I've been working to deal with the stray dog problem here in Ireland for the past 15 years, and we often benchmark ourselves against the UK.
In Ireland, we used to euthanase around 25000 stray dogs per year, but it's now down to around 6500. Whilst this is an improvement, it's still proportionally much higher than the UK, where they euthanase only 9000 per year. If you work this out on a "per 10 million population basis", Ireland kills around 16250 per 10 million people whereas the UK kills only 1500 per 10 million people. That makes Ireland still over ten times as bad as the UK, and it gives us a target to work towards.
I understand that in the USA, around 2 million stray dogs are euthanased every year - and with a human population of 300 million, that equates to nearly 70000 per 10 million people.
The animal-loving UK puts us all to shame!

Spay/Neuter Spay/Neuter Spay/Neuter Spay/Neuter

It's disheartening to understand the numbers of animals killed simply because no on wants them.

It's disheartening to hear someone say they spend xxx dollars on a pure bred something-or-another when there are breed rescues that have critters looking for homes.

Back Yard Breeders [insert opinion here].

I suspect you've opened a can of worms with this one, Dr. Khuly, and I'll be interested to come back and see the comments when I get home from work tonight.

P.S. I'd love for your blog to have a feature that would allow email notification of comments.

Who are you calling "we" ?

What happens to healthy or treatable pets in so-called "shelters" whose lives are ended there, is not "euthanasia." It's killing. You give the killers moral cover when you go along with calling that "euthanasia."

I am not buying the idea that people who oppose convenience killing in so-called shelters, who support No Kill, who participate in rescue, who work to get animals adopted rather than killed, are morally no different than a girl who gleefully tosses puppies into a river and has her brother videotape her doing it because it's such a lark.

Those who have drastically improved conditions here over the past thirty years, and who are working to improve them further, are not the moral equivalents of someone who kills innocent puppies for the sheer adrenaline-high pleasure of the experience, merely because conditions aren't yet perfect here and we've only so far gotten from 30 million dogs and cats dying needlessly in shelters to under four million dogs and cats dying needlessly in shelters, and not yet to zero.

Zero is the goal; we've made huge progress; Bosnia has never even fined someone for animal cruelty. Where's the equivalence?

And what's with calling convenience killing in shelters "euthanasia" ?

And all readers should write their local newspaper editor, their legislators and start education programs in the community using their municipal and rescue organizations' help.

I can't even reply. The whole thing makes me sick. Drowning puppies is CRUEL.

This girl is taking pleasure in this.

Yes, "we" are different.

I agree that "shelters" that kill animals for space share a motive with owners of unwanted animals who take it upon themselves to drown them.

However, the difference between death by injection vs. by drowning, gassing, beating, shooting, or any of the other myriad cruel methods is in the amount of suffering involved for the animal. Yes, the animal is deprived of its life either way, but at least with the two-injection protocol, it's a painless death for the animal. Having attended the deaths by injection of my own pets when their quality of life had ebbed, I can't compare that to a puppy struggling futilely to stay alive in freezing water.

Let's all continue to work toward a future when no healthy, non-aggressive animals are killed simply for being homeless, and reserve true euthanasia as a peaceful solution to end or prevent suffering.

The email feature you speak of is on the way, as is a widget to let you know which posts are still getting play and which comments are most recent/most popular, etc. Both should make it easier to follow along while making older posts more relevant. Thanks for the

As to the spay/neuter mantra you chant: It will not be enough to spay and neuter ourselves out of this mess. Attitudes have not yet changed to reflect what should be a very personal connection between the citizenry's moral compass and the animals killed. Only once that tipping point is reached––and I believe we're very close in certain parts of the US––will we start to look a lot more like Ireland and the UK.

Yes, Pete, even Ireland looks heavenly next to our mess.

Dr Khuly please do tell us if the US is in fact ANY different.

Animals are gassed in many shelters in the US, is there a real difference between carbon monoxide and drowning?

