 |
No More Homeless Pets Forum
October 13, 2003 Why No-Kill? |
Why no-kill? Craig Brestrup, author of Disposable Animals and board member of the Association of Animal Sanctuaries, will answer your questions about the ethics of no-kill animal shelters, their impact on the larger humane movement, and what the future holds.
Introduction from Craig Brestrup:
The rise of the no-kill movement over the past decade has been one of the most significant trends within animal protection. And for millions of dogs and cats, it has been the difference between life and death.Its influence extends well beyond the homeless animals that come to no-kill organizations. The forceful example of the no-kill movement has encouraged new thinking and practice among traditional "full service" groups, and it has ignited hopes for genuine success in this segment of animal advocacy.
If we can't succeed with these companion animals, where can we? And if we can succeed here, perhaps the energy and inspiration will spread. The ethical dynamics surrounding this issue must eventually come to be seen as continuous with those within all other realms of animal, and human, abuse.
Questions
Does open admission help the public more than limited admission?
Categorizing animals
Is the term no kill divisive?
Going no-kill but still supporting animal control
Changing the disposable mentality
Differentiating bad no-kills from good ones
Is no-kill an unrealistic goal?
What if you are no-kill but have animals not adjusting well in your organization?
Can we as a nation truly achieve no-kill?
Does spaying pregnant cats put no-kill status in jeopardy?
Can we be no-kill if we euthanize animals that need expensive vet care we can't afford?
What about when you have breed specific legislation that prevents you from adopting breeds?
What does no-kill mean?
Member comments
Any tips for the success of the humane movement?
Does open admission help the public more than limited admission?
Question from a member:
I work at a humane society and we are currently limited admission. Our Director wants us to go to open admission because he feels that we are not helping the public when they call and are turned away. He thinks that perhaps the animals are being put more at risk because they are going to be abandoned or harmed when they are turned away and no shelters have space and that taking the animals and putting them down is more humane. I think that this will just lead to the easy excuse of killing animals rather than trying to get creative and proactive in finding homes and if we go to this policy I will quit. I'd love to hear your thoughts.Response from Craig:
One of the most common fears of those who have practiced in the traditional way is that animals turned away will almost certainly end up dumped or harmed. The problem with this, of course, is that there is no good evidence that it will happen or how often it might happen, and alternatively there is clear evidence that the animals are definitely dead if you take them in and don't have a home for them.I think the responsibility of the limited admission shelter is to offer the person bringing his/her animal in (and typically half the animals arriving at shelters are brought by their "owners") alternatives. Evaluate the perceived need to abandon the animal at the shelter, and see if it can be remedied. If not, offer a waiting list and in the meantime suggest that the person find a well screened home himself, and offer ways to help him do this.
Your Director's desire to "help the public" is exactly the right motivation, but it must be combined with truly helping the animal. Helping the public means teaching responsibility and respect and that humane people really are humane and therefore won't facilitate irresponsibility, but that they will do everything possible to facilitate keeping animals with their people or finding new people for them. The probability that a few animals will be put at risk by not making it easy to abandon them at the shelter will be more than offset by lives saved and through teaching deep and tenacious respect for life.
Categorizing animals
Question from Sarah:
I would like to get your opinion on categorizing animals. At first, I liked the idea of categorizing animals as healthy, treatable, and non-rehabilitatable. I felt that it helped us focus our efforts, but now I am seeing that it is being used to hide the truth. The open admission shelter in our community is saying they only put down 50 healthy animals and that all of the other 4,000 put down were non-rehabilitatable! I feel that it is too easy to hide behind the semantics of categorizing and wondered what you thought? Is there a better and fairer way of doing it?Response from Craig:
You're right - what began as a seemingly sensible way of differentiating adoptable animals from unadoptable ones, and simultaneously to provide a way of describing why animals were killed (e.g., no home available, vicious, seriously ill or injured) has had the unintended effect of allowing immense latitude in defining the various categories. This naturally allows statistical manipulations that may not provide true pictures of what is going on. We don't have to assume dishonesty in these situations; the fact is that people are vulnerable to skewing reality to fit their needs and desires without always knowing they are doing it. The figures you mention, by the way, are, to put it mildly, implausible.I wonder if it isn't time to come at this from a different framework. Instead of laboring over the fine lines between adoptable and unadoptable, rehabilitatable and unrehabilitatable, etc., perhaps we should just say that any animal for whom true euthanasia is not called for (that is, any animal whose condition is not one of intolerable and unrelievable suffering) will be worked with until a home is found for him/her. And if it appears in time that one will not be found then a companion animal sanctuary will be found where the animal can be placed with others and receive good lifetime care. In other words, the burden needs to be on animal protectors to provide for homeless animals rather than to find loopholes into which they can be dropped.
