Is KAR's Policy Right ?

[Munchkin]

Is KAR's policy of neutering stray dogs and putting them back in the wild the right one ? On Euronews yesterday there was a report from Bucharest where a four year old boy was killed by stray dogs. They are no bringing in legislation to euthanize the city's stray dogs. Would this be a better policy here rather than neutering dogs and dumping them back in the wild to fend for themselves, which they patently can't do,or can they ?

[Hippocampus]

Please, before there is a shower of uninformed replies to this, bear in mind:

Local vets refuse to destroy healthy adult dogs.
KAR follow procedures which have been tried and tested over very many years by the large, international animal organisations, who actually know more than Joe Bloggs of Ozankoy.
KAR, with very little money and no power, have no other option than to use the "neuter and return" policy.

[cyprusishome]

MSG2
point1, wrong, vets wills destroy healthy dog friends had it done rather than dump dog as they were returning to England.

2.KAR have gleaned a lot of knowledge over the years so why not follow policies of RSPCA, Blue Cross etc who euthanize institutionised dogs rather than have them suffer living permanently in a cage.

3. I agree they have little money or power so maybe pressure should be brought on local authorities to euthanize pack animals.

[Hippocampus]

The dog that the English had put to sleep had been living in a home, not picked up from the street, and had thus been deemed incapable of surviving on it's own. Recently, 4 vets have all refused to put down a dog who is in agony with 3 broken legs....

KAR, who struggle financially and survive almost exclusively from donations, would run the risk of losing the bulk of these if it adopted a euthanasia policy, however necessary. The large donators, ie animal lovers, (the people who complain the most about stray dogs do not actually contribute financially or otherwise to solving the problem) will not contribute towards killing them. Many years ago, the RSPCA suffered a huge publicity blow when it became general knowledge that they had to euthanase very many animals. Their donations plummeted, and a whole lot of other small charities appeared with a no-kill policy.

[Hippocampus]

Returning to the original post: Whilst it was a tragedy that the boy was killed, far more damage is done to children by dogs who have owners, and most often they are owned by the child's relatives or friends.

No policy of dealing with stray animals will ever be perfect. Being neutered and returned to the street is the right policy for very many dogs and cats, they either find homes or become a community pet. For others who encounter problems, not so, but many people and the local vets are of the opinion that at least they were given a chance. The best policy of all is to strive to educate, and force by law, the irresponsible into not allowing their animals to breed, and to look after them. Only this route will eventually reduce the numbers to such an extent that the problem can be dealt with in a humane way which is agreeable to everybody.

Killing all stray and homeless animals does not work, they simply get replaced by others.

[belle]

Hippo

' KAR, who struggle financially and survive almost exclusively from donations, would run the risk of losing the bulk of these if it adopted a euthanasia policy, however necessary. The large donators, ie animal lovers, (the people who complain the most about stray dogs do not actually contribute financially or otherwise to solving the problem) will not contribute towards killing them. Many years ago, the RSPCA suffered a huge publicity blow when it became general knowledge that they had to euthanase very many animals. Their donations plummeted, and a whole lot of other small charities appeared with a no-kill policy.'

You are right and wrong, first part about contributions drying up is correct, that is all KAR is interested in, if they had the animals welfare at heart they would campaign for euthanasia, the people who donate are not ignorant peasants. I have contributed greatly to helping animals through vets bills and rehoming, you assume far too much.

Also stop with the comparison to the RSPCA, this is not the UK where most people love and care for their dogs.

[Hippocampus]

Oh dear, Belle. How would KAR finance the massive amount of work that they do without constantly fundraising? Why shouldn't they be interested only in the money coming in, when it gets spent mainly on vets bills and direct help for animals, which is what you quite rightly pride yourself upon doing?

I did not make a comparison with the RSPCA, merely used it as an example of the effect that a euthanasia policy has on donations. This is fact, not assumption. KAR have no income other than donations, and cannot afford to lose 1TL of that. Sorry, but I am informed on this matter of where from and why donations are made. There is no way that I nor anyone else considers that donators are "ignorant peasants", in fact quite the reverse! But the majority will not donate for the purpose of killing.

As to your final comment, I'm in agreement, but may have expressed my opinion slightly otherwise!

[PoshinDevon]

Just a quick reminder to all, please be considerate in what you post and remember the written word can often be misinterpreted. A couple of comments on this thread are getting close to the mark and whilst it may form your personal opinion it can be seen as an insult to others.

Please whilst you may not agree with the comments respect others views.

Here in the UK for example the RSPCA who do a great job have recently been in the news for relentlessly chasing and prosecuting people who when the case found its way to court it turned out that these people had committed no crime and in actual fact were desperately trying to do their very best for the animal. There are often two sides to every story and without all the facts to hand it can at times be confusing.

This is an emotive subject and people have strong opinions. Rational discussion and argument is fine - rude comments about people, organisations or countries are not acceptable.

[PoshinDevon]

Please note message 6 has been edited by myself. A comment made was not acceptable on this forum.