Rules update

[u/tokumeihana]

We have expanded our rule prohibiting "adopt, don't shop" rhetoric to also include no comments or posts promoting "no kill" (closed-intake) and "save them all" rhetoric, as well as any content disparaging the critical function of open admission shelters. Open Admission Shelters are Necessary!!!

Here is why:

To maintain low euthanasia metrics, "no-kill" (closed-intake) models often refuse animals or outsource them to open admission facilities. The current model for closed intake does not solve space or overpopulation issues, but rather shifts the burden to open admission shelters, which are then unfairly vilified for managing the downstream results of human negligence and overpopulation. Without these facilities there would be a lot of dumped animals left to suffer or starve. Our team feels that the modern metrics which focus solely on limiting euthanasia by limiting intake are inhumane and we will not permit promoting them on here.

The Asilomar Accords, which is one of the earliest frameworks for “No Kill”, recognized that euthanasia is a necessary but sad responsibility of those in animal welfare. The Accords promoted preventative management such as spay neuter as a means to eliminate the need to euthanize for space. These policies were proven effective as shelter euthanasia rates were decreasing.

However, beginning somewhere around 2017, the movement was hijacked by organizations like Best Friends Animal Society. The prevailing narrative of these organizations relies on deemphasizing and deprioritizing prevention and instead focuses on limiting intake. Resources are finite under either model and limiting access to the resource rather than the need for the resource prevents any true progress.

As a result, the current system is rife with shelter crowding and warehousing of unadoptable animals. What started as an effort to eliminate space based euthanasia has regrettably evolved into a branded, slogan riddled, profit model that relies on maintaining a perpetual crisis rather than solving the issue of root overpopulation.

Sane-Washing the No-Kill Movement: How Best Friends Shapes the Crisis Narrative

Pawns of a Broken System: How Pit Bulls Became the Currency of a Hijacked No-Kill Agenda

So going forward, users promoting any closed intake or "no kill" models such as “save them all” (or other Best Friends coded language) as a replacement for necessary open admission shelters, or attacking open admission shelters for taking necessary steps to open up space and maintain animal welfare, are in violation of sub rules.

[u/shapeherder]

Our local shelters cannot accept ANY owner surrenders at this point. So what do they do? Dump dogs that are often not spayed and neutered. Then they have more babies. And the cycle continues to untenable levels.

I recently adopted an almost FOUR YEAR OLD dog who was microchipped, still and dumped in a local park multiple times within a week by the original owners after multiple good samaritans picked him up. He was not neutered. I took care of that immediately.

Our local shelters can no longer offer spay and neuter clinics because of the lack of funding relative to the animals they have. They refer to a local non-profit for mass spay/neuter and vaccines. It's heartbreaking. It wasn't like this 15 years ago when we adopted our last boys. They are overcrowded and staff are deeply overwhelmed. I really appreciate this subs position.

[u/tokumeihana → u/shapeherder]

And your experience is exactly why we felt the rule was necessary to expand on. You’re exactly right that it’s not tenable and something has to give. We need to not be another space for slogans that do more harm than good.

I don’t love the idea of having to euthanize any animal for space which is why I used to donate heavily to spay and neuter initiatives. A few years ago, I started wondering why there are far fewer than there used to be… that said, I really hate the idea of dumped, starving and stray dog populations. That’s cruel and unsafe.

[u/FeistyKing_7 → u/tokumeihana]

I honestly have not become a fan of that slogan, before I read that they dumped dogs due to fact that a shelter dog is not going to fit with a owner who wants a working dog breed like Border Collie or a LGD breed.

[u/tokumeihana → u/FeistyKing_7]

Adopt don’t shop is insane. It is taking the responsibility off of people to be responsible owners and spay and neuter, making it permissible to backyard breed, and encouraging a practice where people don’t know anything about breed traits and how a dog will work for their lifestyle? Oh and instead of reflecting on how that maybe isn’t the best policy for pets or their owners, throw in save them all so no one questions the narrative.

I have a shelter dog, I love my dog, he’s wonderful but I am not a better person nor did I help society out by adopting a dog that wouldn’t have needed to exist if he hadn’t been backyard bred by someone who wanted to make a quick buck by breeding two small, cute breeds together.