And yes, the correct word is killing. It is the key to understanding why No Kill is an appropriate term.

Like those above, I believe as individuals we "are different" however as a society perhaps not so much. I am sensing from the text in your post as well as the visceral response from those who have seen the video that it is the sadistic pleasure which this girl exhibits that crosses the line for most. I cannot watch it because I know that it is something that I won't be able to erase from my memory. I am, however, doing something about it and I appreciate this post so much for bringing the NO-Kill Conference in October to my attention, I will be attending. I have also this morning ordered a copy of Nathan Winograd's book, "Redemption" so that I am more informed. I would encourage others to do so. Thank you Dr. Patty!
Patricia Moore
Soft-Hearted Products
http://www.soft-hearted.com

The TEN COMMANDMENTS are not multiple choice.

To kill for food. To put a Pet to sleep, who is in pain,shows we are still Human. But to take a life. THAT IS EVIL.......I SUPPORT NON-KILL-SHELTERS. IF ANYONE REALLY CARES DO THE SAME.

"For me, even the crassest cross-cultural stories of animal cruelty have a way of reminding me that we’re really not so different."

Seriously? Doctor? I would guess that most if not all of your readers, like me, are devoted pet parents who rescue, spay, neuter, and support organizations that do the same.

I really don't think this is the target audience for the thoughts shared in this column. I found it needlessly demoralizing.

I am discusted with her actions, yes in America we do what we call put them to sleep, but the animals dont suffer and these poor puppys are suffering up unitl they die. I could not imagine this being ok. I think this child needs some mental help. My children would not even think of such a cruel act. She should have had more repercussion for her actions.

Isn't it millions of animals, with most of those millions being feral cats? And a large proportion of the remainder are animals who can't find homes due to behavioral problems, owner surrenders for euthanization from people who can't afford to pay the vet to do it. A small proportion of the "millions" are dogs that are rehomeable. An even tinier proportion are puppies and small dogs, who both get ferried to places that suffer from a lack of dogs in shelters.

I see huge differences in between the US and that country and would bet that the vast majority of owned dogs and cats live a much better life than the ones that live out their lives in Bosnia(?).

First, let me address the spay/neuter mantra. I call BS.

When it comes to cats, this is certainly the solution. Dogs are another story. I'm not willing to risk my dog's health by removing their internal organs because I'm too lazy to keep them confined for a few weeks every year.

Second, let me point out that you just compared your loyal, animal loving readers with a sociopathic teenager who laughs gleefully while throwing defenseless BABIES into a river.

And then you have the nerve to ask "what's the difference?"

Saying that Bosnia's culture or stray animal issues excuse them from these behaviours is like saying that stoning a cheating woman in the middle east is no different than coming home and slapping her around a little. NEITHER IS OK, and the first is 100% inexcusable. But they are not comparable, even though they are both responses to the same problem.

Causing pain to another creature (ANY CREATURE) while giggling madly shows the type of personality we are dealing with here. This was torture. If you found teenage boys drowning live mice in this fashion, would you excuse their behaviour by saying that mice are pests and and it's no different than a mousetrap.

But you're wrong this time. You're very, very, very wrong. Because one is torture, and the other one doesn't even know what hit it.

And for you to compare this future prison inmate (don't worry, this behaviour won't end here - she enjoyed it too much) to us, your readers and the general population of North America some of whom fight every day to end cruel euthanasia practices and some of whom fight every day to end convenience killing everywhere - well, quite frankly I'm disgusted.

donnadw wrote:

"A small proportion of the "millions" are dogs that are rehomeable. An even tinier proportion are puppies and small dogs, who both get ferried to places that suffer from a lack of dogs in shelters."

Unfortunately this is not the case in my part of the country. Healthy puppies do have a good chance of getting out - IF they come into the shelter either weaned or with their mama - but entire litters of unweaned puppies and kittens are often PTS the same day they arrive unless bottle-feeding foster homes can be found. And many, many adoptable dogs, large and small are killed because there is not enough space, period. It's not a small proportion.

