Kill and No Kill Shelters

Postby airwalk » November 5th, 2008, 6:07 pm

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.
User avatar
airwalk
I live here
 
Posts: 3791
Location: Oregon

Postby mnp13 » November 5th, 2008, 6:17 pm

airwalk wrote: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.


The other game is to label dogs as "unadoptable" due to age, infirmity, aggression, etc. If 100 dogs come in and 50 are "unadoptable" and 48 are adopted out, then they have a 99% adoption rate.
Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.
User avatar
mnp13
Evil Overlord
 
Posts: 17232
Location: Rochester, NY

Postby amazincc » November 5th, 2008, 7:01 pm

I had NO IDEA. :shock:

The image of a no-kill shelter never conjured up any of the images you describe, Diana... thanks for clarifying.
User avatar
amazincc
Jessica & Mick
 
Posts: 9814
Location: Holding them both in my heart.

Postby iluvk9 » November 5th, 2008, 8:45 pm

We have a very popular and well liked shelter near us that is a no-kill shelter. I truly believe they fit the criteria for NO-KILL.

http://www.littleshelter.com/index.htm


MISSION STATEMENT

Little Shelter Animal Adoption Center, one of Long Island's oldest no-kill shelters, is dedicated to saving all companion animals whose lives are in jeopardy. Through rescue from kill facilities, rehabilitation of sick and un-socialized pets, and a 100% spay/neuter program, Little Shelter hopes to end pet overpopulation and place all dogs and cats in loving homes. Located in Huntington, Little Shelter is the only animal organization outside New York City that is a member of the Mayor's Alliance
.


Also, check out their sanctuary:

http://www.littleshelter.com/sanctuary.htm
iluvk9
I'm Cougarific!
 
Posts: 14900
Location: New York

Postby nicole » November 5th, 2008, 9:06 pm

Diana, my apologies if my last cross-post offended you b/c there was a shelter labeled as "kill" in it. :oops: I think with cross-posting sometimes the label "kill shelter" is put in there to emphasize that a dog is not safe...not necessarily trying to make the shelter out to be bad or to pull at the heart strings, but to show the urgency of the situation...they are on limited time.

I do get where you are coming from though. Around here you have a few different types of shelters...the city shelter, which takes in ALL owner surrenders, picks up strays, takes in cruelty cases, etc. They HAVE to euthanize for space reasons, so time is limited there...however, if a dog becomes sick or displays severe behavioral issues, they will be the first to go and can sometimes get a special dog a reprieve. Then you have the town shelters which take in strays and some owner surrenders, they have more play with time b/c they are smaller and take in less animals...however they will need to euth eventually for space. Then you have the places like North Shore Animal League who have a shelter-like set up, yet they pick and choose which animals they take into their facility. They claim to be "no-kill" however NSAL has been known to ship dogs that don't work out to the local town shelters, where they will eventually be euthanized for space if not adopted out.

I get frustrated with the whole 'no-kill' movement here in NYC by the mayors alliance...I don't support it at all. Our city shelter claims to be aiming to reach the goal of becoming no kill within a few years and I feel its misleading to the public b/c its unrealistic. Not only b/c its false advertising but i feel it lets people off the hook when they surrender their dogs. It gives them the idea that its no big deal to dump a dog b/c the shelter won't kill it. The shelters numbers are staggering, and yes, they find so many loop holes to label dogs as "unadoptable"...euthanizing the unadoptables doesn't effect their numbers.

Its hard to explain all this when you are trying to send out a plea for help. If I see a dog that is at our city shelter, I know that their time is very limited, but there isn't always a specific time frame. For example I took my foster off the euth list, she never made it to the adoption floor b/c of a URI and was at the shelter for only a week. So, I do understand that ALL shelters are pretty much kill shelters...however, some have no choice but to move dogs out faster and their intakes are more urgent. When I see a plea with these labels, I think of "kill" shelters as the town/city shelters that take in strays and have limited time and resources to place dogs..."no kill" I usually tend to think its a facility that regulates which dogs they take in and that are privately funded. I don't think that they don't euth though.

