Who We Are

The Humane Exchange

Marie Belew Wheatley's Blog

“No-Kill” Isn’t That Simple

Posted August 20, 2009

Rachael Ray has begun the “Mutt Madness Awards Program,” a giveaway which her website says is to “help the good guys” -- the “most deserving charitable organizations in America, which have demonstrated exceptional commitment to pet rescue, rehabilitation or adoption.” She is limiting the contest to “no-kill” organizations.

While I commend her intent to help animals and the people who help them (namely, animal shelter workers), I fear that some people may understand the language on her website to mean that no-kill shelters are inherently better than open-admission shelters that do not label themselves as “no-kill.”

Although “no-kill” certainly sounds like a good thing, it is merely a simple, two-word slogan that does not even begin to explain a very complex reality.

Most people accept the words at face value and don’t explore what no-kill really means. In general, no-kill means not euthanizing healthy or treatable animals. Even no-kill shelters will euthanize animals that are too aggressive or dangerous to be rehabilitated or too ill or injured to be brought back to health.

Most shelters that call themselves no-kill are “limited-admission” shelters. This means that they do not take in every animal that comes to their door. By contrast, an “open-admission” shelter will take in every animal, regardless of age, breed, sex, health or temperament.

Like any other shelter, limited-admission shelters only have room for so many animals. Many limited-admission shelters have waiting lists for accepting animals. Some only take animals by appointment and may only accept animals that pass a temperament test -- they will only take in animals they know they can adopt out. Many limited-admission shelters may turn away certain animals that they deem “unadoptable” because they may rely on adoption fees for business and they can’t afford to keep an animal indefinitely. Usually, they don’t take strays or have contracts with municipal animal control agencies.

However, when people want to relinquish an animal, they usually don’t have weeks or months to do so. Owners who want to relinquish pets for whatever reason and who are turned away by a limited-admission shelter will find other means. Animals that don’t end up in other shelters are sometimes abandoned to fend for themselves in homes, dumpsters or on the street.

Some limited-admission shelters find themselves dealing with the perils of overcrowding and “warehousing.” Shelters that adopt a no-kill philosophy and don’t limit the number of animals they take in invite stress and disease outbreaks, which ultimately force them to euthanize animals. In some no-kill shelters, the animals’ quality of life is poor.

American Humane’s Getting to Zero initiative has identified the best practices in animal shelter operations and has shared them with animal shelters across the nation. We are working at “getting to zero” and creating a world where no healthy and treatable animal will have to be put down.

Many open-admission shelters have aggressively committed to the philosophy of Getting to Zero by using these best practices, which are the same practices used by most no-kill shelters. These shelters, like the Humane Society of Boulder Valley in Colorado take a community-based approach to increasing adoptions and reducing pet overpopulation. Best practices include low-cost spay and neuter services; an open adoption process that emphasizes counseling and education rather than placing undue restrictions on who can adopt; off-site or mobile adoption to make shelter pets more readily available to people throughout the community; good, friendly customer service; community education; good sanitation and disease control; a foster program; a trap neuter and return (TNR) program for reducing the number of feral cats in the community; and a volunteer program.

Most open-admission shelters share the same goal as no-kill shelters. An organization that shows exemplary commitment to finding homes for all healthy and treatable animals might be a no-kill shelter -- and it might not.

The term no-kill does an excellent job winning people over and raising money for limited-admission shelters. It does not do a good job explaining the complex realities of what happens in those shelters, or by contrast, in open-admission shelters.

It is unfortunate that Ray’s search doesn’t include the many deserving shelters in this country that do not call themselves “no-kill” but have still made remarkable progress in getting to zero. She is excluding many worthy shelters that may be the best of the best, just because of a two-word slogan.

Bookmark this on del.icio.us Digg this submit to reddit Reddit this StumbleUpon

Submit a comment or question below, or email Marie.

This is not an open forum, but Marie and American Humane welcome all comments and points of view. We will post selected comments that are considerate and thought-provoking, and we may edit comments for brevity, grammar and/or inflammatory language.

Comments Form

Comments

Submitted by Linz at: October 15, 2009

I am very familiar with a local no kill shelter,and people just do not have a clue about the reality of this. Animals are stacked up like cordwood, left there for months on end,they develop mental proplems,become agressive and self multate.That is not humane. I've also seen the animals adopted out to homes that I would never have given an animal to ,just so they can say it was adopted. They like to have a large number at the end of the year to announce that they adopted so many animals......whoopie.......many of those animals ended up abanded,or ended up being abused.The longer the animals are in a shelter,the less they become adoptable, and the great homes were not there in the first place or there would not be so many in shelters. People! Death is better than abuse!!!!!!!!! Humans have a hang up about death that animals do not have....they know a better world is waiting on the other side. I would rather euthanize an animal any day than adopt it to a less than desirable home....Its all so hearbreaking.....it would be a help if our laws were changed to totally eliminate puppy mills, that would put an end to many being bred,and also spur of the moment purchases at pet stores. There is no simple answer,but storing animals like a warehouse is not the answer. That is not humane.