I agree however that killing an animal by injection is not remotely the same as drowning puppies. Having gone through it with my own dog very recently, no, it isn't the same thing at all.

First of all I want to state that local people are upset. I happened to be visiting that area when the video came out and local people were horrified at her behavior. The local media played the video constantly in order to get people to come forward with her identity. She has even been threatened with bodily harm and drowning since she was identified.

Obviously this girl needs psychological counseling because something is not quite right with her. Anyone who harms animals is much more likely to harm humans as well. I think that although her acts are terrible the public exposure of animal abuse is good because it educates people about what may be going on in their own backyards. If this incident was not broadcast on youtube nobody would have ever known about it. Furthermore we need to think about how many such incidents occur out of the public eye.

How the hell can you compare how this puta kills animals to what we do ,
She never gave them a chance to grow and see if someone would give them a good home , where here in the us we set them up in cages with food and give them chances to be adopted , how the f does that come close to being cruel compared to this sick bitch

Yes, in the end the animal is just as dead (although the follow up I heard on this particular case the puppies survived) there is a HUGE difference between tossing a puppy into the air and have it fall into a river (or any other body of water) in the *hopes* that it will drown or what ever this particular person was hoping for.. While I have not watched the video, I refuse to give it one more page view, from the description of the video I have read on several different websites, it sounds she was out to amuse herself more then anything else. And the torture of an animal for a person's amusement is repulsive, repugnant, and really just even thinking about it makes me vomit a little.

I totally agree that it is going to take a huge shift in the attitude of Americans that pets are not disposable, and are not adapted to living on their own when the owners get sick of them. I am just glad that there are open admission shelters that do euthanize, because a) there are not homes for all of the animals, and I've seen the horrors first hand of pets who live on the streets/in the wild b) if they were all "no kill" shelters, there would not be room enough for them all. I hate "no kill" as a term for no kill shelters because they are generally closed admission(not all, but when they aren't they run the risk of being over run and under funded) and they won't take animals in need. Sorry, off topic.

There is a huge differance in what "we" do and what happened in this video. There is also a HUGE difference between taking a sack of puppies or kittens down to the river to drown because that is your cultural norm and this video. The fact that she video'd it and shared it on the web says it all.

In my opinion, there's a big difference between what she was doing and what we do by euthenising animals. Assuming that it is the cultural norm and is accepted, the biggest difference is that the puppies were surely in panic and could have been injured while in the river. If puppies are anything like humans, drowning is not a pleasurable experience. I think if the animal absolutely must be put down, it be as painless as possible, in other words, "No drowny the puppies." I do realize animals must be "taken care of" but it should not be in a potentially painful way. Critics might argue that sometimes, just like when we put prisoners down, they might feel pain. But I'm sure it's not as high a chance as when you're drowning, I know, I've almost drowned a few times. That's my input.

I do not like the fact at all that precious animals have to be put down but I don't understand how you can equate throwing puppies in water to drown slowly to giving them 2 shots that puts them into peaceful sleep. If I have to make the painful choice of ending one of my precious kitties lives, you can guarantee I won't run a tub of water and stick their head down in it.

Perhaps if the breed rescues and other rescue organizations didn't make it more difficult to adopt a pet than it is to adopt a child, more people might go the rescue route. It is far easier to obtain a purebred dog, even from a responsible breeder, than to get a dog from rescue, especially if one has children or lives in a home not deemed acceptable.
This girl who drowned the pups is a disturbed individual, for sure. And I feel for the people who have to administer "humane injections" in order to reduce the number of animals in shelters.
They will have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

I can only imagine you are being deliberately provacative to increase your readers/comments (hey, it worked for me). If you are being serious, I have to say I admit I agree with part of babysweet's comment:

"Second, let me point out that you just compared your loyal, animal loving readers with a sociopathic teenager who laughs gleefully while throwing defenseless BABIES into a river.

