I'm posting this because sometimes I see shelters differentiated by kill versus no kill and I must admit it is a particular pet peeve of mine.
If in any given town or jurisdiction there is a shelter that must euthanize animals, then for any shelter in that area to call itself a no-kill is simply marketing. The only reason most no-kill shelters are able to say that is because they don't accept animals they aren't sure they can place and because there is a facility in their area that will accept those animals and euthanize them if necessary.
The entire no-kill movement is a misnomer. The only way that works is if there are no-kill communities. If an entire community can have shelters that do not euthanize due to lack of homes, then everyone can claim to be no-kill.
If, however, any shelter in that community euthanizes animals because of lack of homes...then someone is simply using that term as a marketing tool. The only way I could actually agree with someone calling themselves no-kill is if they took every animal that arrived t their door and then never euthanized due to space.
Additionally, the no-kill phrase tends to make people think that the facility never euthanizes, which is either again semantics or inhumane. Often "no-kill" shelters do, in fact, euthanize. If an owner brings in a dog that the facility doesn't think they can place, they will accept the animal under a "owner requested euthanasia" which then doesn't really count (in their statistics) or they are keeping animals way past the time that is humane and right or they are risking public safety.
I understand sometimes when posting for a dog that the use of the term Kill shelter pulls at heart strings and maybe gets a response...but it damages the facilities that are doing the very best they can by every animal that should be adopted into the community but also accept everything that arrives, regardless of its age, health, temperament or the likelihood of it being adoptable.
Sorry, my little soap box for today.