No Kill: Right Movement, Wrong Words

Here’s my problem with the No Kill movement: the rhetoric makes it impossible for the movement to succeed.

It starts with the name. By calling it “no kill,” other shelters have been left with the label “kill,” giving the impression -- which is often used as fuel for the “no kill” argument -- that those organizations and everyone in them exists just to see how many animals they can murder. While there are a few examples this that I’d agree with (such as Toledo’s Tom Skeldon), the vast majority of shelter workers are compassionate people stressed out by the enormity of what they face on a daily basis. Meanwhile, there are also no-kill shelters that fall off the edge of the norm and hoard animals.

There’s a lot of blame flying around the “no kill” debate. It’s no better to blame shelters and animal control for euthanasia rates than it is to blame nebulous entities like “the public” for the overpopulation problem. How are they supposed to change without support? What are they supposed to do with the daily influx of animals while the community that should be helping is so busy deciding who’s at fault?

I can tell you from experience that the vast majority of “kill” shelters would love nothing more than to end euthanasia, but from where they’re standing, with barely enough staff and money to keep things running, it’s hard to see how the “no kill” concept can be pulled off. The programs that are necessary to reduce euthanasia require resources, and cooperation within the animal welfare community, which simply isn’t there. It doesn’t help to demonize people who are doing the best they can with what they have. Placing blame on shelter employees only alienates the movement’s greatest potential allies.

Then there are the laws. Whenever there’s a new policy, such as the recently passed bans on declawing cats, there are “no kill” advocates who protest that it’s impeding progress. They assume that people who would have previously chosen to allow claws in their homes will no longer own cats at all, instead of learning about training and non-surgical methods for keeping destruction to a minimum. Is the point of this movement to keep animals alive or look out for their welfare? (Hint: Option B includes ending unnecessary euthanasia.) The “no kill” movement requires a lot of public education to succeed. There needs to be spay/neuter outreach, behavior and health awareness, dispelling myths about animal adoption. Is there a lack of faith in the general public’s ability to learn more? Why can’t we teach what’s best for animals, not just the bare minimum needed to get animals into homes?

I love the concepts that underlie this movement. I agree wholeheartedly with finding a way to stop unnecessary euthanasia and I think that the multi-pronged solution of keeping animals in homes, spaying and neutering, building networks of foster homes, providing vet care and training to shelter animals, increasing education and outreach, and getting the entire community involved can work. But it won’t work as long as people keep pointing fingers and using divisive language, instead of figuring out how to come together to make it happen. It takes a village to save a village.

Photo credit: superfem