Is the term no kill divisive?
Question from Michelle:
Where I live there are 3 no-kill groups and one traditional shelter. I try to work with them all. The problem is that the traditional shelter is badmouthing the no-kills by saying that they pick and choose which animals they help while the traditional shelter helps all animals. The no-kills then say that the traditional shelter won't work with them and kills animals without trying to find alternatives. It seems the sticking point is the term "no-kill" and what that means. I feel that the traditional shelter will not work with any collaborative effort that has the term no-kill in it. Is there less divisive terminology that we can use to try to work together?Response from Craig:
Good for you! Animal protection suffers for not having more people like you who strive to work with groups that have differing approaches to things. In the situation you describe, I imagine we can assume that the "no-kill" people made their decision on what they regarded as good ethical grounds, and the traditionalists made theirs on what they see as good (and necessary) pragmatic ones. It isn't necessary that either change to accommodate the other; there is still a world of areas where they can collaborate for the benefit of the animals. But it is necessary that they not parade their differences in public. That only poisons the waters and makes outsiders wonder what's wrong with "animal people".The term "no kill" is definitely problematic. I think it has served a good purpose in emphasizing that killing is not a solution to companion animal overpopulation and homelessness, but it tends to polarize and isn't exactly accurate since no responsible group would withhold true euthanasia from a suffering animal who couldn't otherwise be relieved of his pain. I don't know what better terms there are that would differentiate these approaches, but for the sake of the animals we should find ones that are acceptable to all. In the meantime, why not avoid making a fuss over no-kill vs. not no-kill and emphasize what we all are for - caring for animals, finding them good homes, educating the public. The animals don't have the time for us to enjoy the luxury of battling each other rather than battling the problems.
Going no-kill but still supporting animal control
Question from a member:
How can an organization go no-kill and explain to the public why you are doing it, while still being supportive of the animal control that is still euthanizing? We want to explain to our donors and the public how no-kill fits our mission but don't want to alienate animal control since we still want to work with them.Response from Craig:
I think it is, as you suggest, very important not just to make the change to no-kill but to do it in such a way that you don't appear to be condemning animal control. There are positive reasons that can be presented for the change which emphasize how it allows you to focus your energies on what you do best—education, spay/neuter initiatives, promotion of adoptions from shelters (yours as well as animal control's), innovative ways of working with people and their animals, and so forth.At the same time, you can let the public know that you will be working with animal control to help get their animals into homes (thus reducing shelter "euthanasias") and on public information campaigns encouraging more responsible relations with companion animals and related topics. In short, whatever you might think about shelter or animal control killing of "surplus" animals, it is important to set that aside in order to focus on your areas of common concern.
And as a final note, it would be helpful if your organization's director and the head of animal control stayed in good contact with each other about all these things, including forming task groups composed of people from both who would help with coordination and maintaining good relations.
Changing the disposable mentality
Question from Melanie:
So how do we get the word out that animals are not disposable? We have such a throwaway mentality in our society today. I feel like if we are not educating people at the time of adoption or take surrendered animals into our shelters with no questions asked or without trying to encourage responsibility on their part we are continuing to perpetuate and mask the problem.It is like the public doesn't want to hear about what is truly happening and when you mention that their precious Fluffy who they are giving up because he got too big might be euthanized, they get all up in arms and only want to go to a no-kill shelter but they don't want to do anything to try to keep him. How do we change that mentality?
