You have probably heard of shelters and rescues labeled as “kill” or “no-kill” and in this post we’re going to discuss what that really means and why that language is both inaccurate and problematic.
Current Language
In general, when people use the term “kill shelter” they are likely referring to a municipal shelter – that’s your city or county animal shelter that takes in strays and surrenders from the community. The term “no-kill” often refers to private shelters or rescues that operate on private funds and donations. But it’s important to keep in mind that not only is this a generalization, but that all shelters and rescues perform euthanasia for some animals in their care (which could be for things like behavioral or medical reasons) so there really is no true “no-kill” rescue or shelter.
Municipal Shelters
Let’s take a closer look at municipal shelters, which often get a bad reputation for high euthanasia rates. First, we need to recognize that municipal shelters are funded by the local tax base. They cannot take in private dollars or donations and are dependent on what the city or county leaders allocate for their budget, salaries, and other resources. Adoption costs do also provide financial support but compared to the cost of running such a facility they are minimal. Since animal care and control are generally low-priority funding recipients within a community, their budgets are often shoe-string and may barely cover their operational costs. They need to also pay their staff (including a qualified veterinary team for health care of shelter animals and spay-neuter for adoptions) a living wage but this is often at the low end of that spectrum.
Municipal shelters are also mandated to take in every animal brought to them, regardless of whether they have the space or other resources to provide care. This means if the shelter is already full, space has to be made somewhere, and the already overworked and underpaid shelter staff generally have to euthanize an animal which is not something they enjoy or want to do.
The main problem with using the term “kill shelter” is that it villainizes the shelter staff who are forced into this position instead of recognizing the core issues and their causes: municipal shelters are notoriously under-funded, under-staffed, under-resourced, and over-crowded; this occurs in part because shelters are under-valued as a community resource, dogs are being irresponsibly bred in puppy mills and through “backyard breeders”, and there are unfortunate misconceptions about shelter dogs, dog behavior, and community expectations of shelter services.
Private Shelters and Rescues
As the name implies, private shelters and rescues receive their funding from private grants, donations, and other sources. Like municipal shelters, private shelters and rescues also struggle to receive the financial support they need and face many of the same resource and staffing challenges faced by public shelters. Depending on the organization, a private shelter or rescue may take in animals from the community, pull animals from public shelters to open up space, or accept animals from other rescues, disasters, and law enforcement cases.
The main difference is that private shelters are not required to accept all animals that come to them – they can choose which animals go into their care. They can turn away animals that do not meet specific criteria, are not good candidates for adoption, or because they simply don’t have space.
And this is really where the term “no-kill” becomes problematic. These shelters can and do reduce their euthanasia rates because they can limit their intake. This is not to say these organizations are ill-intentioned in doing this; they simply have the benefit of working within their financial and staffing means and can be selective about the animals they accept. And again, it doesn’t mean they never euthanize because there will always be animals that for ethical reasons are candidates for humane euthanasia. But it does mean their staff and organization tend to euthanize less and for different reasons than a public shelter might be facing.
What Language Should We be Using?
Because euthanasia rates are not reflective of the intentions or ethics of the shelter and its staff, we can instead refer to them as what they really are: “open-admission” and “limited-admission.” Open-admission shelters are ones that take in every animal that comes to them and limited-admission shelters and rescues are ones that limit who they accept into their care. This language not only removes the blame from the shelter (which implies one is “bad” and one is “good”) but also removes the focus on euthanasia rates, which in reality are a symptom of much larger problems all shelters face.
Both open- and limited-admission shelters serve a role in their communities. They share an overall mission of humane and ethical animal care, they just do this in different ways. Each provides a needed community service and because of their different structures and admission policies can have different focuses for their resources. Having a variety of options in a community makes it stronger so it’s important to recognize that both types of shelters serve a critical function and one is not better or worse than the other.
What Can you do to Support Shelters?
Shelters of all kinds need your support! Whether it is through financial donations, volunteering your time, fostering an animal in your home, or speaking up at municipal budget meetings, there are ways for everyone to be a voice for animal care in their community.
You can also support your local shelter by adopting! Puppy mills and backyard breeders are rampant and significantly contribute to full shelters and high euthanasia rates. So instead of buying from a pet store, off craigslist, or from someone else you don’t know, visit your local shelter. There are so many incredible dogs waiting for a good home and many sitters, trainers, and veterinarians offer financial support and other resources to help ease the transition from shelter to home for both you and your new friend.
Bean's Best Care 