an animal services division which was already handling eighty percent of the workload.
I could go on about my problems with the Sun editorial but then this comment is going to turn into a post.
If you're interested, here's a link to some e-mails between city councilors about why the city chose to go with TAS over THS. It's quite interesting (if you're into reading bureaucratic missives like I am).
http://www.cedardogs.com/files/CouncillorsResponse.html
Of course, I have to wonder who gave Worthington that number of $500,000? Hmm.
Susan, maybe we should go talk to them about that, about more PR. The times I brought it up in the past, they just seemed so uninterested but, hey, maybe it was me (I should probably learn to stop poking people in the chest when I talk to them).
I sometimes think they'd rather just do their work quietly with no one bothering them. Unfortunately, that's rather difficult since they are a public service and people will absolutely bother them because that comes with the territory.
I think TAS can still keep to the higher ground by blowing its own horn a bit more. I think I suggested exactly that in the letter of support I wrote to them last year. The only reason I know anything about what they are doing is through this blog. Maybe they should start their own - free and easy to do, then we'll all link to it.
I've had my issues with TAS over the whole 'pit bull' thing but all in all I think they are doing a great job.
No need to mention THS at all - those media hounds don't care if it's mud or ice cream as long as they are getting attention.
Worthington is an old tool who should have retired already. We're still waiting for his column, promised in 2006 or 07, explaining why 'pit bulls' don't make good police or service dogs. We had all our stuff ready to launch at the old crank, too.
I LOVE the idea of vests saying Adopt Me for dogs being walked. It would be a bit more of a pain putthing them on though...hmmm, how about vests for the volunteers saying I'm A Volunteer Walking Adoptable Dogs or Adopt This Dog from TAS or some such?
Fred, thanks for the link to the bureaucratic missives. Now, it was back in 2001 that Council elected to save the $300,000 demanded by THS. It doesn't sound like a lot and it isn't, compared to the additional $800,000 that TAS asked for last year. We don't know what that $800K included, so it's an apples and oranges comparison anyway, isn't it?
Anyway, Chris Kurata's questions are interesting, especially:
(6) How much money was saved by terminating the contract with the Toronto Humane Society?
(7) What document or guideline sets out the protocol currently followed with respect to the housing, adoption and euthanization of stray animals?
Of course, money is only one aspect to us animal bloggers, although it may be the be-all-and-end-all to city bureaucrats.
And, what Worthington said (which echoes what Winograd said):
"Because that's the primary role of Animal Services -- control, not adoption or welfare of animals."
BTW, your blog would prove otherwise, and thank you so much for that and for the work of the volunteers and caring staff at TAS.
I wish that TAS could find the budget to fix that lovely lab's cherry-eye, and sorry that there is a "limit" to her coverage. Our councillors are so busy focussing on the Big Picture to address this or DOLA, I suppose.
Sure the THS has helped many animals and has done allot of good but it's not that great a place as one may believe!
In the past year so many employees and volunteers of the THS have either been fired, harassed by the staff while trying to do their job making them want to quit, that the place has become significantly understaffed!
Hard working Veterinarians have been let go while there are numerous animals in need of treatment, which end up being put on a waiting list for surgeries. Vet techs are hired and many end up quitting due to the poor work environment, being overworked, while barely having enough time to attend to all the animals on their list.
Many times some of the Veterinarians have stayed extra hours out of the kindness of their hearts to try and ensure that all the sick animals were given their meds or looked after.
This does not even account for how there are not enough volunteers to ensure that all the animals have food and water! One lady used to spend all day there every Saturday, looking after the rabbits and other small animals, and many times she was yelled at and treated like garbage!
Whilst there I have seen numerous times empty food bowls, empty water dishes, or animals in cages without dishes for either! I could list worse as animals have unfortunately died due to not having the proper housing cages, tanks or accessories to keep them safe, or worse yet cages so overcrowded that they literally are stacked halfway over the edges of the shelves, which sometimes fall down, causing injury to the animal or animals running loose about the rooms. Cages have even been placed near wires where the animals could reach and chew through, and after that horrible fire at the Oshawa Humane Society which was apparently caused by wild mice, shouldn't the utmost precautions be taken to prevent animals to be near dangerous electrical cords?
Practically all of the hired staff will tell you that they are treated like trash and working conditions are not very enjoyable but they'll never state that in writing or in an interview as they fear for their jobs. Trust me I have spent time helping out there, I have video from the place and know exactly what's going on and that the donations aren't being prioritized in getting the things needed to care for the animals right away! The place needs to be run by completely different people, ones who actually care about the welfare of the animals and who treat their staff with respect!!!
Anonymous, e-mail me if you get a chance. My e-mail can be found if you click on my name (in blue) at the top of this comment.