And then you have the nerve to ask "what's the difference?"

Saying that Bosnia's culture or stray animal issues excuse them from these behaviours is like saying that stoning a cheating woman in the middle east is no different than coming home and slapping her around a little. NEITHER IS OK, and the first is 100% inexcusable. But they are not comparable, even though they are both responses to the same problem.

Causing pain to another creature (ANY CREATURE) while giggling madly shows the type of personality we are dealing with here. This was torture. If you found teenage boys drowning live mice in this fashion, would you excuse their behaviour by saying that mice are pests and and it's no different than a mousetrap.

But you're wrong this time. You're very, very, very wrong. Because one is torture, and the other one doesn't even know what hit it."

"'For me, even the crassest cross-cultural stories of animal cruelty have a way of reminding me that we’re really not so different.'

Seriously? Doctor? I would guess that most if not all of your readers, like me, are devoted pet parents who rescue, spay, neuter, and support organizations that do the same.

I really don't think this is the target audience for the thoughts shared in this column. I found it needlessly demoralizing."

***

Let me address this and the other comments condemning this post. I certainly don't blame you for thinking you're not the target audience for these musings. But they are musings ... and should be taken as such. I do not have the answers in this case and I certainly did not mean to liken the apparent attitude of the teen in question to how we euthanize pets in the US.

No, the point I intended to make is a much larger one and one that does make YOU the target of my musings: That many of our fellow citizens sit complacently by, paying lip service to overpopulation even as they shop at pet stores for their newest family members. All this while the shelters teem and the massacre (can I call it anything else?) goes on and on.

We can shut our eyes and believe we're doing things the best we can but that's not what I see on the ground. As someone who has to recruit people to get up early on the occasional Sunday to spay and neuter cats I see first hand how easy it is for most of us to flap our lips and leave the heavy lifting to others.

I am certainly not accusing anyone here of talking a big game. I'm merely pointing out that no-kill is a community solution we need to actively work towards. And to do so, we must first acknowledge we have a problem.

That's the thought pattern I was employing here. Sorry if I missed my mark.

I don't like any of it, believe me I DON'T! I don't like what goes on in our shelters or what goes on in other countries. The fact remains that pets are put down here by Vets - humanely - if that is possible. (I still hate it!) What this girl was engaged in was cruel, inhumane, sociopathic behavior. The final result for the animals is the same - dead is dead - but she made sure they suffered and watched with delight as they drown. She is a very sick individual who takes pleasure in ending life. She will kill again and again and again until it is a human life she takes.

I know a lot of vets and not one of them goes home at night delighted about having had to put a pet down. No different? Sorry Patty - it's a lot different in my opinion.

We must understand that killing is a result of overpopulation. It's not like there's a shortage of dogs and people are killing them. No kill shelters are a band aid, a band aid I support, but just a band aid nonetheless. I feel unless some dog related groups get realistic about breeding and such, we're going to continue to have this problem.

While I understand the reasoning behind this post, I have to comment that "no-kill" shelters aren't the only answer to the problems we face with overpopulation in this country. First, what IS the definition of No-Kill? You will find a wide range of definitions for this. Additionally, there will always be the socio-economic influence on this. For example: shelter A: in a fairly affluent area has the volunteers and money to treat sick animals, has volunteers with knowledge to work with behavioral issues. Shelter B: in a less affluent area barely has enough space and money to feed animals in their kennels. So Shelter B, along with the people who work there get less recognition, are sometimes vilified, get less donations, etc because they can't be "no kill" and thus begins the vicious cycle. As you stated- moving to 'no kill' is a community effort. Look at the majority of "no-kill" shelters- the reason they are no kill is because they don't have to take in every animal that walks through their doors, they can be selective about animals they take in. Additionally- I know of several "no kill" rescue groups that have their dogs housed in kennels, for YEARS. I'm not sure that "killing" (as you stated) them with 2 injections isn't more kind than spending a lifetime in a 4 ft x 4ft concrete kennel- with once a day (if lucky) walks to a small grassy area.
Spay/Neuter isn't the only solution; as many animals surrendered to shelters due to behavioral issues. I also don't think that we should make people feel bad about aquiring a dog from a breeder- a reputable breeder that is.
There isn't "one" solution to the problem, as you did state; HOWEVER I can say that right now- if people were to ONLY support "no kill" shelters, we will move farther away from-not closer- to our goal

