You are hereForums / General Discussion / No-Kill Shelters vs. "Kill" Shelters
No-Kill Shelters vs. "Kill" Shelters
Many people have written over the years asking where to find "no-kill" animal shelters. Animal lovers naturally want to support organizations that do not euthanize.
Of course, every shelter or pet rescue hopes that euthanizing animals won't be necessary. Shelters that DO euthanize, though, sometimes bear the brunt of animal lovers who don't like the fact that pets are routinely put down.
But no-kill shelters usually claim their "no-kill" status because a) they only accept animals that have a good chance of getting a new home ("adoptable" animals), and b) they only accept the number of animals they can care for.
Many devoted "pet people" who have worked at animal shelters that euthanize pets (or who have inside knowledge of such shelters) sometimes take exception to being termed a "kill shelter". Shelters that accept all animals (regardless of 'adoptability', health, age, etc) are often well over capacity and have to euthanize because there simply aren't enough homes.
What do you think? How can animal shelters -- "no-kill" shelters and shelters that euthanize -- work together to reduce the need for euthanasia? Would you support a shelter that euthanizes?
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Google
I don't know much about No Kill animal shelters. I want to hope they are better than regular ones. I want to tell a story that just happened to me. I hate animal shelters. PERIOD, the so called 'HUMANE' as most of them like to call themselves. They are all killers and the other day they proved it to me one more time. On our landlord's property a very nice stray female cat that I became very good friends with gave birth to 3 cute kittens. They were so playful, adorable, nice, cute, happy, full of life... I was feeding the mama cat and them until they were at least 2 month old, but then i called the landlord to tell him about the problem, so we decided to turn them in to the nearest animal shelter in South Carolina. I agreed with him because as I thought the kittens would be better off that way and the shelter would take care of them and do their best to find loving homes for them or at least give them such a chance before being euthanized. We turned the kittens in and then, a little later, through an email I asked the shelter if it would be possible to find out if the kittens were adopted or not. They answered me that they do not give such an information and added that i could keep checking their website for updates. OK, I have been doing that for almost a month already and there are no signs, no pictures, no information about the kittens, like they never existed, vanished into thin air. I sent them another email asking what happened to the kittens, are they still alive or not, were they adopted or not, where are they...? I sent my message to them twice to be sure they got it. As a result, I have never heard from them. Their silence was the best proof of not having even put the kittens up for adoption (but they were adoptable 100%) If I had known all that about animal shelters, I would have never turned the kittens in. I would have solved the problem myself, but i made a very big mistake, maybe the biggest in my life and I regret it very very much.
OK, if they, like they say, run out of resources and capacity and whatever else, why the hell do they take in more animals than they can handle????? I do not understand that. What, killing them is the best way to solve the prblem? Yeah, that's right, no animal, no problem. I'm very pissed off. From now on I will never have anything to do with AS, or animal concentration camps to be more exact.
AnimalLover2000 wrote, "I sent my message to them twice to be sure they got it. As a result, I have never heard from them. Their silence was the best proof of not having even put the kittens up for adoption (but they were adoptable 100%)."
How do you figure that this is "proof" that the kittens weren't put up for adoption? Maybe the kittens were already adopted and they were too busy or didn't feel the need to answer someone who wasn't willing to come in and see for themselves.
AnimalLover2000, I can understand your anger but did you ever consider that there could be other explanations? I worked at an animal shelter. We got hundreds of emails every day and there was no way we could answer them all because we had ANIMALS to take care of! Answer emails or take care of animals and interview adoptive homes, that was our choice because there is only so much time and only so many people to go around. We tried to answer as many emails as we could but the animals took priority every time.
I don't know what happened to the kittens obviously but I can say that not every available adoptable animal ends up on a shelter's website. You have to find enough staff or volunteers to take the photos, write the bios, and post it on the website. For kittens who would have a GREAT chance to be adopted quickly it isn't always necessary to put them on the website because people who walk in could snap them right up and offer them a home! Kittens and puppies are the most popular and almost always get adopted quickly.
Why do shelters accept animals even if resources are low? To prevent jerks from dumping the poor animals. If there's no easy way to get rid of their animals (for example, dropping them off at a shelter), there are people who would drive them out to a field or a rural area and drop them off to fend for themselves. A domestic animal has no chance in the wild and will be scared and hungry and likely die of exposure if not through another animal, car, etc. That is why shelters accept animals.