Response from Craig:
I think that "changing that mentality" begins with something that is hard to accept - which is, as we say in the south, "it will be a long row to hoe". When we get involved in animal protection we have to recognize how removed the majority of people are from a strong ethic regarding animals and that there will be a lot of pain along the way as we see how much suffering continues despite our best efforts. That said, I believe we teach best with actions rather than words. We must be consistent in all we do toward both people and animals. If compassion and respect are our guiding principles, then how should they be best expressed?For example, taking animals from their people "with no questions asked" is not respectful of the animal or even of the person's capacity to behave more responsibly. And if we behave toward that person in a judgmental and condemnatory manner we are similarly disrespectful. If we serve animal flesh at our events, what are we communicating? And so on. In short, in both word and action we should present a model for different ways of relating to one another as well as to animals. We can be vigorous and assertive without being righteous, and we can be sure that we don't inadvertently facilitate or encourage through our own behavior any of the attitudes that we know to be wrong.
Differentiating bad no-kills from good ones
Question from Tracy:
I feel like some organizations give no-kills a bad name because they take in too many animals and then keep the animals there for long periods of time - sometimes years - and turn more into a lifelong sanctuary than a shelter trying to place animals. I always hear opponents of no-kills saying that no-kill shelters are borderline hoarders and collectors. Not all of us are like that. How do we differentiate the good ones from the bad ones in the public's eyes so that we are not all lumped together? Can we develop standards?Response from Craig:
I suppose that every activity that humans have ever engaged in is vulnerable to areas of failure even while it succeeds in others. No-kills err if they complacently hold animals without vigorously working to find them homes. Similarly, traditional shelters err if they complacently continue killing while not working vigorously for alternatives. But knowing that people involved with both approaches may sometimes fail is not to say that everyone involved must fail.We can't generalize from a particular failure to the whole population of people and organizations that may share a particular viewpoint. As you suggest, it would be wonderful if we could develop generally accepted standards for organizations working within companion animal protection. But to date it has never happened, although efforts have been made from time-to-time.
For no-kill organizations, The Association of Sanctuaries, of which I was once executive director, now accepts applications for accreditation, and that provides one way of differentiating the good from the not so good. I would like to see more of these groups seek accreditation and think it would go a long way toward raising standards across the board and responding to criticisms of the movement. In the meantime, it does no one and certainly no animal any good for people on either side of the debate to stereotype others as bad or wrong. Better to engage them in discussion on how they can coordinate their efforts to save lives.
A final word - the accusation that no-kill organizations are hoarders and so forth seems badly dated by now. However much truth it may once have had, these organizations now are among the most dynamic and successful at changing things. They are to be congratulated for the new energy and ideas they have brought to companion animal protection over the last decade or so.
Is no-kill an unrealistic goal?
Question from a member:
The largest humane society in our area doesn't believe that no-kill can work and that it is an unrealistic goal. This humane society is very well funded and has been in the community for a long time so is well respected. What counter arguments can we use that will make sense with the public to show that no-kill can work?Response from Craig:
I believe that rather than arguing with them about whether it is realistic or not you would do better to focus on areas of agreement and work together on those. The animals can't afford to stand by while their advocates debate such matters; they need help, and people don't have to agree on everything to know that every effort to alleviate suffering and save lives is valuable. Only time and a lot of hard work will tell whether no-kill is a realistic goal, but for many of us it is the best practice.By practice I mean that we believe that shelter killing is counterproductive, subversive of our stated commitments and values, and confusing to the public when "animal protectors" become animal disposers. Alternatively, we focus on saving lives and a consistent ethic and working diligently to remove any rationale for others to believe that "full service" is a necessity. Doing good work in a professional, collegial, and effective manner is the best argument of all.