For many years we donated to THS via monthly debits from my husband’s checking account. We continued to do so even after we took a badly, genetically damaged cat to them. The cat was feral and leaving kittens every where. I Tried get the cat to feed the kittens but the mother would not comply. I took the cat to THS rather than leave it out on the street to produce yet more unwanted and dieing kittens. They refused to take it in "because it was not adoptable". I explained I knew that and expected it would need to be put down. I asked what they expected us to do, "Put it back out on the street?" "That's up to your conscience." I was told, BUT in the end request for euthanasia was answered AFTER WE PAID FOR THE SEVICE! Our conscience is apparently greater than that of the THS. We are of very limited means and that procedure was hard on us. It was the right thing to do and the THS should have taken responsibility!
My next run in with the THS was over a dog we adopted from them. It ran off after being startled. It had only been with us a few weeks and I am sure the dog had not had time to bond. We posted that night on the THS website; we searched day and night, over miles of parks and river banks, sometimes at 3&4 AM. A few weeks went by and no word from any shelters I took my lost dog poster down to the THS to make sure he was not there and had been missed on scanning.(He was micro-chipped)
Mr. Smith bellowed at me as I started to show him my dog. "Why are you just reporting him now?!" I said, "Oh, now, he was posted the same evening and I phoned the next day." Mr. Smith would not even consider listening to me. He said "I saw this dog for sale on a website" I was astounded and inquired as to which site. "I don't remember." "Well, what kind of sites were you looking at" "I don't remember but I'm telling you, you can never come here again and you may never adopt an other animal from us." He took my dogs papers and was going to keep them. I requested the papers back and he went to get a second man to throw me out. I stopped my funding that day and will never give them an other red cent!! EVER. All my donations now go to TAS or the wild life hospital. I support both, financially and ethically!
It was a lot uglier than I have described here but I do not want to try people's patience with details.
JenniferATemple, thanks for the comment. I'm going to copy this over to the more recent May 30th post, The truth will out.
Hello all. My name is Joe. I am an animal control officer, employed by the city of Toronto and have been in such position for over 20 years. ALL of your comments are fantastic, and really do give food for thought. Since I am new to this site, I will simply, for now leave myself open to question from all. I am a straight shooter and what you will get from me will be the absolute truth, no gray areas. I have no fear of losing my job since my work ethics are spotless and management will back me up 100% So, fire away, I'm listening. Oh, by the way, just yesterday I noticed vests in our adoption room for dogs which said "I am available for adoption. There are also t-shirts at our front desk which say "Volunteer dog walker" Thank you for your time Joe
Hi Joe, thanks for joining in and offering to take some questions. It would certainly be interesting to hear things from an ACO's viewpoint. This is an old post, though, so I'm not sure how much of a response there will be but you're certainly more than welcome to comment on any of the more recent posts and introduce yourself there.
Hi,
Have just been following this back and forth regarding THS and TAS and had to post. I recently adopted my dog Atlas from TAS and was absolutely thrilled with my whole experience. After visiting THS and falling in love with several dogs, we left, feeling discouraged. It felt as though they didn't want us to adopt any of the dogs; it was hard to get information regarding the dog's histories (if known), and the staff seemed uninterested in our concerns and questions. Adopting a pet is a lifetime commitment and I believe there should be a little more understanding shown towards people who are ready to take their adoption as seriously as they should ( one staff member actually laughed at my questions...as if I was silly for caring whether they thought the dog had been abused in the past). At TAS, things were so different! We were able to walk Atlas, to see if there was a connection between us. They gave us as much information as they could regarding his situation, and offered us some great advice regarding vets, and trraining that may help Atlas. In short, I believed they were very interested in matching him with the appropriate people. We left feeling confident and respected. Bravo to the staff of TAS south because Atlas id doing amazingly well and we truly believe that it was a match made in heaven! More peole need to know about this fantastic shelter.
When I contacted THS to take in a stray cat I had found and had been taking care of, the night officer/supervisor was very insinuiting with their questioning trying to ask why i wanted to bring it in, why i hadn't come earlier, and so on. They finally said they had no space until Wednesday. When I called back in the morning, they said they had no space at all, and only accepting on a day-by-day. So it seems very unusual to me their story changes so much, seeing their website says to bring in the animal and they will accept them - there are no conditions around it. They told me to go to "TAS" which they called "another shelter". Apparently the lady at THS didn't realize I knew TAS (North) was the pound. Interestingly, my expectations of TAS caught me off guard when i went - they were friendly, they took the stray in no questions asked (yes, i'm sure there are many reasons behind this) and they had a good area and facilities which was also surprising. Overall there attitude was much better than what I experienced with THS and their "funny" policies. TAS may have a higher kill rate, but i'm sure the stats are skewed as THS wants to present a different view politically - does TAS really have a say in accepting animals at the end of the day?
spiritflare, TAS is required to take every animal that is handed over to them. They are mandated to do so and because of this, TAS quite often gets animals rejected by THS' "open admissions" policy. I've never personally heard of a situation where TAS has turned away an animal.