Submitted by Amy at: September 14, 2009

Excellent point about the "warehousing" problem ultimately faced by some no-kill shelters. There are animals in no-kill shelters who live there for years and have no hope of being adopted. At some point, "no kill" becomes "life sentence," and there's nothing "humane" about that.

Submitted by Crystal at: September 14, 2009

I didn't know that no kill shelters turned animals away, or only accepted certain animals,and I have been very active in fighting for animal rights and humane treatment for years. I am also a fan of Rachel Ray, and not that i'm just defending her because I like her show, I think she probably just did not know the facts on what the difference between "no-kill" and "regular" shelters was.

Submitted by Sharon at: September 12, 2009

Excellent explanation of a "no-kill" operation.

Submitted by Chris M at: September 3, 2009

I have seen the comment "No-kill shelters can be said to leave the killing to someone else". Sadly, this is often the case when a person who has attempted surrender of an animal is turned away. I suspect, in Rachel Ray's case, it could most likely stem from failure to aquaint with the facts, or maybe merely to head off any possibility of negative publicity.

Submitted by Theresa at: September 3, 2009

Yes, education is the start , then we need to get rid of thos puppy mills which add to the problem of over population, then we need to offer free or very cheap prices to "fix" the animals, except for those who are licensed to breed....but the point is to make it affordable so, people can afford to fix their pets. there are free mobile veterinarian services that goes to the underprivileged area , but maybe we can also ask the local vets to contribute by doing very discounted prices. In the future we might have to regulate as to who can own animals -- just l;ike adopting a human baby! Why not?? It is a responsibility to own animals !

Submitted by Jul at: September 3, 2009

I work for a local to Ms. Ray's show RESCUE and I see this daily. The 'rescues/shelters' who claim to be no-kill only to pass the animals onto shelters who are kill. This way they keep their name as an organization who is NO KILL. Makes me ill. Meanwhile my organization is overwhelmed by the amount of fosters we do have and adopt because we take all that we can. We do not have a facility because we are limited by our local adoption center. We only euthanize animals who are sick beyond help or are infectious with no cure and it is only a downhill road for them. We do our BEST and are normally successful at relocating ferals and we work countless hours on TNR efforts in NJ. There are some of us out there that truly are NO-KILL and we are NOT the only ones! I happily can tell you I proudly work with other rescue groups are are just as we are in NJ. But the one I mention first really gets to me, people are just unaware.

Submitted by Jon at: September 3, 2009

It bothers me that she is limiting the benefits to the supposed no kill shelters because some of these places are simply warehouses for unwanted animals that should be shut down because of deplorable conditions. As you said, the money should also be sent to some of the many other shelters that are doing their best to help the animal overpopulation problem.

Submitted by Ann W. at: August 27, 2009

Thank you for a wonderful acrticle. I've worked for a large, well-known "open access" Humane Society for 23 years. It's so frustrating to hear someone say they'd only support, or adopt from a "no-kill" shelter because they don't believe in euthanasia. They don't seem to understand that supporting or adopting from an "open access" shelter really saves lives. Don't get me wrong. There are days when I would give anything to work for an organization that doesn't euthanize any animals - there are, after all, many worthwhile "no-kill" groups out there. In reality, though, I can do more by staying where I am.

Submitted by Marie Belew Wheatley at: August 21, 2009

Thank you for your comment. You can help the homeless animals in your community in several ways. First, you can adopt an animal from your local shelter, whether it is an open-admission or limited-admission shelter. Second, you can volunteer at your local shelter. Shelters always need people to walk the dogs, spend time with the cats, clean the animals’ living areas and all kinds of other daily tasks. Third, you can donate to your local shelter. Besides money, shelters also need things like soap, towels, pet food and other items. Call the shelter first to see what they need.

Submitted by manylives1master at: August 21, 2009

Thank you so much for sharing this very important and informative information. I DID NOT KNOW THIS!. Thank you. And Thank you for fighting this cause. How can I help?

Submitted by Shannon at: August 21, 2009

Great article, thank you for the information and the education!

Submitted by mickey at: August 20, 2009

I think it's a wonderful place to start. Someone had to start this move. Also the shelters that have gotten down to "no kill" should identify themselves to everyone because they would be getting more of the public's money and help if they are not killing healthy animals.

Submitted by Joanne at: August 20, 2009

It'a a catch-22 situation. Euthanizing healthy animals is something I cannot even imagine being able to do and supporting shelters that do this will keep them running and euthanizing healthy animals. But, as you say, no-kill shelters can only take in a certain number of animals. Pet education is still the best place to start, I believe. People need to understand that a pet is NOT something that you give up when you no longer feel like taking care of it. A true animal lover will do whatever they can to keep their pet or find a home for it. A true animal lover also does not support breeders when there are so many homeless animals out there. It's a tough situation, but irresponsible pet owners are the root of the problem.

Submitted by Michelle Mallin at: August 20, 2009

This is really the best explanation of the "no-kill" issue that I've seen. As we navigate the shelter world, it's a question that comes up often and I though I had a handle on some of the basic facts, this article has truly helped me fully understand the meaning behind that phrase. I will share this article widely.