No, shelter killing of healthy or treatable animals is NOT a result of pet overpopulation. Rural communities, urban communities, suburban communities, rich, poor, and middle-income communities, have successfully implemented No Kill.

No Kill is 90% or better live exit of the animals that come in the door of the shelter. Not 90% of the "adoptables," because "adoptable" is a squishy term subject to definition in whatever way serves the goal of good statistics.

What No Kill is NOT, is a single-shelter solution. No one shelter can do it on its own; it needs to be a community approach.

It means a commitment to actually adopting out animals. It means having adoption hours that actually let people adopt animals; if you can't be open for adoption all day, seven days a week, you target your hours to make sure you included the evenings and the weekends when working people can come in and adopt--or look for their own lost pets.

It means working with others--recruiting foster homes for animals that won't do well in a shelter setting, volunteers to walk, bathe, and socialize animals who do remain in the shelter, rescue groups who will take some of those animals, OTHER SHELTERS who may have adopters for animals that are not considered desirable in your immediate area.

A few weeks ago, there was an episode of It's Me Or The Dog, where Victoria Stilwell went to PAWS Atlanta, which was the kind of limited-admission "no kill" shelter you're talking about, which was struggling to do even what they did do. First thing VS did was sit down at the phone and spend less than an hour calling some of the THOUSANDS of volunteers they had in their database--but whom they had not called in because the shelter director and other staff were too busy taking care of the animals to train or supervise volunteers. And VS got half a dozen people there very quickly, and began demonstrating how spending a little time teaching the volunteers how to do things volunteers could do, would free up LOTS of time to do things that would make the shelter and the animals better off.

A lot of times, it's not money; it's attitude. And when the attitude changes, even in poor communities, the money and volunteers start flowing in.

Eilis-
While it is wonderful that there are more no-kill shelters in every region of this country; my point is that if we say now the only rescues/shelters we support will be 'no kill' ones (and many people have this sentiment) then I feel it is detrimental to the final goal.
A limited admission shelter is not by my definition "no kill"; they can turn away any animal that may or may not be adoptable.Many shelters don't have that luxury.
Additionally, as I stated I have seen 'no kill' shelters and rescue organizations where while they are "no kill" the animals live in pretty bad conditions, many for several YEARS, with no hope of adoption.
Where do you draw the line as far as money, time, and resources spent on a dog who has behavioral issues- or severe medical issues?
I am not disagreeing with you in that the attitude has to change, but I am saying that "no kill" as a goal cannot be met by only supporting individual "no kill" shelters and organizations.

I will admit I do not have the intestinal fortitude to even view that video, I will have to take your word for it's content but my opinion is as a resident of TN I feel it would be nice if there was a cheaper spay/neuter facility in the state. These people let their dogs run loose with the attitude if it gets run over we will get another one as there is allways some one giving puppies away or tossing them out on a back road in hopes some one will take them in. I moved here from Fl and at least there I could get and did spay and nueter all my pets and strays that I could catch for a $10 fee, here the local vet wants $125 for my 25lb dog. The local economy can't support those prices so they don't bother. There was a person helping untill she got overwhelmed and started hording every animal that was brought to her. so we went from bsd to nothing. But there seems to me that this callus CHILD could have done something other than drown them, makes me wonder what kind of parent she will become.

VFRgrl, what you are saying is that you have seen plenty of places that call themselves "no kill" but are not, in fact, No Kill. They are doing it wrong.

