Mr. Tan Man spent two years in a South Carolina “no kill” shelter - most of it living outdoors. Located on a dirt road with farm animals wandering around, it wasn’t like a typical shelter. The folks running it were very passionate about animal rescue and had taken good care of him, but they required vet references and a home visit before we could become his “guardians.” Requirements like this - or that adopters have fenced yards, be home during the day, etc. - are why dogs languish.

A local dog rescue group wouldn’t allow my veterinarian to adopt a dog because she worked during the day, even though she could bring her dog to work. Some of the dogs at that establishment had been there for years. People running some of these “no kill” shelters are very rigorous. Perhaps they should just refer to these establishments as “no adopt” shelters rather than “no kill.”

Follow

@cassandra17lina when well meaning is not well doing. Absurd.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

CounterSocial is the first Social Network Platform to take a zero-tolerance stance to hostile nations, bot accounts and trolls who are weaponizing OUR social media platforms and freedoms to engage in influence operations against us. And we're here to counter it.