|
|
Post by jettcricket on Mar 3, 2006 6:07:15 GMT -5
I agree, but it is happening now. Where is it happening? |
|
|
|
Post by jettcricket on Mar 3, 2006 6:09:01 GMT -5
What don't you understand. 100% means 100%. #4_10_15# I know what 100% of 100% means. What kind of an answer is that?! Tell that to the dogs still waiting for 3 years to be adopted! |
|
|
|
Post by robinw on Mar 3, 2006 7:08:20 GMT -5
What don't you understand. 100% means 100%. #4_10_15# I know what 100% of 100% means. What kind of an answer is that?! Tell that to the dogs still waiting for 3 years to be adopted! maybe it means 100% of the dogs that don't go "to the farm". |
|
|
|
Post by hounddog on Mar 3, 2006 7:35:17 GMT -5
Without any accounting methods in place, saying it's 60% - 80% or 100% is meaningless. Either side that quotes a number is doing so based on subjective guesswork. If you really want to find out there needs to be a co-opertive effort between adoption and racing to account for the dogs, something I see full of protective self interest problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by jettcricket on Mar 3, 2006 8:47:14 GMT -5
I know what 100% of 100% means. What kind of an answer is that?! Tell that to the dogs still waiting for 3 years to be adopted! maybe it means 100% of the dogs that don't go "to the farm". How many tracks are 100% adoption are what tracks are not? It would be nice to get an accurate answer. |
|
|
|
Post by dad2paisley on Mar 3, 2006 12:57:04 GMT -5
I don't know what you mean by "back at the farm." You all always say that.
Alot of tracks have 100% adoption for ex. Jacksonville/OP, Derby Lane, Palm Beach just to name a few.
Again, stop making it sound so bad.
Some dogs are hard to place. Haven't you seen dogs that are really hard to find homes for.
|
|
|
|
Post by greysofplenty on Mar 3, 2006 13:23:14 GMT -5
Man, you guys really pick out the pieces of this story to gripe about. I thought it was about an adoption story.
Geez.
|
|
|
|
Post by CampWhippet on Mar 3, 2006 13:31:48 GMT -5
Man, you guys really pick out the pieces of this story to gripe about. I thought it was about an adoption story. Geez. That is EXACTLY what I tried to tell Saved2 at the beginning of the thread(and later to Dvsgreyhound) but they were too busy attacking the story to see that. |
|
|
|
Post by jettcricket on Mar 3, 2006 14:03:27 GMT -5
I don't know what you mean by "back at the farm." You all always say that. Alot of tracks have 100% adoption for ex. Jacksonville/OP, Derby Lane, Palm Beach just to name a few. Again, stop making it sound so bad. Some dogs are hard to place. Haven't you seen dogs that are really hard to find homes for. Kudos to those tracks that work so hard with adoption groups to get their pups all adopted out. :) Sure there are some dogs that are hard to place, but for 3 years? If you view the original link that I posted, other than some pups that are not "small animal/cat safe" they appear pretty adoptable to me. I'm not trying to make it "Sound bad" I'm just seeing the total picture on greyhound rescue/adoption and I can't help but feel for the dogs that don't get adopted or wait in kennels for months and years.... |
|
|
|
Post by crazy4greys on Mar 4, 2006 19:44:28 GMT -5
Robin did Loca come from a farm??? going back to the farm doesnt' mean death, come on people, where do you think all these extra greyhounds come from if dogs are not coming off the tracks and going to the farms to breed? i mean if they are all going back to the farms to be killed then there couldn't be an overload of dogs because there would be none to breed.
i think the article was pretty good, could have left some of the stuff out but heck, if it gets dogs good homes more power to them. Thanks CW for posting it
|
|
|
|
Post by robinw on Mar 4, 2006 19:54:23 GMT -5
Robin did Loca come from a farm??? going back to the farm doesnt' mean death, come on people, where do you think all these extra greyhounds come from if dogs are not coming off the tracks and going to the farms to breed? i mean if they are all going back to the farms to be killed then there couldn't be an overload of dogs because there would be none to breed. i think the article was pretty good, could have left some of the stuff out but heck, if it gets dogs good homes more power to them. Thanks CW for posting it yes, as a matter of fact loca did come from a farm. i suspect it was a really good farm, because she was kept there for over a year until she was adopted (she is a retired brood mom) and she was/ is in fantastic health; not to mention extremely spoiled #love# . i have absolutely no complaints with reko enterprises. #thschoen# |
|
|
|
Post by dad2paisley on Mar 4, 2006 20:44:41 GMT -5
Yes, "back to the farm" means they aren't going to be killed. Zues was a back to the farm dog and he was there for, I believe 6 months. He wasn't a good racer, so he would have been one that would have be taken on those trucks on Mondays and PTS.
