Humane Society of the US Commercial

We had a thread about this a while back. Most of us said that that ad. including the song, makes us bawl like babies!

Big Momma wrote: We had a thread about this a while back. Most of us said that that ad. including the song, makes us bawl like babies!

Exactly what I was talking about- people who are REALLY doing something to help the cause aren't asking you for money. Any shlub can throw cash at a charity, and that's nice too- but the people who get involved are the ones I have respoect for.

The place I adopted my cat from is a "no-kill" place, meaning they stay as long as it can.  It runs off donations & adoption fees.

I volunteered with bunnies for a while because of Bernie

But I have to stop because I work on Saturdays and need more money.

I recently applied at Pets Unlimited, which is a vet's office, a surgical office, and an adoption center.  They say you will have to wait as well, and for who knows how long.  I used to be a "cat socializer" at the San Francisco SPCA, but I was just diagnosed with the fibromyalgia and couldn't sit on the floor.  With the hand/arm problems, I couldn't volunteer with the dogs, because you had to be able to walk them (which I couldn't) and pick up 50 lbs of dog to bathe them.  That let me out.  But there was no waiting list for them at the time.

However, the SF/SPCA has been under fire for their changes in policies.  They've gone from being "no-kill" to "low-kill," yet they take animals from the Central Valley.  The head of the place abruptly ended a hearing-dog training program when the dogs had about a week to go before "graduation," and the people counting on them were just left adrift.  It made no sense, and still makes no sense.  There are quite a few people who used to work there, who now refuse to support the place because they say it's become corrupt, and they care more about money than they do about the animals.  Lots of accusations going on.  It's awful.

But TJ is going to be 19 in January, and his blood pressure is very high, he's having trouble with his vision, and he's getting senile.  He doesn't seem to be suffering yet:  he's eating and going to the bathroom regularly.  However, when his time comes, I won't be able to afford to get another cat.  I have had cats for 31 years, so that's going to be hard.  I figured maybe I could get my animal fix by volunteering.  As it is, some days you can just go in and sit with the cats that are in a communal room.

About the commercial:  I hate it.  It tugs at the heartstrings of those of us who already love animals and who do what we can.  I always change the channel when it comes on.

bwestfall wrote: One of my biggest pet peeves: stop saying that are there children (or whatever you want to fill in the blank) who need money more than animals?  Why do people always get their panties in a wad about people who want to donate money to animals?  First, alot of us donate to all types of charities, some for animals, some for children/poor.  Second, do you donate to anything, or do you just complain about people who donate to animals?  And finally, I am so sick of people questioning me, or other people, about spending money on our animals or other animals.  My God, look at all of the inatimate crap people waste money on: clothes, liquor, betting, hair, makeup, toys, cars, and rich people might as well burn some of their money for what they spend it on.  Really, next time you start to gripe about someone sending 20 dollars to the SPCA, look at all the money you spend that someone else might think is wasted.

Yeah, I don't see why you can't do both.

Or have a make orphans happy with animals society.

bwestfall wrote: Faith SF, you look like a cat owner, doesn't that bug you when someone acts like you are dirt because you give money to an animal cause and not something else (more worth?)?

Bwestfall:  Yes, I am a cat owner.  Unfortunately, I am also disabled and broke.  So many good charities and causes tug at me, and it is literally painful that I cannot give. 

However, I know exactly what you are talking about.  The San Francisco SPCA, before it got came under new management and was a really great place, built a brand-new, state-of-the-art hospital and shelter, called Maddie's Place.  It was named for the deceased pet of the person who donated millions of dollars for that exact purpose.  And you should have seen some of the reactions to this shelter!  So many opponents yelled about how the money should have gone to people, instead of animals.  "The taxpayers, blah blah, blah."  Well, it wasn't the taxpayers' money, as I just said.  And this person had the money to establish the place.  You're allowed to give your money away in whatever way you see fit.

Unfortunately, the donations now go to paying the upper management, and they have closed programs and went from a no-kill shelter to a "low-kill" shelter. 

Also, it's been proven that having a pet lowers your blood pressure, and is emotionally helpful.  So many people are lonely, and the only outlet for their love is for their pets.

This time of the year, I'd rather see people donating to these places rather than adopting a puppy or kitten. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with that "if" that new pet is planned.

That commercial really tugs at my heart. and I don't understand either all the talk about "people" needing donations. Can't we do BOTH? This reminds me of the time I was riding with a friend of mine and we passed a poor cat that had obviously been run over, but was still alive. I told her to stop and we could take it to a vet or something. At least get it out of the street. She said "There are so many PEOPLE who need help!" I said. "Yeah, but how is NOT stopping to help that poor animal going to help a needy person. What kind of logic is that?!" But she didn't stop anyway...

Holly, I realize the question is hypothetical, but it's also practical.  I guess I'd assess the situation and determine which was more crucial.