What if you are no-kill but have animals not adjusting well in your organization?
Question from Jennifer:
We are a no-kill group with foster homes only. We don't have a shelter. We have ended up with some animals that were dumped on us that we can't place. We feel that we don't have any choice left because they are not doing well in their foster home. We definitely don't want to euthanize but don't know what else to do. What can we do that is a responsible and humane solution?Response from Craig:
I think there are two parts to an answer to this dilemma. First, one wonders why they aren't doing well in foster homes. Is the problem the animals or the homes? If it seems to be the animals and nothing seems to avail in helping them find homes, then why not look for a sanctuary where they can be placed with other animals and provided adequate space and care until they are either adopted or die of natural causes?Second, the whole meaning of euthanasia (despite the common misuse of the word) is that it is something done for the animal, something that is the only remaining compassionate alternative when all else has failed and the animal suffers. If "not doing well" means that the animal is clearly miserable and nothing seems to help relieve that, then it may be that euthanasia is the final gift you have to offer.
Can we as a nation truly achieve no-kill?
Question from Julie:
I know that the numbers of animals being killed in shelters has dropped dramatically in the last 10 or so years. But it seems to be hovering at 4-5 million. Do you think we are still making good progress or have we hit a wall? And do you think we can ever truly achieve no-kill where only the truly non-rehabilitatable –one million, two.Response from Craig:
This is a hard one. It has always been difficult for me to know what to make of the numbers I see on animals killed in shelters. I'm not sure what margin of error they carry and I know that shelter reporting has always been considerably less than complete. But regardless how many million still lose their lives in shelters, we know it is too many while at the same time we can have confidence it is dropping. There are too many communities with good reporting that clearly have dramatically reduced the killing over the past 10-15 years.So I think it is clear that the situation is improving. I also think that of all the challenges faced by animal protectors this is one that we can win. There are too many factors in favor of that for us not to succeed. As for how many will continue to be euthanized (in the true sense of the word) once we have achieved a no-kill nation, I don't know how to estimate that. The thing that seems most important to me is that we be sure we haven't left loopholes that allow people to make it seem better than it is, and that we take full responsibility for saving all the lives we can.
Does spaying pregnant cats put no-kill status in jeopardy?
Question from Kathy:
Our organization euthanizes for reasons of aggression or untreatable illness. A board member from another shelter asked about our policy on spaying pregnant cats. I answered we do abort kittens if the vet feels the cat is not too far along to endanger her life. There is an estimated 50,000 free-roaming cats in our county. Our group has no shelter and relies on a foster home network. She shook a finger at me saying this could hurt our no-kill reputation if the public found out. Callers who ask us to take in a pregnant stray sometimes ask if we'll still spay the cat, but only a few express a slight displeasure. After explaining the feline population, they understand. I disagree that this policy puts our no-kill reputation in jeopardy, but welcome your thoughts. Thank you.Response from Craig:
Isn't it amazing how many and diverse issues come up when you care for animals and take ethics seriously? In this case, since we believe that the inherent value of animal lives mandates that they receive moral consideration in the same serious way we give it to humans, then we have to evaluate this matter as we would human abortion. Those who call themselves "pro life," the anti-abortion folks, believe that killing a fetus is equivalent to killing a child. (Unfortunately, most of these people do not take animals' lives as seriously as they take humans'.)So if we followed that line of thinking I suppose it would be accurate to say that spaying/aborting a cat jeopardizes your allegiance to no-kill. On the other hand, if we consider human abortion a serious decision but not one that involves the possibility of murder, then, similarly, we aren't indifferent to the consequences of aborting kittens but realize that all things considered it is sometimes the best decision. The lack of homes leaves little choice. In short, I don't see that this is contrary to your no-kill commitments, although "pro life" people might. (Isn't it odd that no-kill animal protectors would be judged as not being pro life in some people's eyes?)
Can we be no-kill if we euthanize animals that need expensive vet care we can't afford?