Sorry for being so long winded...but I feel passionate about this as well. What do you think would be the right thing to do with a cross-post or plea as far as labeling shelters?
User avatar
nicole
Snot Nose Bully Pup
 
Posts: 200
Location: Long Island, NY

Postby dlynne1123 » November 5th, 2008, 9:11 pm

The only No Kill shelter I've ever considered actually no kill was teh Dog Town facility in Utah. Even if an animal comes in 'unadoptable' they will keep the animal for the entirety of its life. (Unless for inhumane medical reasons of course)

Most shelters around here say no kill but when a person surrenders a dog in and signs the euthanasia or 'unadoptable' form they are eliminating it from their 'kill' statistics. It is a little misleading but its truly very very very hard to accomplish, in most cases, a true no kill shelter or neighborhood.
Ryder - Rescue APBT
Panser on a Roll - APBT (American Bully?)
Gretchen - the red headed cat that thinks shes a dog
Prudence - the new cat on the block to put the dogs in their place!
Punchlines Better Than Lojac - APBT (RIP)
User avatar
dlynne1123
Hyper Adolescent Bully
 
Posts: 289
Location: New England

Postby nicole » November 5th, 2008, 9:22 pm

iluvk9 wrote:We have a very popular and well liked shelter near us that is a no-kill shelter. I truly believe they fit the criteria for NO-KILL.

http://www.littleshelter.com/index.htm


MISSION STATEMENT

Little Shelter Animal Adoption Center, one of Long Island's oldest no-kill shelters, is dedicated to saving all companion animals whose lives are in jeopardy. Through rescue from kill facilities, rehabilitation of sick and un-socialized pets, and a 100% spay/neuter program, Little Shelter hopes to end pet overpopulation and place all dogs and cats in loving homes. Located in Huntington, Little Shelter is the only animal organization outside New York City that is a member of the Mayor's Alliance
.


Also, check out their sanctuary:

http://www.littleshelter.com/sanctuary.htm



I adopted Olive from here! I agree that they are a no-kill shelter b/c they have a great medical facility and don't spare any costs on treating their dogs, so they don't euth unless its terminal or the dog's quality of life is at stake (check out Ingrid for example, she stole my heart - .http://www.littleshelter.com/dogs/dog3-5.htm) ..plus, they keep all the dogs that come in with behavioral problems and let them live their lives out happily in the sanctuary. (Daisy and Bella were there when I went to adopt Olive almost 3 yrs ago - http://www.littleshelter.com/dogs/sanctuary_dogs.htm )

However, they do limit themselves on which dogs they take in, once all their kennels are filled, they don't continue to take in more, and they only take in a small amount of owner surrenders. So, in a sense, they really aren't a shelter but a privately funded facility...however, once they take in a dog, its either adoption or sanctuary. Although, they aren't quick to put a dog in the sanctuary who may need to be there. I know of one dog that was adopted and returned at least 2x for biting...yet she is still listed as adoptable. :(
User avatar
nicole
Snot Nose Bully Pup
 
Posts: 200
Location: Long Island, NY

Postby SisMorphine » November 6th, 2008, 9:05 am

We have a very popular "no-kill" shelter up here. They are "no-kill" because they very rarely take dogs from the area, instead they hand pick them from shelters down south and have them shipped up. And then, if they end up deeming one of the hand-picked dogs unadoptable the dog is transferred to another shelter, where they will euthanize it.
"All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is a part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another." -Anatole France
SisMorphine
They're like service dogs gone wrong.
 
Posts: 9231

Postby Megan Welch » November 6th, 2008, 8:59 pm

So I found this kind of interesting. I work as an animal control officer and had to contact a few different agencies for finiacial assistance for someone in the town I work in. I ended up contacting the "Pet Fund". Long story short I guess there is a fund called Maddies fund which has "millions" of dollars to fund humane societies that claim they are no kill shelters. The lady that I was talking to was saying that I should try to turn our shelter (we don't even have a shelter, we use a neighboring communities) into a no kill shelter to get lots of money to help with finaces. It is possible that many humane societies participate in this fund to get finicial help. I know very little about this fund and am only basing this on what she said.

Just thought it was very interesting.
Megan Welch
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 13
Location: Rochester, NH

Postby airwalk » November 6th, 2008, 9:04 pm

Nicole, it was your post that triggered ,my post but I wasn't trying to shoot at you, just educate a bit so that everyone understands the difference between a no-kill community and a no-kill shelter.

Joyce, while I appreciate what you're saying, if that shelter has the ability to stop taking animals in when they are full and/or they accept certain animals for adoption and others for owner requested euthanasia because the animal doesn't meet their criteria for adoptability, then I don't agree about it being a no-kill. Additionally, if the entire community isn't no-kill, then it is, in my humble opinion, nothing but a marketing ploy.

