Aly, this is NOTHING against you, this is just the other point of view:

First of all, there are generally four types of "aninal rescue" groups. There are the public animal control agencies, which are paid by tax dollars and whose first priority is the safety of its citizens. They do no rescuing at all because of severe budget restraints, and any animals that are not reunited with their owners or rehomed within a set period are euthanized. Hurt or sick animals are also generally euthanized immediately unless the owner can very easily be found by way of identification found on the pet. They have to operate in this manner not because they are "bad" or "evil" but becuase the citizens do not practice responsible pet ownership and they are left to clean up the mess with a tiny budget.

Then there are the national, or nationally sponsored, or nationally known organizations such as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Humane Society. They often contract with smaller municipalities to handle animal control, and therefore also perform the same functions. Also, most people seem to think that city animal control and the SPCA or HS are the same thing. They are often the cruelty investigation authority for a region. They may get tax money if they contract for these services, but they also get large donations from pet lovers and generate income through adoption fees and veterinary services charged to new owners. Although their budgets are not as stretched as municipal agencies, there are still far more people who think spaying a cat is too much trouble than those who are willing to open their wallets or donate their time. Therefore, most of their animals (for the Dallas SPCA the rate is 75%) are still euthanized. Even this costs money and takes time. They operate this way not becuase they are "bad", "heartless", or "lack judgement" but becuase there is simply not nearly enough money or helping hands to do all the work.

Then there are the smaller, no kill shelters who operate much like the SPCA or HS, such as North Shore Animal League or Operation Kindness, but who must limit the number of animals they accept. If the animal cannot be rehabilitated and adopted, it is refused. This is the only way they can give a fighting chance to animals who would once again make loving pets for someone. They must do this, not becuase they are "evil" or "disgusting", but becuase for every cage they have, their are literally thousands of animals that need that cage, and they have to make the best use of their limited resources and volunteers' time by operating efficiently, and this means not accepting animals that will be too big a draw on their limited resources.

Then there are the rescue groups that are usually a few friends who get together out of a love of cats, dogs, or certain breeds, and try to do what little they can to make a difference. They get no money from anybody, their operations are paid for by their paychecks. There are no shelters, the only homes for the animlas they take are their bathrooms, basements, and back yards. There are no volunteers, except maybe their kids and spouses who get pressed into service when a litter box needs changing or a hole in the fence needs mending. They are already overwhelmed from the animals they come across on their own and realize that if they take any more they are in danger of eviction, city code violation, and putting the very animals they are taking care of at risk by stressing them with overcrowded conditions, if they are not already in those positions. They cannot take anymore, not becuase they "have an attitude" but becuase they realistically realize all cannot be saved but are already doing more than their share.

It is my guess that most or all of the organizations you have contacted are in the last category. This may explain why you got the reaction you did. They, too, have limited space, not becuase they already have two cats, but becuase they already have two cats, plus are fostering four more and have three foster dogs in the back yard. They, too, have a limited budget but have figured out that Sam's sells big bags of litter really cheap. They, too, only live in an apartment but luckily the landlord doesn't come around too often. Then they get a call from someone trying to give them six more cats becuase after all, she's already got two....well, yeah, they get an attitude. Becuase they ARE doing all it takes to help these little helpless guys. They have no time, room, or money, either, yet they do it anyway. I know, becuase for many years I was in that last category, as were many of my friends and some of my family. The only reason I don't do it now is becuase on top of everything else I have three chronic, life shortening diseases and simply don't have the stamina I used to, and therefore have too uncertain a future to take on the responsibility of another needy creature. I realize that if I had a house full of fosters and something happened to me, they would likely be euthanized and then I would have accomplished nothing. So now I just donate what little money I have, along with household items that the shelters have use of, either in pet care or for fundraising rummage sales.

And, it's not the resuce groups that are the "bad" people, the "disgusting" people, the people who "lack judgement", the people that can't be "understood". It's the people who allow their cats to roam unneutered that you need to be venting at.

Thanks for letting me play devil's advocate.

As far as the adult cats, all they need are TNR. The kittens are tamable. And, just like with Julius, if you need another helping hand I have two bathrooms and a laundry room.........

[This message has been edited by 4 feline house (edited June 23, 2001).]