Problem solving is tricky-- very tricky. First you need to define the problem. There may be a cluster of problems. It can be confusing to analyze which problem is the root issue or to decide what to do first.
Most of us have basic values that set the stage for our problem solving. For example: You are hungry but low on cash. Most of us would not steal dinner, we would wait till we got home or find an alternative. Stealing would create more problems and not match our values.
Like most of the US, our county has a population of unwanted and abandoned pets. Our shelter is overworked and underfunded. It used to solve this problem by euthanizing an average of 1200 cats and dogs a year. Rumor has it, that they generated cash to support the shelter by selling pets to labs. According to some, this was a means to an end. No question that killing unwanted pets cut down on the population and the "problem". Of course this depends on how the problem is defined. Out of sight, out of mind? Pretty darn sad.
A while back a new commissioner got involved and changed all that. Now our shelter is dedicated to no kill and works hard to place as many animals as possible in homes. It is still over worked and underfunded. It has problems.
Last week this commissioner lost the election. Some of the "kill shelter" advocates contributed to the newly elected commissioner's campaign. Guess what? Killing is again on the table as a solution to the "problem".
One of the biggest issues I have with "killing" as a solution is that it become "the" solution. No need to go further, no need to try harder. It is like stealing dinner when you are hungry. It solves an immediate need, but at what cost? If killing unwanted pets is OK then selling them to labs so that they can be "useful" may be OK too.
These are not my values. This is not my idea of a solution. What do you think?
