Please Stop Saying “Kill Shelter”
Seen on my local Nextdoor page: “Is this your dog? If so, contact me ASAP. I do not want to take her to the kill shelter in town.”
Overheard in Petco: “Yes, we got her from a kill shelter in Stockton…”
Said directly to me in response to hearing that I am fostering a mama dog and her five puppies from my local shelter, “Thank you so much for saving their lives! That’s a kill shelter, isn’t it?”
Every time I see or hear this phrase, I want to SCREAM.
Dogs and cats who either lack a home, or are unsuited for or unsafe in any home, are put to death – humanely euthanized – in many shelters in this country. It’s society’s burden, with many factors responsible for the necessity to euthanize animals that no one wants and no one wants to pay for – but it’s not the fault of the shelters that bear the awful responsibility of that act.
Every shelter or rescue group that cares for and finds homes for animals plays a role in helping reduce the country’s overall euthanasia rate – but do not for a moment give praise – or financial contributions – only to the ones that are able to pick and choose how many and what animals they care for and thus do not have to euthanize animals themselves. Because it’s not like the shelters that must do it want to. Someone has to; that’s a sad, hard fact. The shelters and rescue groups that don’t euthanize are able to avoid this task because there are other ones that can’t avoid it.
Pat Miller wrote a great article for WDJ years ago, explaining the differences between the types of shelters. Briefly, to recap, some shelters limit the number and type of animals that they take in; others have contracts that require them to deal with as many animals (and some unadoptable animals) as wash up on their shores, via owner surrender (or animals supposedly “found” by members of the public), law-enforcement seizures, and animal control pickup of stray or dangerous animals. It should be obvious, but few people seem to be aware that a “limited admission” shelter that takes in only a small number of animals, and only when they want to, should not be singled out for praise (and charitable contributions) for not killing any of the few animals they take in, when the municipal shelter in the same community is contractually required to take in exponentially more animals daily – and often on a budget that would choke the limited-admission shelter to death.
For example: I just looked up the numbers for 2020, the last year for which comparable numbers were available for a limited admission shelter and the municipal shelter in the same city near me. The limited-admission shelter, built and run by a nonprofit, took in 184 dogs in 2020, and euthanized just two. Awesome. In the same year, the city shelter took in 606 dogs and euthanized just 38. Considering their budgets were likely comparable – the nonprofit, limited-admission shelter being popular in the community and garnering many donations on the strength of its “no-kill” status – I’d be more inclined to celebrate the municipal shelter for its ability to save as many dogs as they did!
I’m not suggesting we celebrate euthanasia. I am incredibly frustrated with the swelling numbers animals being brought to shelters and desperately wish that there was more money available for all municipal shelters so more animals could be saved. But the responsibility for the deaths of unwanted animals belongs to all of society, and castigating the agencies that must carry out this horrible task is unfair. Especially when the same staff members who must bear the “kill shelter” label work so. damn. hard. to save lives, too.
The post Please Stop Saying “Kill Shelter” appeared first on Whole Dog Journal.
