Donating to animal based charities

[kittensaver]

Dec 4, 2013 19:30:28 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I suppose it would depend on how you define sentience.  I think of sentience as self awareness.  And animals certainly fit that bill.  And they clearly posses the capacity for emotion.

If we define sentience as being able to control your actions.  I honestly don't know.  Do animals really have a choice in certain matters of their behavior?  Or are they diriven by instict?  As I said, I don't really have an answer.

I dunno, Phoenix, the courts in the country are FULL of human beings trying to weasel out of the consequences of their actions by claiming they didn't have a choice in the matter of their behavior  . . . .

[whoisjohngalt]

Dec 4, 2013 19:01:39 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I do feel that people are "more worthy" than animals.  Are you saying that if you could only save a human or an animal from a burning building, you'd choose the animal?

Note, I"m not saying animals are bad or "dumb midless beasts."  In fact I like animals a lot.  But I think a human life has more value than an animals life.

Others may disagree, of course.  But I think many would agree with me that the loss of human life is tragic, moreso than the loss of animal life.

I think I told this story before.

My ex-roommate told me that if our apartment ever catches on fire while she is out, I better save her two cats or she will kill me.  She did have two guns and a rifle under her bed.  I believed her with all my heart.

[shanendoah]

As someone who has adopted 4 shelter dogs and fostered a 5th AND fostered and adopted a human child (with plans to do it again), I will tell you that the combined effort, time, and money to foster/adopt all 5 dogs comes no where near the time and effort required to foster/adopt the one human child. Now, because my daughter is already 10 and the state will continue giving me financial assistance until she's out of high school, I will almost certainly end up spending more on the animals over the course of my adulthood than I will on my daughter (unless she goes to college- that changes the equation).

Many people choose charities where they feel their time, effort, or money goes further, or where they can see an immediate effect. That is often more the case with animal charities than with human charities. It also costs less to help one dog than it does one person, so people feel that they can do "more" good with less money.

There are other ways we prioritize charities as well. The majority of YM posters do not live in places where safe drinking water is a concern. So if I want to give my money to help people get safe drinking water, I have to trust an international charity- which likely has more overhead, less of my money goes to actually helping, etc. And just like people can come after me for giving to animals instead of people, they can come after me for not helping out in my own backyard.

We all prioritize our giving based on our own preferences and where we feel we can do the most good with the resources we have. Personally, I'm a big fan of charities that help people and animals at the same time. We generally donate to Pets 4 Vets as a Christmas gift for my father and grandfather (both veterans whose lives would be incomplete without pets). I also donate to organizations that help train service dogs, especially if they pull dogs from shelters.

I am also a big fan of micro-giving and micro-lending charities. Kiva is a good example, though my current favorite is Watsi. They help pay for medical care for people who live in areas where that care is not common. In these cases, I can donate as much or as little as I am comfortable with, pick the exact place my money goes, and see the results as projects get funded and updates are sent out.

In the same way, we like doing Angel trees. It is a small thing that can go a long way. (Though I will say we do angel trees for kids and dogs.)

I don't think there is anything wrong with you prioritizing your charitable time, effort, and money to causes that help people first. There are so many causes in the world that if we each didn't have a way to prioritize then we'd be choked with indecision and nothing would ever get done.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Dec 4, 2013 19:41:33 GMT -5 dannylion said:

Further on the topic of disaster assistance, and somewhat off topic (sorry Phoenix), but not too much: I have always felt that excluding animals when providing help in a disaster area is nothing less than gratuitous cruelty, not just to the animals but also to the people. Why do they think it is appropriate to heap more trauma on already traumatized people by forcing them to abandon their beloved pets? I find that incomprehensible.

I've noted twice in recent local disasters, that the authorities have made arrangements with the Humane Society for trained people to go back into the disaster areas to look for (or feed/care for) pets and livestock. During the fires, they were escorted by the National Guard into the danger areas. I thought it was such a great idea because (a) they rescued animals who'd had to be left behind for whatever reason, and (b) it prevents people from risking their lives to go back or being traumatized by the uncertainty of their animals' lives.

[Deleted]

If we define sentience as being able to control your actions. I honestly don't know. Do animals really have a choice in certain matters of their behavior? Or are they diriven by instict? As I said, I don't really have an answer.

Again, why does it have to be either-or? They can have a choice AND be driven by instinct. But they can learn to "override" their instincts. Some animals certainly have a great deal of self-control, if they are well-trained. And to tie in with what Kittensaver (Junglekitten?!) said, that's a lot more than one can say for certain people! 

ETA: This said, that is not really the definition of sentience. Sentience is the ability to FEEL, not to control oneself.  

