#no kill

So, can we stop the demonization of "kill shelters?"

For starters, let's stop calling them that and call them what they actually are- open intake shelters.

When it comes to public shelters, there are 2 varieties- open intake and limited intake.

Open intake shelters are required to take any animal given to them, found in their contracted area, surrendered, etc. when it happens. Because of the way they are funded, they do not have the ability to schedule surrender intakes and therefore often have to take in animals when they physically have nowhere to put them, which is what leads to euthanizing for space. Open intake shelters are frequently those labeled as "kill."

Limited intake shelters have the luxury of the ability to say "no" or "not now." Rather than being obligated to take any animal that comes their way exactly when it does, they can require scheduled drop offs for owner surrenders (while still having to take in strays and ACO seizures as they come). This allows them to not have to take in animals when they have literally nowhere to put them, and therefore enables them to not have to euthanize for space. Their ability to say "no" also allows them to turn away serious behavior cases that they think are beyond their ability to help, which is common practice among "no kill" shelters because they want to avoid jeopardizing their status as "no kill." Limited intake shelters are frequently the ones labeled as "no kill."

There is a time and place for both. Without open intake shelters, countless more animals would be loose on the streets in areas with larger feral/stray problems than up here, which poses a health and safety hazard. More animals would get dumped rather than responsibly surrendered because not everyone has the luxury of waiting several days or weeks to place their pet elsewhere.

There are far worse things than a peaceful death. It is sad when euthanasia for space has to happen, but it is not cruel. It does not cause the animal to suffer.

You know what does cause them to suffer?

Living on the streets at the mercy of the elements.

Being dumped because their people felt they had no other choice.

Staying in a home that can't care for them properly because that home has nowhere else to send them.

The list goes on.

On top of this, let's address the baggage of the term "kill" versus "no kill." Many people think that "no kill" means no euthanasias happen at all, but that simply isn't the case. A "no kill" shelter or rescue has a euthanasia rate of 10% or less. This accounts for both physical health euthanasias and behavioural euthanasias. Both are an important part of rescue work that many people outside of the field aren't prepared to face. It is a harsh reality, but one that absolutely must be accepted.

It is kinder to euthanize a serious behavior case than it is to warehouse them.

It is kinder to euthanize a serious behavior case than to adopt them out only for their adopter to have to make the call anyway.

It is kinder to euthanize a serious medical case than it is to keep them around, just for the sake of saying you didn't kill them.

And yes, it is kinder to euthanize than to let overpopulation of strays cause suffering to the animals roughing it on their own, potentially damaging the native ecosystem and posing a threat to humans and other domestic animals living in the area.

Everyone in this field is in it because they love animals and they want to help them- staff and volunteers at both open intake and limited intake shelters are there because they want to help as many as they can and see them move on to thrive and succeed in their new homes.

Please stop demonizing open intake shelters. Stop cries to ban them. Stop being nasty to and about their staff and volunteers. Everyone is doing their best. In some areas there are simply too many animals, so when they can't get them out fast enough- either to adoptive homes or other rescues and shelters with more space- the only choice that remains is to euthanize. It is sad, but it is not cruel.