Question from Peggy:
We run a small group, and while we'd like to save every one and do try, if we have an animals that needs over $1000 worth of vet care when we first get them, we sometimes do need to put them down. Do you think we can still call ourselves no-kill?Response from Craig:
Sometimes we over worry about labels, but on the other hand it is important to accurately describe one's organization. I suppose that, strictly speaking, it probably doesn't fit to call yourself no-kill since you perform non-euthanasia killing of animals. The term, as long as we choose to use it, has to mean that the only animals put down are those whose suffering is irremediable, and your policy only refers to cost of treatment.Perhaps rather than concerning yourself too much with the label you should simply make it clear to the community what your core values are and what policies and practices you have chosen based on the combination of those values and certain realities forced on you by resource limitations. If you cannot afford the $1,000 for treatment and without it the animal will be left suffering and you have exhausted all other possibilities, the tragic choice seems to reduce itself to a humane death.
The only caveat here is that we must always be careful when yielding to presumed "necessity". That defense of animal misuse has been used in just about every area where misuse occurs, and while it sometimes is factual - as it may sadly be for your group - it often is not and only tries to cover for exploitation. When asked, you might simply say that you are no-kill with this one exception. ("Full service" people might respond that they too are no-kill with only exceptions 1,2, ... But that would be disingenuous.)
What about when you have breed specific legislation that prevents you from adopting breeds?
Question from Karen:
Our community has breed specific legislation banning adopting out "vicious" dogs, which are pitbulls and pitbull mixes. When people surrender pitbulls to our shelter how can we not euthanize them when we aren't allowed to place them? We are totally opposed to this legislation but are not sure if we could get it overturned.Response from Craig:
Since vicious and pitbull do not necessarily describe the same dog which is it that your community bans? If it doesn't specify pitbulls it would seem that they would be evaluated just as any other dog. If they are specified (as it sounds like they might be), what are the chances of moving the dogs to a more friendly area where the adoptable ones can be placed and the others, we can hope, might find a sanctuary that could take care for them. It is a terrible injustice to these dogs to assume they must be vicious and categorically kill them based only on their breed, so it is important to work for regulatory change.This same injustice, by the way, is happening to so-called wolf dogs, who often are categorized simply by appearance and then put down. It seems to me that in all these troubling situations our obligation is to find a way to circumvent unjust rules and work to find good placements for any animals not suffering and therefore needing euthanasia. Still, those of you "on the lines" working to protect seemingly countless numbers of animals have to make some hard choices based sometimes on available resources of time, energy, and placements.
What does no-kill mean?
Question from a member:
This may seem like a simple question but one I'm not sure I fully understand yet. What exactly does no-kill mean? I thought no-kill meant that you didn't kill animals but there is a no-kill shelter near me that does euthanize animals that have treatable diseases like heartworm or broken bones. It seems different people have different ideas.Response from Craig:
We would need a better historian of animal protection than I am to know when and where the term "no-kill" was first used. I assume it arose to differentiate groups who didn't kill adoptable animals, but who recognized the necessity of occasional euthanasia for suffering animals who couldn't be adequately treated. I believe that this would be the only acceptable definition today, which means that the term isn't literally true since active euthanasia means killing (although killing doesn't necessarily mean euthanasia, even in shelters).I have felt for a long time that we need a better term but have never heard one or been able to come up with one. If a group chooses to use it they need to do so responsibly, which means defining what they mean by it. Certainly the situation you describe doesn't to me sound like one appropriately called no-kill. The term also ought not be used judgmentally or as a bludgeon to beat up on traditionalists. Alliances for animals are more important than scoring points or better-than-thou type behavior.