[dannylion]

Dec 4, 2013 19:57:21 GMT -5 Rocky Mtn Saver said:

Dec 4, 2013 19:41:33 GMT -5 dannylion said:

Further on the topic of disaster assistance, and somewhat off topic (sorry Phoenix), but not too much: I have always felt that excluding animals when providing help in a disaster area is nothing less than gratuitous cruelty, not just to the animals but also to the people. Why do they think it is appropriate to heap more trauma on already traumatized people by forcing them to abandon their beloved pets? I find that incomprehensible.

I've noted twice in recent local disasters, that the authorities have made arrangements with the Humane Society for trained people to go back into the disaster areas to look for (or feed/care for) pets and livestock. During the fires, they were escorted by the National Guard into the danger areas. I thought it was such a great idea because (a) they rescued animals who'd had to be left behind for whatever reason, and (b) it prevents people from risking their lives to go back or being traumatized by the uncertainty of their animals' lives.

This might be an example of a positive outcome from the horror of Katrina where news broadcasts documented the heartbreaking scenes of people forced (sometimes physically) to leave their pets behind when being rescued by the National Guard or when being provided shelter and other aid by the Red Cross and Salvation Army and other organizations not to mention all the human interest stories of individual people affected by Katrina who were mourning the loss of pets they were forced to leave behind.  The Guard and the aid organizations did not like the unfavorable image this presented of them, so it seems they might be making some policy changes for PR purposes.  Maybe it will mean that people will no longer be forced to abandon their animals in a disaster.  That would be a good thing.

[Deleted]

Dec 4, 2013 20:15:10 GMT -5 dannylion said:

Dec 4, 2013 19:57:21 GMT -5 Rocky Mtn Saver said:

I've noted twice in recent local disasters, that the authorities have made arrangements with the Humane Society for trained people to go back into the disaster areas to look for (or feed/care for) pets and livestock. During the fires, they were escorted by the National Guard into the danger areas. I thought it was such a great idea because (a) they rescued animals who'd had to be left behind for whatever reason, and (b) it prevents people from risking their lives to go back or being traumatized by the uncertainty of their animals' lives.

This might be an example of a positive outcome from the horror of Katrina where news broadcasts documented the heartbreaking scenes of people forced (sometimes physically) to leave their pets behind when being rescued by the National Guard or when being provided shelter and other aid by the Red Cross and Salvation Army and other organizations not to mention all the human interest stories of individual people affected by Katrina who were mourning the loss of pets they were forced to leave behind.  The Guard and the aid organizations did not like the unfavorable image this presented of them, so it seems they might be making some policy changes for PR purposes.  Maybe it will mean that people will no longer be forced to abandon their animals in a disaster.  That would be a good thing.

There are also now some women's domestic violence shelters that are allowing pets since it was determined that a lot of women wouldn't leave their abuser because they would have had to leave their pets behind.

[violagirl]

Because ultimately most problems we have charities for are not "money" problems. They are people problems. Children starving in Ethiopia were starving while their government was shipping food overseas. Aid shipments are routinely held up by red tape or taken by military factions/warlords etc etc. Even if I donated my entire salary it would not make a dent, because these are problems that will never be solved by money. 

So I could choose to not donate anything to anyone. Or choose a cause that is near to my interests. I like animals, so I tend to donate to animal causes. Do I think some animal charities take it too far sometimes for example  choosing to spend the money on surgery for a puppy with a cleft palate, blind and deaf? In my opinion, the money could have been spent better saving a few healthy puppies, but I also understand sometimes you just gotta go with your heart, not your reason. 

[Deleted]

Even if I donated my entire salary it would not make a dent, because these are problems that will never be solved by money.

Viola, your comment makes me sad. You can check where you money goes, and still donate to humans. It's true that many places are corrupt, but not all of them, and help still gets through. 

Check out Transparency International, if you are so inclined. 

Or else, donate closer to home, you don't need to even give money, you can buy food for a food bank, or toiletries for a women's shelter. But it's not because some places are indeed corrupt that you should write off humans altogether. 

JMO, of course. 

[dannylion]

Violagirl's money, Violagirl's choice.

Debthaven's money, Debthaven's choice.

 

[violagirl]

What I meant is that money does not solve the underlying issues. Why are there women's shelters? Why are there food banks? Is it for a lack of global resources? So you are saying if I gave to say, a food bank that eventually they would get enough money that the need for food banks would end? Or the last woman would use a shelter and they'd close the doors?

My opinion is there is an infinite loop of charity, you can't donate to them all, so pick one that speaks to you. If you can make a difference to one person/animal that is great. Donating to an animal shelter could mean a person adopts a pet and that pet saves their life from a fire or becomes the reason they get up in the morning. So why couldn't donating to animal charities be ultimately a donation to humanity?