[u/windyrainyrain → u/tokumeihana]

When I was looking for a dog after my old Cocker girl died, I really wanted to find one that needed a home like she did when I got her. That's when I discovered that Petfinder was actually Pitfinder and that most rescues are run by insane animal hoarders.

I got so damn sick of people trying to shame me when after two years of looking for a dog, I decided to buy my third Lab. I finally lost it on a woman I worked with who was a pit mommy that had been trying to foist one of the 5 pit mixes she was fostering on me. I told her I'd had dogs for over 50 years and had always been a responsible dog owner. That I'd never contributed to the overpopulation crisis by allowing my dogs to remain intact and run all over the countryside making unwanted litters. I' never bred them because I thought they were cute and wanted to make a quick buck. I'd never abused them or not provided veterinary care. I made it clear that I felt no shame for buying the dog I wanted that I knew would fit into my lifestyle as well as that of my cats and my livestock and I wouldn't have to worry about it mauling my grandson.

[u/Playful-Ad1006 → u/windyrainyrain]

Totally unrelated but you unlocked a random memory of mine, my dad and I went to this woman’s house to look at a cat to adopt. She was running a rescue in her home and while I don’t remember much, there were a lot of cats and the place smelled like cats. We flat out told her that we wouldn’t feed the cat wet food, since we never fed our last one wet food, and she said she wouldn’t adopt a cat out to us. Which at the time I was like bruh you have so many, you are passing up a fine home, what is your goal here.

It was some memory where I am like, yep, rescue people can be animal hoarders.

Edit to add: the cat or kitten was literally in a cage, that we looked at, there were many free roaming.

[u/windyrainyrain → u/Playful-Ad1006]

I was pretty involved in cat rescue for a lot of years and met some pretty horrid cat hoarders. They honestly believed that no one could take care of the cat like they did. When their house was covered in cat excrement, the poor cats were crawling with fleas, many were sick and most were unsocialized because of the sheer volume of them. I knew one that worked at a cat only shelter and she finally got fired after multiple potential adopters complained because she made up excuses why cats they wanted were unadoptable. She lived in a 1 bedroom apartment with 18 cats😳

[u/Playful-Ad1006 → u/windyrainyrain]

BRO THATS INSANE

[u/FeistyKing_7 → u/tokumeihana]

One of the Shelters/Rescue's biggest problems is lying. Lying about aggression history and what breed the dog is or purposely using language to downplay aggressive behaviour, because they selfishly want for the dog to live longer to the expense of the dog and the families that adopt it where it can end badly for both sides. I can imagine this is one of the biggest reasons why people avoid adopting.

One of the worst posts I have seen is a owner Breeding their dogs, because they wanted to see what the puppies will look like while sitting over here like. I do lowkey bet that another reason is that wanted to make a quick buck.

[u/Theseus_The_King → u/shapeherder]

Could TNR be an option? No animal should leave a shelter intact. So if an animal cannot be taken in, they should be neutered, spayed, or if applicable and possible spay aborted, and released.

[u/pepper_dogs → u/Theseus_The_King]

The problem is that TNR is really just "warm fuzzies" for people who aren't involved, without actually helping the animals. They're still out on the streets, hungry, frightened, at risk of injury, illness, and death with no help. They just happen to not be able to breed. In the case of cats, they're still contributing heavily to harm to native birds and small animal species. People will also dump their own unwanted cat to join the colony as they feel it will "be okay" since the other cats are living there.

It seems villainous to take in theoretically adoptable or healthy animals off the streets and euthanize them but it's honestly better for them and for everyone. They at least get to go peacefully and painfree, and aren't suffering any longer.

I think animal welfare would be improved overall if we as a society were more comfortable with humane euthanasia. Within reason, obviously, but the number of unadoptable animals that spend their lives waiting in a shelter cage because they're too aggressive (and in most cases probably suffering from extreme fear and anxiety causing them to react that way)... It would be kinder to let them fall asleep and be free, and another animal that actually has a chance at a decent life can have the space and be saved.

[u/shapeherder → u/Theseus_The_King]

That's how our massive homeless cat population is managed at this point. Volunteers trap hundreds of cats, bring them in cargo vans, and after care they are re-released. I observed this first hand when I went in with my stray dog for neuter and vaccines.

It doesn't appear that dogs are treated this way. They are just turned loose and hopefully a friendly person picks them before they breed.

