As below, one says in her experience, many seniors cannot take care of their cats and some develop horrendous medical conditions.
Another says 2 for 1 sales are followed by a 1/3 return rate.
Neither can present proof, especially about the seniors program; these critics never do. They say “In my experience,” as if that ended all discussion and argument.
One says she opts for quality of life over duration. She is also opting for exterminating life because the cat might fare poorly. Perhaps she will expand that argument to humans too. If a child is born into filthy conditions or in extreme poverty, they should be killed to save them from suffering.
My response to both criticisms is the same: so?
Do we deny a senior, or anyone, a cat based on income? Is the LAAS staff going to do an income evaluation on all potential adopters, senior or otherwise?
Is a 1/3 return rate, if true, a valid argument for killing kittens rather than adopting them out?
Perhaps that argument should be used for all adoptions. If generally there is a 25% return rate, we should stop adopting animals out and just kill them as soon as they come in.
The same with seniors. Unless they have a disposable income after rent of $1,000 a month or more, they should not get a cat, because in the evaluator’s estimation, such cats do poorly.
Generalizing the logic of these critics, no animal should ever be adopted out unless the adopter passes a thorough background check and also loves the cat enough to take care of it.