 There are some charities I refuse to donate to. The kids that want to go on special school trips. If they want to earn some money to do that, sure I'd buy their lemonade, but not if they are going to stand at the grocery store and beg. I refuse to donate to charities to fund children to play in hockey leagues. Seriously? This is the crisis that needs to be averted here? Kids can't go out on the street and just play hockey? They need hundreds of dollars of equipment to play after school? That just blows my mind. But if you want to donate to the hockey cause, that is your business.

[Deleted]

I donate to animal and children's charities. That's it. Everyone else is SOL. 

[Deleted]

Dec 4, 2013 21:27:35 GMT -5 violagirl said:

Because ultimately most problems we have charities for are not "money" problems. They are people problems. Children starving in Ethiopia were starving while their government was shipping food overseas. Aid shipments are routinely held up by red tape or taken by military factions/warlords etc etc. Even if I donated my entire salary it would not make a dent, because these are problems that will never be solved by money. 
 

I agree with this part- I don't like to donate to places where there's just an endless need because things just won't change.  The politicians are riding around in Bentleys and their wives are going on shopping trips to Paris.  Where will the "aid" end up?  Even if it's in the form of food, someone can intercept it and sell it.

I also don't share the opinion of one deacon I met who said that her dream is that their inner-city food pantry flourish and grow and get used by more people in the community.  Umm, no, I'd love to see it close because there's no need for it.  While that won't happen because there always will be people who genuinely can't provide for themselves, I'd rather donate to charities that help people out of poverty with education and job training.  Currently our major charity is the local women's shelter, which does work with the ones who want out to get them housing and into jobs.  I also donate to Planned Parenthood.  They were there when my sister and I, both good Catholic girls, decided to start having sex but REALLY didn't want to get pregnant.  And we didn't, till we were ready.

Animal causes aren't even on my radar but I'm glad they are for some, just as I'm glad there are people who support the Zoo and the arts.

[NancysSummerSip]

Dec 4, 2013 18:10:59 GMT -5 dannylion said:

1.  My reasons begin with those already expressed by Miss Margarita and thecaptain and others who posted while I was typing.  Animals, especially dogs and cats, are not "just dumb beasts" to me.  They are fellow creatures with purer souls than humans.  They feel pain and joy and sorrow and probably pretty much everything humans feel, just in their own ways.  They have value just as humans have value.  Animals in need are not there because of choices they have made.  They are there because of choices humans have made.  I feel a duty to do whatever I can to alleviate the suffering of creatures other humans have harmed.  There are too many humans in need because of their own choices or actions.  I do not feel responsible for fixing the problems they caused for themselves.

2.  It's my money.  I can support whatever causes I value. 

3.  The fact that I choose to support animal-related causes does not mean that others cannot use their money as they choose.  If others choose to help humans, then more power to them.  I would certainly never try to tell them what to do with their money, and they don't have the right to tell me what to do with my money. 

. I cannot help the choices humans make for themselves. Animals make no choices when it comes to being abandoned or abused.
I organize and run a bake sale each year to benefit a local animal shelter. It's done in honor of a friend who died of leukemia years ago. He was a volunteer at this particular shelter, and it was his final wish that whatever we as his friends did to honor his passing, we did it to benefit the creatures who never passed judgement, who always loved his presence and never asked for anything he could not give.
2014 will be our eighth year for the sale. It takes about 4-6 weeks to plan, organize and prepare. In a sense, the bake sale serves both the animals at the shelter, and my human friend who loved them.

[NancysSummerSip]

My mom and dad, both gone now, were both charitable people. I learned early, as did my brothers, that charity has nothing to do with what you have to give in terms of money or stuff. Charity is what you have in your soul, and I have since learned that people with the least to give in terms of possessions are often the ones who have the most to offer for others.

Not that money is a  bad thing. Heck, I love the people who can afford to write those big checks. When it comes to animal shelters and food banks, for example, money goes a long way in terms of bulk buying power. It used to bother me when some local organizations requested money donations ahead of any other kind of donations. But truthfully, I get it now. Cash is really king when it comes to flexibility in spending. Though if you have the time, that's huge, too. I just volunteered for this Sunday morning. At 5 a.m. I must be some kind of idyut.
The animal shelter that benefits from my bake sale showed me what our funds buy for them: like how many hundreds of pounds of dog food, kitty litter, towels, vials of medicine, etc. Granted, they get some of that donated. But some of their donated items also go right out the door again, to help people with pets keep their pets during hard times, rather than abandon them or bring them to the shelter.