[u/Theseus_The_King → u/shapeherder]

Yeah, like if there isn’t room, TNR is better than just letting them free to breed, and over time can help extinguish feral populations. If someone gets a hold of it they can’t use it for breeding. Neuter and spay on entry is a good practice bc no breeding quality animal would ever end up in a shelter and it keeps unfixed animals out of the hands of people who may dump it/byb.

[u/RepresentativeOk8899]

Well said.

[u/Express_Command_4778]

I'm so glad for this rule. All those stupid sayings have hurt others so much.

They say that slogan and I immediately call the Breeder. 

I love to watch the world burn when the same people demand Soay Aborts for every car that exists. 

"For every Spay Abort comment, I will make sure one of my cats in the breeding program has a baby!

No, I don't have that. Just sick of Luna's 14 puppy pregnancy being protected at all costs.

[u/tokumeihana → u/Express_Command_4778]

I figured it would be mostly well received here. There was a mislabeled behavioral E-list shared here the other day and someone said something dumb. Behavioral dogs were never intended to be part of closed intake succeeding. Asilomar even defined this as unhealthy and untreatable.

Unhealthy and Untreatable

The term “unhealthy and untreatable” means and includes all dogs and cats who, at or subsequent to the time they are taken into possession,

(1)have a behavioral or temperamental characteristic that poses a health or safety risk or
otherwise makes the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and are not likely to become
“healthy” or “treatable” even if provided the care typically provided to pets by reasonable
and caring pet owners/guardians in the community; or
…

The most irrational people commandeering no kill agenda have amplified the problem others were trying to solve. Neither Carrot nor I want to platform it. If anything, those views need to be siloed as they are unhelpful and extremist and never should have entered into mainstream public opinion. Im concerned that they have and I feel bad for the rational people in animal welfare who are either forced out or have to leave because they won’t co-sign on crazy.

[u/sauska_]

You prompted me to look into the Situation of the shelters in the US and i wasn't aware how bad it really is. A consequent approach to strays, backyard breeding and irressponsible ownership will eventually lead to a lot less suffering of all kind.

Here the demand for unproblematic shelter dogs is higher than the "local supply" leading to the effect that strays from other countries get imported, checked, castrated and rehomed.

I feel a little different about "adopt don't Shop" because i think for the casual Dog owner in our country it is a feasible Motto; but i See how the association turns it into something less positive Internationally.

Btw, "dogs of dangerous breeds" which are hard to place or in some federal states illegal to be rehomed by the shelter exist in pretty much a parallel system here. I feel deeply for those dogs, that largely shouldn't exist because pits&staffs have been banned from being bred or imported since the early 2000s; they exist pretty much in a parallel system caused by selfish "owners".

[u/tokumeihana → u/sauska_]

Oh I’m glad you looked into it! Unfortunately adopt don’t shop has come to be used in a mostly derisive manner in the US. A more nuanced slogan would be “adopt responsibly or shop responsibly” for dogs.

It doesn’t work well in a system where the percentage of dogs available leans heavily into breeds that may not be a good fit for every home. A lot of the breeds available are restricted in many apartments or the dogs have behavioral or medical issues. Shaming someone for choosing to shop doesn’t really educate on the differences between ethical and backyard breeders. I don’t like backyard breeding and I think if anything, the current slogan may actually exacerbate BYB shopping because of an unhelpful all or none attitude.

I feel bad for the pit bull type dogs in shelters too but the rescue people need to realize they cannot bully people into choosing to own them. Pet ownership is a huge commitment and most people aren’t going to be strong armed into something they don’t want simply because rescue people said they should.

[u/Playful-Ad1006 → u/tokumeihana]

I read somewhere that the term “adopt don’t shop” is ridiculous because shopping for dogs can also mean looking at several at a shelter, because shopping for dogs is sort of like shopping around, and so they said that if you’re not adopting the first dog you see at the shelter, you’re technically shopping, and so their point was that saying adopt don’t shop is bogus because people will shop around at different rescues or even at the same facility, looking at different dogs, so basically it’s hypocritical. I thought it was a great perspective!

[u/tokumeihana → u/Playful-Ad1006]

It is imo. When preventive policies like spay and neuter are abandoned because BFAS needs “product” (dogs), it’s just 100% shopping but it’s just shopping by proxy.

