The ‘No-kill’ label is harming pets, shelters and animal welfare efforts
The term ‘kill shelter’ has been misunderstood and weaponized, and it has contributed to devastating stigmas and consequences for shelters, their staff and the animals in their care. The Animal Humane Society explains:
“The term “no-kill” comes from a movement that began in the 1980s and 90s…No-kill was formed as a response to the overwhelming numbers of healthy animals being euthanized in shelters across the United States. The no-kill campaign asked for a commitment from communities to take proper measures to save all healthy and treatable pets from unnecessary euthanasia. But a label once meant to unite communities in saving animal lives now divides the animal welfare industry.”
The truth is, there are arguably both wonderful shelters and horrible shelters. Many factors contribute to their conditions, operational practices, and placement rates. Some are vastly underfunded by the local government and get little or no outside donations.
Some shelters are located in warm-weather states and thus struggle with a constant influx of puppies and kittens born on the streets year around. Other shelters are severely understaffed, rely solely on volunteers, or simply don’t have adequate space or supplies to house pets for months or years at a time.
In addition, many shelters like the NYCACC, have an open-intake policy. This means they will not turn any animal away, no matter how full their kennels are or how sick, hurt, aggressive, young or old the animal is. In 2022, the ACC, as part of the Shelters Animals Count Initiative, reported that less than 6% of dogs and 8% of cats that were surrendered to the NYCACC in 2022 were unplaced and eventually euthanized.
While there isn’t data about the specific situations surrounding shelter euthanasia cases, the NYCACC has a 92–96% placement rate and partnerships with over 200 dedicated animal placement and rescue organizations. This would suggest that the vast majority of the pets euthanized in the NYCACC’s care had serious health or behavioral problems that made them almost impossible to adopt out.
The label ‘kill shelter’ also paints an unfair picture because it doesn’t distinguish between a shelter that has a 50% placement rate and one with a 95% placement rate. Nor does it distinguish between open-admission city shelters or those that are privately run and funded, or the completely different financial situations that shelters are in. This is part of the reason for the ‘anti kill shelter’ vitriol all over social media that is directed at the very shelters, staff and volunteers who are on the frontlines trying to end animal abuse, neglect and homelessness in their communities.
Think about how it must feel for these compassionate, committed individuals who to read accusations about the ‘kill shelters’ that they work for? These people have chosen to dedicate their time and careers to incredibly difficult and emotionally draining circumstances, only to be targets of accusations of murder (no, I’m not kidding) and assumptions about their morals.
In contrast to most animal shelters, private rescue organizations typically decide which animals they take in from shelters , private citizens, or other situations. Understandably, they optimize for the pets they believe they can adopt out. This is not to say they only take in the easy cases; many rescues specialize in high-risk cases, certain breeds, or senior or special-needs pets. But this allows rescues to focus on taking in the pets that they are especially equipped to help and care for, and the pets that they are confident they can help get adopted into suitable homes. These private rescue groups are typically much more social media savvy, and better resourced that city shelters to run lucrative fundraising campaigns all year long.
Instead of using the term ‘kill shelter’ pet lovers and rescue advocates should focus on metrics that give a more accurate, nuanced view of a shelter’s intake, adoption and euthanasia rates. Most shelters report this data monthly or yearly. Some reports also break intake and rehoming rates down by pet age and species, and show what percentage of surrenders and euthanasias cases were impacted by extenuating circumstances or severe health or behavioral issues.
I feel I owe it to all of the wonderful shelters and organizations, like the NYC ACC that volunteer and foster for, to kindly educate anyone that refers to them as a ‘kill shelter’. It is a small action we can take to help others have a more informed and empathetic understanding of the challenges facing the pet welfare communities, and to treat those working in shelters with the same compassion that we show animals.
If you’d like to learn more about the history and implications of the ‘kill shelter’ movement and label, read this wonderful article from the Animal Humane Society.