Please remember that the people who work at shelters love animals too and are trying to do their best. Just because they can't always answer you doesn't mean something evil has happened. They are just trying to do their jobs and take care of the animals. No one wants to kill the animals. If people would spay and neuter their pets maybe one day we won't have homeless animals anymore.
Im trying to wright a paper on how kill shelters are bad but i need to know what is the percent of kill shelters in the U.S.A please tell me.
Kill shelter are a NECESSARY evil. I worked at a kill shelter for a year, I helped with euth very often. NO ONE at the kill shelters likes that they have to do it, but when you get 70+ animals in on a bad day (20+ on a good day) and you run out of room and can't turn away, what ELSE can you do? We tried to keep the good ones, the ones that were sweet and easily adopted, but somethings gotta give. You want to write a good paper about shelters? Write it showing the other side of a "kill shelter". Write it telling about how every animals needs to be fixed if people want us to stop killing they're beloved pets that they dumped on us for being to old (happened), or because they're moving (happens all the time) or because it doesn't match the new furniture (yes that HAS happened too). Why don't you try to convice those guys who thinks it'll demsculine-tize they're dog by having it's balls cut off? (not true, btw, it helps keep them HOME). Or those women who think puppies will be fun, or they'll make money off they're little mutts? WHy not go into how healthy it is to get them fixed? Or how about how pets are not fashion accessories, and are LIVING CREATURES that a RESPONSIBLE person would take care of for LIFE?
Why not write a paper on the TRUTH, not some hippie lies?
I have been looking at puppies for sale for the last few weeks now. But after reading this it has made me think twice and now I'm sure I will go down to my local shelter and hopefully bring home an animal in need of a home.
We are all trying to save animals and find them decent and caring homes. There is a need for regular shelters and for no-kill shelters. I don't want to animals to be put down any more than the next person but until we can find them all homes and people SPAY AND NEUTER THEIR PETS then it is going to keep happening.
I guess I am confused about why no-kill shelters are considered most humane----
Fact: there are more pets than there are people to adopt them until the over-population is controlled. So in no-kill shelters, there will be animals that spend their whole lives in a CAGE, which to an animal is PRISON. Do those against "kill" shelters ever consider the psyche, the emotional lives, of these animals with a life sentence?? Do you think they are sitting there in their own personal hell each day reasoning--hey, well at least I'm still alive! No, they are likely very depressed about being in there and they likely dread being awake because then they are aware of how miserable they are.
No, really, how is their condition much different than an animal in a mill, a factory farm, an animal with a family kept in a tiny kennel 24/7. Just because they are in a building called a "shelter", being fed, and their cage kept clean (we hope) this is not considered inhumane treatment to be indefinitely caged???
I understand both sides! Unfortunately many of the "Kill" animal shelters do so because of the volume of animals they house. The Humane Society in my city has close to 450 animals, and kitten season has only started, so you can imagine that number is going to soar in the next few months!!!
No one likes to euthanize, not even the vets! However, due to increase in disease, the more animals are sheltered together, and the lack of room and money to house these animals and support the staff, which by the way is always lacking due to the emotionally draining environment, it's a unfortunate necessity.
However, thank goodness there are many caring animal lovers that continue to support shelters, adopt, foster, etc.
The "Kill" shelters are and do keep tabs with the "No Kill" shelters to transfer animals to them when they have room for an even better chance.
Please do not turn your back on the "Kill" shelters, because the more people adopt, the less animals will be facing possible euthanasia! :)
MOST IMPORTANT: Please Spay and Neuter, it would make a huge difference!!!
This is absolutely insane. Have you ever worked at one of these places? I doubt it. I've seen these places and it makes me sick that you people recommend killing animals. You know, if this was about humans in an orphanage, there wouldn't even be a debate. Animals are people too. They live, breathe, eat, and sleep among other things, just like us. Read up on your information before you go spouting off like you know everything. Read some Nathan Winograd, that'll blow your mind. I'm so tired of hearing this crap about how bad No Kill shelters are. I've worked at a No Kill shelter and this information you're giving is inaccurate and just plain despicable. The shelter I worked at, did not just take in whatever animals they wanted. They took in all kinds of animals and took wonderful care of them. They even provided food and other items for free to people who couln't afford them and they were a non-profit animal shelter. Get your facts straight!