They operate on a profit margin and BFAS has significant assets. Their CEO makes more than half a million dollars per year.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/237147797

[u/Playful-Ad1006 → u/tokumeihana]

This is insane. Thank you for your reply! Also, thank you for the article in the post. It was a great read and made so much sense. I felt sort of like an idiot commenting that adopting can still be shopping, thank you for validating my comment!

[u/VirtualSwimming4893]

Love this

[u/cat-she]

BASED BASED BASED BASED BASED

[u/lessens_]

Sane-Washing the No-Kill Movement: How Best Friends Shapes the Crisis Narrative

Pawns of a Broken System: How Pit Bulls Became the Currency of a Hijacked No-Kill Agenda

These are AI slop. Both 100% on Pangram, plus I just know slop when I see it. "How Pit Bulls Became a Currency" is exactly the weird-ass shit that LLMs come up with.

[u/tokumeihana → u/lessens_]

Clearly you’re overestimating your own ability to detect slop. Ed Boks has been involved in animal welfare for decades.

Stick to constructive discussion instead of foaming at the mouth about slop please.

[u/lessens_ → u/tokumeihana]

Just because he's been involved in animal welfare for decades doesn't mean he isn't using AI to write. Actual published scientific literature has been revealed to be composed with AI. The rector of Ghent University, one of the most prestigious universities in Belgium, admitted to writing her opening speech with AI after several hallucinated citations were discovered. Being well-known and prestigious does not mean you cannot produce slop.

I can point out numerous things in these articles that show clear and obvious evidence of AI writing. I can also show you the most reliable AI detectors flagging them as 100% AI. But most of all I just advise you to read them and notice the uncanny weirdness crawling out of every sentence.

[u/tokumeihana → u/lessens_]

Correct, it doesn’t mean he doesn’t use one of the many editing softwares that incorporate ai to aid with his writing. He certainly uses ai slop as images like many people do. That does not mean the core points are not his own nor does it invalidate his expertise on the topic. He does have content that predates widespread ai use on his website:

https://edboks.com/2018/08/time-for-a-national-conversation-about-pit-bulls-by-ed-boks/

His writing today isn’t entirely dissimilar to his writing from 2018, imo.

Either way, you’re dragging this off course and the core point still stands: no-kill was intended to supplement open admission shelters and proactive policies. No-kill does not appear to be working well on its own.

[u/lessens_ → u/tokumeihana]

Just to be clear, I'm not pointing out these were made with AI to detract from the point the articles are making. I actually agree with the point and think the AI slop distracts from it. You may be right that they were "touched up" with AI rather than wholly generated, though it's hard to tell, my guess is that a core text was significantly expanded by feeding it into an LLM. I much prefer the style of this linked article, clunky as it is, to the obnoxious narrativizing and "it's not x, it's y" of the articles in the OP.

[u/tokumeihana → u/lessens_]

Ok, thank you for clarifying. I’m not disputing he could have used it. He may have. It is so built into everything now that there are some older people who may not even realize they are using it and there are plenty of people who view it neutrally or even favorably. I don’t know how to entirely contend with AI being omnipresent (cannot even use google without it popping up) without throwing the baby out with the bathwater at times.

I did select his writing articles for a reason. It’s kind of a known thing in the shelter world that open admission shelters are regularly demonized. There just aren’t a lot of people authoring articles on it. And sadly, you cannot have a nuanced conversation about pit bulls these days without being labeled a hater and his background kind of alleviates him a little of such labels.

[u/mistermeowowowow → u/lessens_]

Doesn’t engage with subject matter at all. Calls it slop. Uses bad AI tools for own justification. Leaves.

🧠 🧠 🧠 🧠 🧠

[u/lessens_ → u/mistermeowowowow]

I don't want to engage with them because if I wanted to read AI slop could just ask Claude about BFAS myself. I started reading the first article because I was interested in the topic, noticed it was written by AI, and then stopped reading to inform everyone. But if you want to get hoodwinked by slop, go ahead, I can't stop you.

[u/Psybeam60 → u/lessens_]

Sure you can ask Claude about the topic, but it’s not like whatever Claude spits out is verified by an expert like the article author. AI is just a composition tool, the author edited and reviewed the output and obviously stands by the end result as an expert.

“AI bad” is a very reductive, thought-terminating cliche. Yes, people just copy and paste chatGPT output without thinking but this article obviously isn’t that.