Member comments
Comment from a member:
I am an animal control officer in a small rural town. We have a humane society, and many small rescue groups. We get along well, because we communicate, and we never forget to put the animals first. I have read your book Disposable Animals, and it was inspiring. Daily, I read these questions about this no-kill vs. that one, or this animal control won't work with this rescue group. I realize that everyone is trying to figure out the answers to the animal overpopulation problems WE ARE ALL FACING; but we all seem to spend so much time blaming each other, and arguing with each other's policies, etc. In 3 years, I personally have impounded 2700 animals from our small county. I have adopted some, transferred many to other shelters, rescue groups, found foster homes for some, and unfortunately, euthanized some.There is not a single Rescue group, shelter, or foster home today, that is not full, or stressed to the max, that is not trying personally to save each and every life. WE CANNOT ADOPT; FOSTER; STOCKPILE; RESCUE; HOARD; our way out of the animal overpopulation crisis that we face. We seem to have forgotten that everyone in any of these agencies, whether rescue, shelter, animal control, foster, etc, has always done this to try to help the animals. We have completely confused the public. They no longer know who to believe, who to trust, whom to give their dollars to.
If we would all put our hearts, minds, souls, and resources together, and deal with the ONLY WAY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, which is spaying and neutering, we could make a difference. As long as we are fighting with each other, being open admission, limited admission, no-kill, or public safety animal control, or whatever, and we are more concerned about which group is doing the right thing, we are only hurting the animals and wasting time and precious resources. For every minute spent arguing and name calling, we could be raising funds, and going to our government officials, and pressuring them to promote and allocate monies for low-cost spay/neuter programs.
In our area, when all the name calling, and he's right, she's wrong crap ended- and we finally started thinking straight-and we focused on the ONLY SOLUTION things started happening. We are now able to pool our resources, and help people get their animals fixed. The problem is not going to end today or tomorrow and we realize that. But we respect each other, and however each individual group is designed to work, and we all now work together with that glorious time in mind, when it will be a better world for all of us, and especially the animals.
I don't know if that ended up being a question, or a lecture- but how would you respond to this? Thank you.
Comment from Jeanne:
Referring to Craig's comment: "The animals don't have the time for us to enjoy the luxury of battling each other rather than battling the problems." BRILLIANT words... one of my peeves is the time some of the locals spend talking about what needs to be done and fighting over it... GET UP AND DO SOMETHING!!!! I know only too well that our problems cannot be solved in a day, week, month, or year - BUT if everyone pitched in and did their part FOR the animals, and not their power trip, we would be way ahead of where we are now... AGREE to DISAGREE and SAVE THE ANIMALS!Comments from Craig:
I certainly am with you both on this - let's all agree to disagree and get on with the work. Every individual and organization is obliged to look into himself/itself and outward at the world and choose ethically and spiritually the path and the practices that fit them best. Once they do that their message is usually best expressed through actions. On the fundamentals surely we all agree - save lives, alleviate suffering, s/n, adopt.There's more than enough work to do on these so we can save the debates for after hours, so to speak, when we would do well to occasionally gather together and respectfully share views, rationales, differences, frustrations, and so forth. Compassion does not apply only toward dogs and cats - save a little for each other. Every creature will benefit.
Any tips for the success of the humane movement?
Question from a member:
Your bio said you are working on a book about non-profit management. I realize it's difficult to distil down the concepts from a whole book to a short posting, but can you offer a few tips, things you see as key to the success of the humane movement?Response from Craig:
Actually the book is about something else, but I sometimes do workshops and consulting on nonprofit management and fundraising. My central suggestion to humane organizations, particularly the small grassroots groups for whom I have the deepest respect, is that they remember that simply wanting to do the right thing for animals - laudable as that is - is not enough.They must take equally seriously the importance of building stable organizations, which means developing competent, independent boards, planning for organizational development and reliable fundraising practices that will support their work for the long haul, building good community relationships, becoming a credible, professional presence so that their voice for animals cannot be sloughed off as coming from people not to be taken seriously, learning to work collaboratively with other animal protection and social change organizations, and so forth. I see too many groups that are so involved in saving animals that they don't tend to these matters and end up falling apart or losing effectiveness. As has been said, animal protection is more like a marathon than a sprint so we must build for the long term. Fortunately, I think more and more people are recognizing the importance of this and their organizations get stronger because of it.