[Abby Normal]

Dec 4, 2013 20:15:10 GMT -5 dannylion said:

Dec 4, 2013 19:57:21 GMT -5 Rocky Mtn Saver said:

I've noted twice in recent local disasters, that the authorities have made arrangements with the Humane Society for trained people to go back into the disaster areas to look for (or feed/care for) pets and livestock. During the fires, they were escorted by the National Guard into the danger areas. I thought it was such a great idea because (a) they rescued animals who'd had to be left behind for whatever reason, and (b) it prevents people from risking their lives to go back or being traumatized by the uncertainty of their animals' lives.

This might be an example of a positive outcome from the horror of Katrina where news broadcasts documented the heartbreaking scenes of people forced (sometimes physically) to leave their pets behind when being rescued by the National Guard or when being provided shelter and other aid by the Red Cross and Salvation Army and other organizations not to mention all the human interest stories of individual people affected by Katrina who were mourning the loss of pets they were forced to leave behind.  The Guard and the aid organizations did not like the unfavorable image this presented of them, so it seems they might be making some policy changes for PR purposes.  Maybe it will mean that people will no longer be forced to abandon their animals in a disaster.  That would be a good thing.

Unfortunately, I don't necessarily disagree with leaving the animals behind.  Yes, it is heartbreaking. But to take an animal in a rescue helicopter would likely be traumatizing for the animal.  Then put it in a shelter with 1000 people, and their animals and you are asking for disaster. You can't ask the Humane Society to house all displaced pets, there would be far too many. And in instance of natural disaster- yes people should come first. But it would be my hope that there could be a rescue team for the animals as well.

Having said that, people need to have their own evacuation plans, which include their pets.  Short of being in a major earthquake and trapped under a building, we could get our family and our pets out.  We even have zombie apocalypse food for the dogs. 

But who to rescue in a disaster-  to me- has nothing to do with which charities you support.

[Virgil Showlion]

We donate a bit to animal charities, mostly because the animals are cute and fuzzy.

I do question--or let's say "put a challenge to"--the ~10 posts conferring greater personal importance to animals than to our fellow man, and comments like "It's simple for me, I don't like people.", "animals have a lot more worth than some so called humans", "Many people are morons and animals are awesome!", etc.

I share Phoenix' view in that worth is related to the intrinsic potential of the individual, and that men (that is, humans) have vastly greater intrinsic potential than animals. Furthermore, I deride the logic of judging men by the worst and most unworthy among us. Indeed some people are horrible individuals, and yes, many people are 'morons', but what sense is there in condemning the whole of our race as less than animals for sake of the few?

I can get behind the other rationales (e.g. questionable effectiveness of charity, school of hard knocks, giving in non-monetary ways, etc.), but not misanthropy.

If we define sentience as being able to control your actions. I honestly don't know. Do animals really have a choice in certain matters of their behavior? Or are they diriven by instict? As I said, I don't really have an answer.

You're talking about sapience. "Sentience" simply means self-awareness.

[xia]

Animals are more appreciative then humans, overall at least, I do have one cat who thinks she’s the second coming of Bastet but she’s the exception to the rule   
We don’t really choose animals over humans, we have some favorite charities which help humans in our area, mainly elderly and vets. So I guess we swing both ways. But in the end it’s our money so if I decide to sponsor charity saving rock formation on Mars it’s really nobody’s business, coz maybe rocks are people too  .

[kittensaver]

Dec 5, 2013 11:48:12 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

We donate a bit to animal charities, mostly because the animals are cute and fuzzy.

I do question--or let's say "put a challenge to"--the ~10 posts conferring greater personal importance to animals than to our fellow man, and comments like "It's simple for me, I don't like people.", "animals have a lot more worth than some so called humans", "Many people are morons and animals are awesome!", etc.

I share Phoenix' view in that worth is related to the intrinsic potential of the individual, and that men (that is, humans) have vastly greater intrinsic potential than animals. Furthermore, I deride the logic of judging men by the worst and most unworthy among us. Indeed some people are horrible individuals, and yes, many people are 'morons', but what sense is there in condemning the whole of our race as less than animals for sake of the few?

I can get behind the other rationales (e.g. questionable effectiveness of charity, school of hard knocks, giving in non-monetary ways, etc.), but not misanthropy.

If we define sentience as being able to control your actions. I honestly don't know. Do animals really have a choice in certain matters of their behavior? Or are they diriven by instict? As I said, I don't really have an answer.

You're talking about sapience. "Sentience" simply means self-awareness.

Well that's not the definition I know (it's more about the ability to feel and awareness of emotion) but Lordy - if we use "self-awareness" as the definition we're really in trouble. There are a whooooooole lotta folks out there who have not one iota of self-awareness