The public generally rallies behind no kill shelters and their allegedly more ethical treatment of animals. But there are some surprisingly controversial aspects to no killer shelters. Most of the debate about public and municipal versus private shelters centers around the use of euthanasia and the causes for it.
But no kill shelters still use euthanasia and actually can indirectly contribute to the greater rates of euthanasia used at public and municipal shelters. For these and other reasons, “no kill” shelters contribute to controversies within the welfare community.
1. No Kill Shelters Still Euthanize Animals
There are no specific regulations, federal or otherwise, that so-called no kill shelters have to meet. The generally accepted standard among the industry is that no kill shelters euthanize 10% or less or their animals. Alternatively, 90% of the animals that enter the shelter leave it alive.
This means that, despite the name, no kill shelters may still humanely euthanize animals. Given the gravity of such a decision, there are only certain circumstances where euthanasia is necessary. Typically, euthanasia at no kill shelters is reserved for “worst case scenario” animals. This refers to animals that are medically untreatable, medically terminal, or unable to be rehabilitated behaviorally.
2. No Kill Shelters Are Limited Admission
No kill shelters laud the fact that they do not euthanize animals due to a lack of space, limited resources, or behavioral issues. However, no kill shelters are often limited admission, which means that they can pick and choose which animals to admit. There are many different reasons dogs end up in shelters, but no kill shelters have the luxury of avoiding dogs that are surrendered due to behavioral challenges or illness.
Public and municipal shelters that receive county or city funding often have to accept every animal brought to their property, or else risk losing their funding. Such shelters are “open admission,” and also have to accept any animals seized as strays or part of city criminal cases, such as with animal hoarding and animal abuse or neglect.
But no kill shelters are often privately owned and/or funded, which means that they can be selective about which animals they admit. No kill shelters may have more rigorous screening procedures to ensure they only admit healthy, well-adjusted animals with a high chance of quick adoption. Similarly, whereas public and municipal shelters cannot refuse to admit animals even when they are out of space, no kill shelters who are limited admission can refuse to take animals when they are at or close to capacity.
3. No Kill Shelters Aren’t as Community Oriented
No kill shelters often emphasize their avoidance of euthanasia, highlighting their compassion and investment in animal welfare. While the majority of no kill shelters focus on their own outreach activities, some less scrupulous private shelters promote their work at the expense of public and municipal shelters. No kill shelters are frequently involved in their local communities, but public and municipal shelters can be just as if not more heavily involved and offer a greater range of services.
Public and municipal shelters may offer a variety of services and programs, some directly related to the shelter animals and others more community-oriented. The shelter itself may participate in stray and lost pet holds, transfer programs, foster programs, rescue group partnerships, and joint adoption events with other shelters. For the community, the shelter may offer crisis boarding programs, pet food pantries, reduced spay and neuter services, trap-neuter-return (TNR) programs, volunteer opportunities for court-ordered community service, and euthanasia services for raccoons and animals that may carry disease.
4. No Kill Shelters Have Divided the Animal Welfare Community
The term “no kill shelter” has divided the animal welfare community, and shelters that embrace that moniker contribute to this divide. By calling private shelters “no kill,” the implication is that public and municipal shelters are “kill shelters.” The publication and widespread use of these terms for shelters often results in the public wanting only to adopt from no kill shelters. Similarly, donors and funding agencies may avoid the negative publicity that could come from giving money to so-called “kill shelters.”
All of this negatively impacts public and municipal shelters, which already struggle with overcrowding, staffing shortages, limited resources, and greater financial and legal restrictions. Additionally, the stigma attached to traditional shelters can reinforce already harmful myths about rescue dogs in those shelters. As a result, less animals get adopted out of public and municipal shelters and these shelters struggle to care for ever-increasing populations with less staff, space, and funding.
Focusing on these terms distracts from the more important, underlying issues that contribute to high euthanasia rates. Public education and outreach about the issues that impact all shelters, such as unethical breeding and staffing shortages, should be at the forefront of the animal welfare movement, instead of divisive arguments about language.
All shelters, public and private alike, should be working together toward a better future for animals in need of adoption and re-homing. Similarly, animal welfare organizations separate of shelters should be able to direct their efforts towards these underlying issues instead of expending resources to educate the public about why so-called “kill shelters” are necessary.
