For some time, mtA has been emphasizing the importance of using accurate words to describe the fate of adoptable animals who are killed for population control. Only by communicating honestly can we heighten not only our own awareness, but also the awareness in the general public to this draconian practice and expedite the needed changes in the life-saving equation.
Misleading the public into believing that killing healthy, adoptable animals is “euthanasia” is a deception, a lie, and a disservice to the animals. This has been the practice through decades of Humane Society of Indianapolis administrations – administrations that have self-proclaimed the agency as a “leading voice” in animal welfare.
mtA has put this habitual practice under a microscope on several occasions: Will the euphemisms ever go away? and
When can we put these euphemisms to sleep?
We are pleased to see that the HSI has finally decided to join mtA in the use of accurate vocabulary. Recently noted in the middle of the agency’s surrender page is not only the absence of the word “euthanized,” but also an accurate and candid description of the environment and potential fate that animals will face at our municipal facility:
IACC is inadequately funded by tax dollars and is overwhelmed. They took in 17,741 animals in 2010. 8,879 were killed primarily due to lack of space. That means 24 animals lose their lives 365 days per year.
It is heartening to see this progress being made! We are hopeful it continues.
Honest communication is essential for the dignity of any organization and those it professes to serve. Honest communication is an essential element in building the foundation for meaningful and genuine reform.
Addendum 01/10/13
Note that the reference to the language accuracy relates to the “middle of the agency’s surrender page…”
After seeing this post, an astute observer within the Industry shares:
What is sad in this is that they use the term kill only when describing ACC and use 2010 number although they have up to date numbers which are more favorable to ACC. It is interesting how one organization will paint another to make themselves look better even when they claim to be supporters and fighting the same fight.