Ponytales has identified one of the ways in which they're doing it wrong in their area; no low-cost, easy-access spay/neuter programs. That's a gap that has to be addressed.

A good low-cost, easy-access, NON-PUNITIVE spay/neuter program is an essential part of getting to No Kill.

And if animals are sitting in cages, for years, in bad conditions, that's another example of Doing It Wrong. The solution there is not to kill the animals; that's just more convenience killing because it's easier than implementing the known solutions that actually save lives and get animals into homes.

Reach out to the community. Recruit volunteers. Have them clean the cages, walk the dogs, play with the cats and the bunnies. Make the conditions BETTER, and end the conditions that make adoptable pets become unadoptable. Work with those volunteers you've recruited, and find out which ones would make willing and adequate foster homes, so that the animals that can't cope in shelter ocnditions get out of those conditions, and have a better chance at adoption.

Don't just throw up your hands and say, "Oh, our kennels are crowded and filthy, so our animals are filthy and kennel-stressed and are not adoptable because of that, so we have to kill them."

Dr., you call it "musings", I cry TROLL.

"Discounting her obnoxious, near sociopathic attitude..."

That leaves us with a completely different situation, apples and oranges. You knew this post would offend, you knew "Discounting her obnoxious, near sociopathic attitude" would provide a COMPLETELY different scenario.

Isn't the critical distinction in this case "her obnoxious, near sociopathic attitude"????

You can go ahead and include yourself in the "WE" you speak of, but do not EVER paint the rest of us with your broad brush.

I have never been disappointed in one of your articles Dr., I always found them to be thought-provoking, but you blew it this time.

I hate that the drowning of newborn animals as a way to counter the pet population has been popular for centuries My mom's boyfriend (40 years ago) told me that was how he had to do it on their farm. (so that was over 80 years ago as he was in his 40's then)and we know it was going on for hundreds of years before that. That did not make it right and it did ot make me happy and I refused to let him tell me about it. I was a kid and could not handle the horrors of it. Will it ever stop? Probably not in the 3d world countries or the back woods farm areas where they do not have the amenities we do here in the US.

To have vidoed that act by the girl was in poor taste. Even if Culture is Culture wrong is still wrong. Even if that is the ony "humane" way they can do it.

We are too civilized now and know nothing of the "old farm life" of another country. It is sad but it is life and death and it is their way. No one said we had to like it. But we cannot (and I will not) condemn them for their life. I wish there was a better way, but they do not have the money for spay/neuter in their area. That is reality.

It is hard to believe that there are people like this,that are so cruel and heartless.And to film it and enjoy doing this makes me sick.That is how serial killers start,by torturing animals.Something needs to be done with her now,before it is a child she hurts next.
Also,people should be held responible that keeps breeding dogs,then don't want the puppies when they can't sell them or give them away.

Yes, it is interesting, because that's exactly what I was thinking. However outraged we might have been, how many dogs WE kill annually? Granted that we might be using more 'humane' means to do so ...

Thing of the matter is, that in Eastern Europe this is a common practice and it's been always done this way. One of the main reasons is that people just don't have the extra cash to spay/neuter or euthanize.

Dr Khuly is generously including herself under the "we" when she least deserves this self-criticism.

This is not a contest in how humanely "we" and "they" euthanize our unwanted animals. I grant you - we are the winners, let's give ourselves a badge. Yes, people in unwashed old Europe (including Russia where I originally come from) drown pups and kittens because spay and neuter simply haven't caught on even to this day, and not just because of cost. But this is also a culture very tolerant of packs of homeless and feral animals (trapped, sterilized, released) living in cities, never mind rural areas - a culture not nearly as squeamish or obsessed with safety as the New World. Shocking, huh? On the one hand, we want a sanitized and sterilized society that has no place for such backwardness as feral animals roaming the streets, on the other we have a culture of consumerism where desperately unhealthy but fashionable animals are bred and sold for big money while "mutts" are euthanized because - please fill in the blank here. I'm at a loss.