When an ASPCA or Humane Society doesn't accept strays...or doesn't accept old animals or particular breeds, because they are difficult and expensive to hold and place, those animals must go somewhere and I can assure you that ASPCA and/or Humane Society knows full well where every public shelter facility in their area is that does have to accept those animals for care. They know full well those public shelters due have to euthanize for space, temperament, health and public safety. So while they call themselves no-kill they can only use that phrase because they leave the "dirty" work to someone else.

Nicole I understand about using the phrase kill shelter to indicate that dogs aren't safe...I just felt the need to be sure that others reading those phrases better understood the dynamics.

I am responsible for accepting every stray that arrives at my door. I accept far more owner surrenders than I would like - because they don't meet the adoptability criteria of another facility in our area - everyone knows full well that there are only so many spaces and so many homes..but the "other facility" will call themselves a no-kill facility and the there is a faction in our community trying to get everyone to sign on to moving towards becoming no-kill.

No-kill misleads people. There are dogs that simply should not be place back in the community. They are dangerous and any misstep by an owner/handler will get someone hurt. Not maybe, not could be...will.

There are dogs that there is simply so little quality left in their lives that to adopt them out or to require they stay in a shelter environment is simply inhumane. In my opinion, having any dog begin to feel a shelter is "home" is inhumane. If they've been in a shelter long enough to feel it is home - then we are depriving them of the things we know canines need - they've simply adapted to what we are prepared to provide.
User avatar
airwalk
I live here
 
Posts: 3791
Location: Oregon

Postby airwalk » November 6th, 2008, 9:08 pm

Megan Welch wrote:So I found this kind of interesting. I work as an animal control officer and had to contact a few different agencies for finiacial assistance for someone in the town I work in. I ended up contacting the "Pet Fund". Long story short I guess there is a fund called Maddies fund which has "millions" of dollars to fund humane societies that claim they are no kill shelters. The lady that I was talking to was saying that I should try to turn our shelter (we don't even have a shelter, we use a neighboring communities) into a no kill shelter to get lots of money to help with finaces. It is possible that many humane societies participate in this fund to get finicial help. I know very little about this fund and am only basing this on what she said.

Just thought it was very interesting.


Megan there is a fund called Maddie's Fund. It has some extremely strigent requirements and you must have a coalition of providers in your area all agreeing to stages and measurements.

Unfortunately money drives lots of things - and as Michelle said - if a facility takes in 10 dogs that are adoptable (by their criteria please remember) and 10 dogs that are not adoptable (again by their criteria) and they adopt out 9 dogs, they claim a 99% adoption rate - because they never count the 10 unadoptable dogs...if they accept them for care at all. Many refuse those dogs that are unadoptable. Like the Seniors, those with serious health issues, those that are blind, deaf or poorly bred - get referred to a local public shelter for care.

Or they accept animals for care only until their runs are full - then they accept no more until they have room.
User avatar
airwalk
I live here
 
Posts: 3791
Location: Oregon

Postby airwalk » November 6th, 2008, 9:10 pm

Oh and please don't misunderstand me..I am not faulting the facilities that have the ability to control their intake...for every animal they accept for care that is one less that a public shelter will have to try to make a decision on. I just want folks to understand that unless an entire community is no-kill, there is no such thing as a no-kill facility within that community - just facilities that don't euthanize for space because they control their intake and utilize public shelters for the remainder.
User avatar
airwalk
I live here
 
Posts: 3791
Location: Oregon

Postby iluvk9 » November 8th, 2008, 10:11 am

airwalk wrote:Joyce, while I appreciate what you're saying, if that shelter has the ability to stop taking animals in when they are full and/or they accept certain animals for adoption and others for owner requested euthanasia because the animal doesn't meet their criteria for adoptability, then I don't agree about it being a no-kill. Additionally, if the entire community isn't no-kill, then it is, in my humble opinion, nothing but a marketing ploy.


I see your point.
iluvk9
I'm Cougarific!
 
Posts: 14900
Location: New York

Postby Jeni » November 10th, 2008, 6:51 pm

Thank you for posting this Diane.
This has got to be one of my biggest pet-peeves as well. I work for a city shelter - we euthanize a lot of animals - we have to. We get calls all the time asking if we are no-kill/kill. And then everyone thinks that the SPCA right down the street from us is no-kill, because its the SPCA. Trust me, its not - I used to work there.
dee de dee
User avatar
Jeni
Confident Young Bully
 
Posts: 475
Location: Texas


Return to Rescue

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media

cron