Not. JMO
|
|
|
|
Post by twogreys on Mar 4, 2006 20:59:41 GMT -5
So, when our vet gets a call from a farm and the farm says I have 5 dogs for you to pick up or else. What does that mean? I'm not saying all farms are this way. I've read and have heard of some greyt farms that keep dogs a long time. But I think you are being unrealistic if you think dogs aren't being killed, pts or what ever on some farms.
|
|
oldjay
Jr Grey Pup
shp(o~-450;; b~0;; i~0;; u~0;; s~0;; a~0;; p~69;; )
Posts: 187
|
Post by oldjay on Mar 4, 2006 23:00:28 GMT -5
"Back to the farm" is a catch all for the remaining balance of dogs unaccounted for, less whatever number the person is willing to admit are put diown. No one knows how many dogs go there or to adoption groups, medical labs, blood donor programs, backyard breeders, hunters, or what percentage the puppy mortality rate really was. It is not very realistic to assume most greyhounds were/are as lucky or unlucky as your own. No one knows.
I think it's great that improvements have been made but I also think that making it sound as if the problem is almost solved is not helping the unknown number of dogs who are still being destroyed each day. It takes people like us... meaningeveryone here.. who continue working just to maintain whatever number we are at. It takes new people willing to foster and adopt to help us maintain that level. More people will always be needed if we are ever going to get the job done. And you know what? The job is never really done. Even if we did have a way of knowing we reached 100% adoption (and we don't), the next group of dogs could blow that if we can't find all of them homes too! The dogs will always keep coming. The job is never done.
We aren't going to be around forever. A lot of us have reached and exceeded our maximum limit. I know our dogs die and eventually we replace them but that's never been enough and never will... we all know that.
We really do need to focus our efforts on the public, not just to adopt, but to volunteer and help raise funds and join the entire adoption network. We can only step up to the plate so many times. We need more people and that's the bottom line.
Problem: How can we expect people to volunteer, foster, raise funds, form new groups or donate to greyhound adoption if they think the problem has already been solved? What do you think these statements mean to them?... "All the dogs are being adopted." Or "100% adoption will be achieved by the year 2007." Or "They don't kill greyhounds anymore." Or "Greyhounds are never in any danger of being put down." Would you see any need to volunteer? Would you consider adopting one when there are so many homeless dogs in the pound? That is exactly where I was 15 years ago when someone suggested a greyhound instead. I would not have looked into it any further unless I knew they needed help just as much. That's just the way I am. And before anyone calls it pity, it's not. It's compassion. The only greyhounds I pity are the ones who never make it.
There is nothing wrong with being positive about the improvements made over the years. But at least try not to lose sight of the work that still needs to be done. Every single greyhound death deserves to be known about. Even if we have to speculate on the numbers. As long as it keeps happening, people have the right to know so they can decide for themselves whether to help or not.
Jay
|
|
|
|
Post by jettcricket on Mar 5, 2006 0:02:10 GMT -5
" I think it's great that improvements have been made but I also think that making it sound as if the problem is almost solved is not helping the unknown number of dogs who are still being destroyed each day. And you know what? The job is never really done. Even if we did have a way of knowing we reached 100% adoption (and we don't), the next group of dogs could blow that if we can't find all of them homes too! The dogs will always keep coming. The job is never done. All the dogs are being adopted." Or "100% adoption will be achieved by the year 2007." Or "They don't kill greyhounds anymore." Or "Greyhounds are never in any danger of being put down." Would you see any need to volunteer? . There is nothing wrong with being positive about the improvements made over the years. But at least try not to lose sight of the work that still needs to be done. Every single greyhound death deserves to be known about. Jay Your exactly right Jay. I'm not trying to be all doom and gloom, but it's still a reality that dogs are dying every day in the industry and trying to pretend that's it not is not going to make the problem go away. |
|