THS BUDGETS - Far too much of the money we give them goes for litigation. Every single time any one says any thing the THS feels is negative, they sue! All that money to save Mr. Trows ego should have gone to feed and care for the animals in their care. I gave them money for years but was abused by staff when I went there to see if my little lost Maus, a 5yr old border collie, had by any chance shown up there. They threw me out and told me not I would never be allowed back because the dog I was so desperate to find had been adopted from them and they insinuated I had taken it to sell! I stopped the monthly debits that very day. After months of crying and searching, I finally went to TAS and adopted a lovely Rotti-shepard cross who has been with me for 3 years now. I love him dearly but still shed a few tears when I think of Maus.
I was forced to pay to have a seriously ill and deformed cat put to sleep when I brought it to them. (I took in, nursed and toileted her 6 kittens because the mother could not be made to nurse them.One died on the second day, all the rest grew strong and went to loving homes) I said I realized the mother was beyond hope, "what do you want me to do? Put it back out on the street?" They replied "that is up to your concience!" What about THEIR CONCIENCE?! They agreed to have a vet put the poor thing to sleep after I agreed to pay $150.I suppose that does not count in their stats because "I did the dirty deed by paying" They DO NOT TAKE UNADOPTABLE ANIMALS!! The TAS turn NONE away. I agree that the seriously ill and beyond hope need to be released from the pain and indignity of their condition, TAS does this, neg stats or no! Also TAS is a far cleaner, more humane and both a people and animal friendly service. The licence fees we pay are what pays for the great care they give while the lions share of donations go to THS and pays for endless law suits. I love the TAS. I once loved the THS but it has been so constantly degraded that I can no longer see my way clear to support them. I give to TAS and the Toronto Wild Centre. TWC once said, "oh, we would admit an injured mouse if it was brought to us!" They stole my heart at that time. I had taken an injured pigion and they took it in! BLESS THEM! I wish Tim Trow had to live under the same condition as his wards!
I think you forgot to mention that the THS recieves absolutely NO government funding! It seems to me as someone who has just recently dealt with TAS that it is clear that they very much lean toward the side of politc instead of animal wellbeing. If THS or OSPCA had the funding from the government on top of that which they generate on their own through donation, I beleive kill rates for animals would go down significantly. Just look into the intiatives they are in the works of setting up. OSPCA already have two clinics which offer pet owners free spay and neuters for their pets as well as trap and release programs for ferals. They also offer reduced vaccination which TAS does not. TAS does offer a subsidised spay/neuter clinic with mandatory vaccination policies which TAS itself does not provide. Which seems to defeat the purpose of having a lost cost spay or neuter clinic. There are plenty of animals in low and no (street people) brackets which have no access at to any health care for their animals. TAS offers a way for these citizens to surrender their animals not help them care for them which seems to be the mission of both OSPCA and THS. People can point fingers til th cows come home as to who should and should not have pets and whose responsibity it is to care for said animals when it comes right down to it it is a problem that has been going on for quite sometime. If access is only given to wealthy people to have pets I beleive this is unfair. As well, unrealistic. More effort should be made and supported to allow equal access to proper vet care for any and all animals, period. It seems to me this has never and will never be in the forefront of TAS's mission. This is why THS was started in the first place and boy do they ever help out the TAS. Which is why the story should not be twisted to even put the comparison on the two. With the tax money and government back up that TAS recieves should not even be compared to ANY work of any agency which does their job born out of animal concern not social necessity.
peace peace
Anonymous, no I didn't forget to mention anything. This post isn't about funding or most of the other things you've mentioned, like "street people", to try to cloud the issue. This post is about misrepresentation of euthanasia numbers by THS for political reasons.
Even comparing THS to TAS doesn't make sense. Their mandates are totally different. TAS participates in certain aspects of animal welfare but that is not their mandate. Their prime mandate is to protect people from animals. THS, on the other hand, has the mandate of protecting animals from people. THS' mandate is animal welfare and so they should be offering all those services commensurate with that but they don't.
If you're a supporter of the THS then you should be doing something to help improve the dreadful situation that institution is in instead of carrying on the fingerpointing that Trow and company seemed to delight in.
Or were you recently rejected for an adoption by TAS and this is your way of venting? I can't say I totally agree with TAS' adoption policies but I don't know them well enough to criticize. All I know is that the adoption policies work well for the dogs in the South facility, if not always for the people who are turned down.
I agree with your last statement that TAS shouldn't be compared with the THS or the OSPCA but TAS wasn't the one throwing the mud or making the comparisons (they never even issued a press release to defend themselves against Trow's many misrepresentations). All three agencies should be working together to improve animal welfare in Toronto and hopefully with some of the old THS management out of the way, they can get on with that.
Thank you, this is a very informative article.
Post a Comment