a response to no kill

As mentioned in the last post, I thought it would be important to highlight some responses and reservations to the No Kill movement from others in the shelter community, to offer some perspective from both sides of the often tense discussion.

The first response I came across after reading Winograd's book was a November, 2007 post by Wayne Pacelle, President of the Humane Society of the United States, "Setting Aside Semantics: Not Killing Pets Must Be Our Goal".  He writes:

The "No-Kill" crusade, as embodied by its responsible voices, has done its share of good for our humane movement.  It has asked tough questions and prompted a re-examination of the purpose of animal shelters in the United States. ...

So, no kill as a philosophy is noble; no kill as an objective or aspiration is essential.  Really, nothing else can be our goal.

... But "No-Kill" as an outcome cannot be universally expected to occur overnight, and it cannot succeed without multi-pronged efforts by committed communities.

Pacelle points out that semantics do not change the stark realities of available space for the constant stream of trapped and relinquished animals, or the health problems which accompany overcrowding, but he also affirms that "we must not accept routine euthanasia as a social norm."  He calls for an ever-more proactive and expansive effort to combat community factors which contribute to overcrowding, including increasing spay and neuter programs, educating the public about typical pet behavioral issues, developing more inviting shelters, and counteracting puppy mills.

Pacelle concludes by suggesting, "Let's keep moving forward until no healthy and treatable animals are euthanized.  Let's focus on that, and not deplete our energy or divide our strengths with evermore strident internal debates."  (By the way, a rather dissatisfied response to Pacelle's post And HSUS' general position on the issue, coming from a No Kill perspective, is available at PetConnection.com.)

MeLissa Webber, who will be contributing the next two posts from her experience as a shelter administrator, also pointed me to a well-composed article in HSUS' Animal Sheltering magazine by Arnold Arluke, "Identity in Animal Shelters" (PDF; Jan-Feb '07, pg. 31-39).  The emphasis in the article is the effect the No Kill movement has had on "the way shelter workers themselves understand their work and their place in the animal protection community" (pg. 31):

For many disillusioned shelter workers, “going no-kill” is a way to rediscover or return to this rescue instinct, thus preserving the identity that first drew them to animal work and shielding them from implications of cruelty.  But the result has been a schism in the animal welfare community itself.  Accustomed to criticism from the public, the sheltering community now faces an internal divide, in which one camp perceives the other as cruel.  Instead of preventing cruelty, as their mission suggests, open-admissionists can be seen (and portrayed to the public and the media) as causing it.

Arluke asserts that "open-admissionists" feel they rescue more animals because they take more in, including many elderly, ill and "generally less desirable" animal which no-kill shelters refuse (pg. 32).  He draws attention not only to the often selective intake policies of No Kill shelters, but also the decrepit and warehouse-like conditions of many of those shelters, with accompanying negative effects on their charges, as well as an unrealistic expectation of the adoptability of many of their animals.  Arluke includes a wealth of detailed quotes and anecdotes from the No Kill community, accompanied by his own social-psychological analysis.  He claims it's a community which capitalizes on hope for animals, even when "some of their more extreme steps to rescue and save animals come perilously close to the antithesis of their identity—cruelty" (pg. 39).

But (and what follows is an admittedly slanted editorial), even with Arluke's accusations of impracticality and less-than-ideal conditions, it's hard not to support and even identify with his description of the basic motivation which drives No Kill adherents:

To maintain their sense of identity, it is more important for no-killers to feel they are championing individual animals.  As one no-kill advocate notes, “We dare to think that every individual life does matter ... that that individual’s life actually matters.” This means they will “fight the good fight” for each animal who comes their way, expending as much time, labor, and money as necessary to ensure that the animals—even ones who are likely euthanized in an open-admission shelter—are cared for, loved, and hopefully adopted. (pg. 35)

By the way, MeLissa also pointed me to the Asilomar Accords, which looks to be a much-needed effort to facilitate gracious dialogue and mutual support between No Kill and traditional sheltering proponents.

(photo copyright 123rf.com)