|
|
© 2008,Pat Miller/Peaceable Paws LLC
All Rights Reserved
What’s Wrong With No-Kill?
Imagine a world where no dog is ever euthanized for being
homeless. Where there are more homes than dogs. Where waiting lists are
maintained at every possible dog-adoption-source, with potential
adopters anxiously await the next available canine. Where every dog is
treasured, and the thought of “rehoming” one of these wonderful,
valuable creatures is totally preposterous. Wouldn’t we all be delighted
to see that?
That’s a lovely vision. But today, in the United States, it is just that
– a vision. Despite the growing ranks of shelters that claim to be
“No-Kill” and the proponents who claim that it’s possible to turn every
shelter into a “No-Kill” facility, in reality, we are far from being a
“No-Kill Nation.”
Of course, every person who loves and respects other living creatures
would like to see an end to all senseless, tragic killing. It’s easy to
get swept up in the hope of no-kill. Surely, if we just try hard enough,
we can find homes for them all.
Or maybe not. HSUS estimates that 3-4 million homeless dogs and cats are
euthanized at animal shelters in this country every year. When I started
working at the Marin Humane Society in Novato, California in 1976 the
estimated number was 17-18 million. Taken in perspective, that looks
like a huge improvement, and indeed it is – but 3-4 million deaths per
year is still a huge number.
When they public hears “no-kill shelter” they tend to think that means
that no animals are euthanized. However, that’s simply not the case. The
animal protection profession has generally accepted the definition of
“no-kill” as “no euthanasia of adoptable, non-treatable, non-rehabilitatable
(medically or behaviorally) animals.”
While this may be a reasonable definition of “no-kill,” the confusion
goes even deeper. One “no-kill” shelter may decide that a dog with mild
resource guarding is non-rehabilitatable because they don’t have staff
to work with dogs who need behavior modification, or because their
organization has a low-risk tolerance for any aggression-related
behaviors. Another “no-kill” shelter may have an entire behavior
department, and commit significant resources to behavior modification.
At the first shelter the dog dies. At the second, he lives. But they’re
both “no-kill” by industry definition.
The same is true with physical ailments. One shelter may be able to
isolate and treat a dog with upper respiratory infection, or one with a
broken leg, while another might euthanize that same dog due to lack of
resources, or different priorities for finite resources. Both call
themselves “no-kill.”
There are legitimate, well-run limited admission shelters that rarely
euthanize. They are up front with their supporters about what they do,
why and how. They acknowledge that they can exist because at least one
other shelter in the community is willing to take on the responsibility
for caring for – and euthanizing – the animals that the limited
admission shelter can’t or won’t. These shelters tend to avoid using the
“no-kill” term, as they honestly admit that try as they might, there are
times when the humane choice is to euthanize an animal that’s not
thriving under their care.
There are also well-run limited admission shelters that may
disingenuously call themselves “no-kill” by hiding behind the industry
definition, even though their supporters probably don’t understand the
distinction. Some also claim the “no-kill” designation because when an
animal must be euthanized they don’t do it themselves – they send it to
a full-service shelter.
There are other, more serious problems with “no-kill.” Competition for
animal protection donation dollars can be fierce, and the public appeal
of the misleading “no-kill” designation draws millions of dollars from
the limited donor pool. Meanwhile, full-service shelters who care for
animal who are just as needy, if not more so, struggle to convince their
donors not to jump ship for organizations with a happier-sounding
mission. Donations to “no-kill” facilities may actually help a smaller
number of animals than contributions to full-service shelters. Maddie’s
Fund, established in the 1990’s by an animal-loving philanthropist,
offers significant grants to communities whose animal rescue groups and
shelters work together to become “adoption-guarantee” communities.
Shelters who comply may end up euthanizing similar numbers of animals as
before, they just label them differently to bring them under the
“no-kill” definition. Shelters can learn to play the semantics game
quickly in order to benefit financially.
Some “no-kill” shelters and rescue groups are reluctant to turn animals
away or to euthanize even when a humane ethic suggests it. Quality of
life takes a distant back seat for dogs in an overcrowded facility, and
many dogs who are housed for life in a kennel suffer severe
psychological distress resulting in depression, aggression and/or
obsessive compulsive behaviors. Refusal to euthanize these dogs not only
results in their mental and/or physical suffering, but also severely
restricts the number of additional healthy, adoptable dogs these
facilities could help.
Dedicated animal protection professionals made significant progress in
their efforts to reduce euthanasia numbers well before the “no-kill”
movement became widely popular a decade ago. Unfortunately, despite
those “no-kill” efforts, euthanasia numbers have remained static in the
past ten years. During the same ten years, many skilled and capable
shelter administrators have left or been forced out of the profession
rather than succumb to – or fight – the pressure of the high-profile
“no-kill” advocates and well-meaning but misguided local citizens who
have bought into the misleading “no-kill” message.
At the same time, there’s been a quantum rise in the investigation and
prosecution of animal hoarders who, in many cases position themselves as
legitimate rescue groups and often are the recipients of dogs from
“low-kill” and “no-kill” shelters desperate to keep their statistics
looking rosy.
Usually when something seems too good to be true… it is. Such is the
case with the empty promise of “no-kill.” I do believe that someday, all
animals who have potential to be adopted will find lifelong loving
homes. That day isn’t here, and it isn’t now, but it’s out there. It
will require the continued hard work of dedicated and realistic animal
protection professionals who continue the hard work of public education,
spay/neuter campaigns, science-based animal behavior and training
programs, and yes, euthanasia, rather than the flip of a semantics magic
wand. It will take many more years. But yes, the day will come.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
- Investigate your local shelters to determine
their organizational structure, and identify what services they
offer.
- Visit the shelters in your community to
determine the quality of service they offer and animal care they
provide.
- Support and help the shelters that deserve
your patronage.
- Take steps to improve the ones where human and
non-human clients receive less-than-optimal care.
Pat Miller is a Certified Dog and
Horse Behavior Consultant and Certified Professional Dog Trainer. She
offers classes, behavior modification services, training clinics and
academies for trainers at her 80-acre Peaceable Paws training facility
in Fairplay, Maryland, and presents seminars worldwide. She has authored
“The Power of Positive Dog Training,” “Positive Perspectives,” “Positive
Perspectives 2,” and “Play With Your Dog.” Miller is training editor for
The Whole Dog Journal, writes for Tuft’s University’s Your Dog, and
several other publications. She shares her home with husband Paul, five
dogs, three cats, five horses and a donkey.
www.peaceablepaws.com
|
Cumberland Valley Animal Shelter, Inc.