"You know, if this was about humans in an orphanage, there wouldn't even be a debate."
Thank You!!!! I've been saying this for so long, I dont understand how people can even consider killing an animal just because it is unwanted or considered "unadoptable". They can think, they can feel, and if it was a human child they wouldn't be allowed to euthanize them just because no one wanted to adopt them. I dont understand why people feel the need to play God and kill innocent creatures just because a human being doesnt want them! That is a very narcissistic and ignorant thing to do!
i have worked at one of "these places". so let me assure you that the above comments were just and true. perhaps when you can convince the nation to open up their homes to all the unwanteds and steralize pets, then u may speak.its a hard job, but a neccecity. besides not all animals are adoptable. im sure you'd be willing to adopt out a dog with three human attacks on his record or a cat that feline aids to a family unwilling to treat.think about it.
"its a hard job, but a neccecity. besides not all animals are adoptable."
I don't understand why you think it is a "neccecity" to kill animals just because they are unadoptable. At the very least wouldn't it be better to let them out into the wild where they could at least have a chance to survive rather than killing them off and giving them no chance to? Where do we get off playing God? Deciding who or what lives and dies? Just because we don't want them or are unwilling to take care of them does not mean that there are no other options. And I personally find it disgusting that anyone would think killing an animal just because it is unwanted by the human race is a neccesity. We are taking away the only life they will ever be able to live, and all because we find them "unadoptable"...let nature take it's course if necessary but dont play God by taking matters into your own hands.
*I want to note that in all cases there are exceptions, and if a animal is suffering from an unbearable amount of pain and there is no way to ease it then I do understand putting them to sleep...that is not so different from drugging the hell out of someone who is suffering and waiting for them to die. In fact it's nicer. When my Aunt was in the hospital she was in so much pain she would ask me everyday I visited her "please just let me die". It broke my heart, but I do understand it in those cases, but no others.
... to release unwanted animals into the wild. Have you ever seen a stray dog or cat who has struggled to survive and is slowly starving to death & sick? It is slow and tortuous way to die. Animals have to learn how to survive in the wild and DOMESTICATED animals do not have the necessary skills. It is a very harsh existence in the wild. Nature is not kind.
It is a necessity to humanely euthanize animals when there aren't enough homes for them. There are only a limited amount of money & time & resources to care for homeless animals. That is a fact. No one likes to do it but it has to be done until people start spaying and neutering their pets and the pet overpopulation problem is under control. "Unadoptable" animals, like aggressive dogs, are euthanized because of the risk & liability. Would you like to take responsibility for sending an aggressive dog home with a family, only to have that dog attack a child?
Think before you write.
I currently work at a shelter that practices humane euthanasia and it is absolutely clear that "anonymous" does not know what he or she is talking about.
Our shelter does not "recommend" euthanizing animals. No one does. It is an incredibly hard thing to deal with, and we of course appreciate what no-kill shelters do to help animals as well. (No one said anything about them being bad.)
Even if no-kill shelters do not discriminate and take in all animals, they still eventually reach a limit. What then happens to animals that have no where else to go? They end up at open-admission shelters that are able to take them in and make a decision as to whether they can be successfully put up for adoption or if they should be humanely put to sleep. North America is suffering from a major pet over-population issue, and although euthanasia is NOT the answer, it helps alleviate suffering and controls populations where there are simply not enough homes for pets.
The key to solving this problem is spaying and neutering as many animals as possible. The shelter I work at, has several great programs that aid in the cost and education of this important part of controlling animal over-population.
So start working together and stop always being at each others throats. The number one concern here is the animals, not how shelters are individually dealing with the situation at hand.
Anonymous: no one is recommending euthanising animals. "Bow Wow" merely stated a fact that euthanasia is a fact in an overcrowded shelter with insufficient resources. No one said no-kill shelters are bad either. It is different. If anything it is not the no-kill shelters that are getting the bad rap, it is the "kill" shelters. No one wants to euthanise and that includes shelters that have to do it. In the end both types of shelters are there to help the animals. Any way that they can do so is OK with me. If they can work together to help save even more animals then that's even better.
Post new comment