Kill vs. No-Kill Shelters, Part 1

Used with permission from HSUS.

The following is a summary of the article "Killing Ourselves Over the Euthanasia Debate" from the September - October 1997 issue of Animal Sheltering. (pdf file)

The article sheds light on the rift among animal care agencies over the issue of No-kill vs. Kill shelters and the problems that arise from differing philosophies, practices and public perception. The terminology can be deceiving.

No-kill Shelters (limited-admission)

Many No-kill Shelters are really limited-admission shelters, that only take in animals which have the highest likelihood of being adopted. Taking in only those animals for whom they have space - frequently those most likely to be adopted - is how most non-euthanasia shelters are able to operate.

Supporters say turning away some animals is preferable to taking the lives of the ones already sheltered, and that limited-admission shelters are providing the public, animals, and other shelters an important service.

They generally believe that no animal should be euthanized unless the animal is suffering and that even a less-than-ideal life is better than no chance of life at all. They feel that by focusing on increasing the numbers of placements they can spare many homeless animals and provide them with a nurturing home environment.

Opponents state that increasing quantity at the expense of quality is not good for the animals who may fall victim to poorly managed foster programs, loosely screened adoptions, and falling spay/neuter compliance rates. Also, they say, such a program isn’t going to solve the enormous surplus pet population overwhelming many communities.

A common stereotype of these shelters is that they are discriminating havens to the youngest, cutest, most adaptable animals and a closed door to those most in need of a helping hand. They are often criticized by open-admission shelters as not being true shelters at all and that these limited-admission organizations are leaving the dirty work to those shelters that do or must take in all animals.

Continue Article ►