A lot press about the importance of neutering, and almost none on the fact that about 60,000 cats and dogs were killed, at least in 2005, because they didn't have somewhere inside to sleep. I have a hard time imagining a more pervasive and barbaric practice in a civilized society, which is to say other practices are obviously more barbaric, the death penalty for one, but these other practices don't happen several hundred times per day. The Stranger, you've made good stuff happen before, how about advocating to make Seattle a no-kill city? Thousands of cities across the world have semi-wild dogs and cats, and the negative effects these animals have on their cities always fail to justify murdering all of them.

It starts with reducing the numbers, @3, by spaying and neutering. No-kill is a lovely idea and a worthwhile goal, but the reality right now is that there simply aren't enough homes for them all. Spay and neuter advocacy is where we are now.

Thank you for posting this, Goldy!

Can we spay and neuter some republicans while we're at it? Please?

Thousands of cities across the world have semi-wild dogs and cats, and the negative effects these animals have on their cities always fail to justify murdering all of them.

Yeah, wild dogs just need the right love and a good tummy rub. Just like those pet rats I'm going to encourage take up residence in your yard.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/ind…
At least 16 people in Delhi died of rabies contracted from dog bites in the last year. According to a survey conducted by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation, 30,608 cases of dog bites were reported from areas under its jurisdiction in 2012-2013, as against 17,634 cases the previous year.

Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules, notified in December 2001 under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, prohibit the killing of stray dogs except in special cases, for instance when they are rabid or terminally ill. Besides, the rules provide that stray dogs can only be removed from their habitats for neutering and immunisation against rabies. But municipal officials have failed to carry out dog immunisation drives effectively.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/world/…
All told the same frightening story: stray dogs had bitten them.

Deepak Kumar, 6, had an angry slash across his back from a dog that charged into his family’s shack.

“We finally closed the gates to our colony and beat the dog to death,” said Deepak’s father, Rajinder.

No country has as many stray dogs as India, and no country suffers as much from them. Free-roaming dogs number in the tens of millions and bite millions of people annually, including vast numbers of children. An estimated 20,000 people die every year from rabies infections — more than a third of the global rabies toll.

The balls aren't cut off. The ball sac are slit with a surgical knife and the balls are taken out. The sac is sewn shut.

It's amazing how men identify with dogs. But maybe not.

@6: I have rats in my yard, raccoons, mice, and squirrels too, and I'm happy to have them. I need some further clarification, are you saying that since 2001 only rabid and terminally ill dogs are allowed to be euthanized? Because that would mean either Washington hosted 60,000 rabid or terminally ill homeless dogs in 2005 (if someone has a more recent figure I'd love to hear it) which seems really high, or those laws are being openly flouted. Furthermore I'm aware there are serious consequences of not killing stray dogs, I reject the premise that those consequences justify killing them. Call it what you will but the tragedy of a dozen people dying because wild animals exist is far less than the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent animals because of those 16 people. If that strikes you as false, do you think tigers, bears, wolves, elephants, etceteras ought to be killed off because they occasionally kill people?
@4 Your claim, if I understand it, is that the cats and dogs are better off dead than homeless? Doesn't seem like you, or the legislature, should be the one making that decision, and i would argue that barring input from the animals we should just assume that it is false that death is preferable over homelessness.

bill, my point is that there is not enough space, money, volunteer staff etc, pick your resource, to just stop euthanizing overnight. this should be obvious. the shelters can't offer it and the unwanted animals outnumber the homes available. and it's completely unrealistic to think we'd just let them wander the streets. i would love love love to live in a world where no dogs or cats had to be put down, but we DON'T. i'd take them all in if i could.

the options at this point with no-kill are to keep the ones that show up to the shelters on a first-come, first-serve basis regardless of their "adoptability," and leave all the rest out on the street, insist that nobody be allowed to surrender their animal regardless of circumstances, or just pull all the money off the magical money tree and build all the shelters required to facilitate the number of unhomed animals that currently exist, staff them, require that every home that doesn't have the maximum number of pets allowed by law take in all that they have space for, whether they have any money or time or allergies or whatever, doesn't matter, everybody has to do it. require everybody to donate and volunteer at a shelter, regardless of means.

or, we could, you know, take the best, most practical methods of reducing the number of unwanted cats and dogs by advocating for spay/neuter, and encouraging adoption over buying from breeders. you are sorely mistaken if you don't think i'm on your side. you have no idea how much of an avid and active animal person i am. but i'm also a realist. and there's just no way no-kill will ever become a reality (a dream we BOTH SHARE, i promise you) if we don't start with spay/neuter. hell, i'd even be in favor of mandating it. no kill is the GOAL. it's not where we ARE NOW. it's a process.

how many adopted pets do you have? do you have room for one more?

http://olddoghaven.org/

http://www.gingerspetrescue.org/

http://rockyridgerefuge.com/

if you had a dog and a child, and the dog bit off your child's finger and you then realized that you could no longer keep that dog in your house, what would you do with it? would you surrender it to a shelter? would you lie about why when you surrendered it, for fear that if you told the truth the dog would be put down? would you feel accountable if it bit off the finger of a child in the family that adopted it? or would you just let it go, and hope for a good outcome? would you keep it and have its teeth extracted and feed it mush? would you keep the dog as-is, kid be damned, and think that anybody who wouldn't is a cruel and barbaric person?

believe me, i know (i know) that there are countless people who give up on their pets for totally bullshit reasons. but sometimes, SOMETIMES, it's legit. what would you do, as a shelter volunteer, (which i don't doubt for one second that you are, with every speck of spare time that you have) - what do you think your obligation would be in the above scenario, if that dog is surrendered to your shelter? that dog gets saved and holds space in a cage indefinitely while an untold number of adoptable dogs get turned away for lack of space?

somebody has to make these decisions. aren't you glad it's not you?

Mr. Harriman you've missed my point, perhaps because I haven't made myself sufficiently clear. What is barbaric is to kill any animal strictly because it is homeless. Euthanizing an animal that is proven to be dangerous? There could very be times when that is appropriate. Want to run an adoption center? Great, good on you, but if you take in dogs and cats off the street and then kill them later because they are too expensive to keep then I believe you've done something extremely cruel and absolutely unnecessary. If we are on the same side then it is because we believe that, for that is my side. Animals in the streets are better off there than they are dead. So the option other than housing them in infinite magically funded shelters? If you want to take homeless animals in to get them adopted, be prepared to let those animals go if you can no longer afford to keep them. It might not be the best option, but it's long sight better then murdering them to keep your overhead down. To co-opt a vegan argument, if dogs and cats could talk I doubt any innocent (i.e. non-violent) homeless animal would ever be euthanized, and furthermore I doubt anyone would argue that they should be.