The Washington Times-Herald

Community News Network

May 19, 2014

Are no-kill shelters good for cats and dogs?

NEW YORK — New York City developed a grisly solution to its stray dog problem in the 1870s: It locked dozens of dogs at a time inside an enormous iron cage and submerged them in the East River. Capture, drown, and repeat, until the population was under control. No one objected. Stray dogs were dangerous and spread disease. The idea of a "no-kill" shelter - a place to house every single stray until it was adopted or died naturally - would have been incomprehensible. Today, 70 percent of American pet owners believe unwanted dogs, unless they are incurably ill or irredeemably aggressive, should be cared for indefinitely.

This reversal in public opinion seems like a major success for animals, but it's not that simple. The no-kill shelter movement splits the animal rights community. Advocates believe it is an important step toward recognizing the moral status of nonhuman animals. Critics, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, say that no-kill shelters are a façade for profiteers who turn away the vast majority of homeless animals and keep the rest in dismal conditions. If you care about animal welfare, the dispute is ludicrously thorny.

In some ways, the history of animal shelters in the United States is embarrassing. Animal control was little more than a hostage-taking operation when the country was young. Pounds held wandering animals for ransom from their owners. Unclaimed cows and pigs went to the highest bidder. Since dogs had little economic value, the pound-master typically executed them using whatever means he found convenient. As the stray dog population expanded, so did the executioner's imagination.

Mass canine drownings and other horrors prompted societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals to open their own shelters, beginning with Philadelphia's City Refuge for Lost and Suffering Animals in 1874. They favored adoption, but they were perfectly willing to put down unwanted strays en masse. The gas chambers at 19th-century animal shelters eventually killed even more efficiently than New York's iron cage.

The animal shelter situation has historically been a bit chaotic. There are municipal shelters, typically funded by taxpayers; shelters run by humane societies, usually funded by donors; and quite a few independent ones that are started by people with big backyards or space in their basements. Until recently, almost all of them would kill to make room for newer and more adoptable animals. In the late 1980s, activist Ed Duvin wrote the essay "In the Name of Mercy," making no-kill an ideal for animal lovers. Some shelters have jumped on the bandwagon. Most, however - including many of the municipal shelters that are obliged by law to accept all animals - continue to euthanize 50 percent or more of the animals they take in. There are few guidelines governing when and whether to kill. It is typically a decision made on a case-by-case basis by veterinarians and shelter managers.

No-kill is an appealing idea. But before condemning U.S. shelter managers as barbarians, look at a country like India, which prohibits the killing of unwanted dogs. The country's 25 million stray dogs live in deplorable conditions - emaciated, diseased, surviving on trash, and in constant conflict with humans. The country suffers 20,000 human deaths from rabies annually, which represents more than 35 percent of the global total. Contrast this with the situation in the United States. Stray dogs are incredibly rare, and one or two Americans die annually from rabies, invariably transmitted by a wild animal.

The debate between no-kill advocates and traditionalists comes down to this question: What kind of life can we give animals that are surrendered to shelters? And would that life be better than a quick death?

Nathan Winograd, director of the No Kill Advocacy Center, believes we can provide a good home to every shelter animal. Approximately 4 million cats and dogs are euthanized in shelters each year. One million of those animals - including feral cats, terminally ill animals, and vicious dogs - are unadoptable. That leaves 3 million animals in need of good homes. Based on a variety of polling data, Winograd estimates that between 9 million and 23 million families look for a new pet each year. Since three-quarters of them have not decided where to get their new companion animal, no-kill advocates would have to convince just half of undecideds, and possibly significantly fewer, to adopt from a shelter rather than buy from a breeder or pet store. That goal is achievable, according to no-kill advocates, if we simply improve shelter management.

"Most of the people running animal shelters have the creativity and imagination of rocks," says Gary Francione, a law professor at Rutgers University and co-author of the book "Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals."

Winograd says cities like Reno, Nevada, prove that no-kill sheltering is possible. When the two largest shelters went no-kill, they launched a marketing effort to increase adoption rates. Local veterinarians and other businesses offered incentives to adopters. Foster homes cared for animals waiting for permanent families. The shelters' volunteer staff increased 40-fold. Private donations expanded and euthanasia costs dropped, so the changes cost the local government nothing. The kill rate at shelters dipped below 10 percent, approximately one-fifth the national average.

These statistics don't impress PETA. "Animals aren't numbers," says Daphna Nachminovitch, the group's senior vice president of cruelty investigations. "Adoption can be bad - far worse then euthanasia."

PETA says that cities like Reno aren't doing as well as Winograd claims. Nachminovitch points out that since Reno went no-kill, the intake rate at county shelters has steadily increased. That means their outreach efforts are failing to control unintended breeding, and some of the adopted animals are bouncing back to the shelters. There are currently several Reno-area posters on Craigslist looking to offload animals adopted from the local shelter.

The tactics used by no-kill advocates, such as no-cost adoptions, may be partially responsible for this boomerang effect. "Caring for an animal costs money, and the adoption fee, even a nominal one, is a symbol of their commitment," says Nachminovitch. "Giving cats and dogs away leads to impulse adoptions and puts animals in the hands of people with bad intentions."

PETA investigations also reveal that a large number of no-kill shelters fail to move their animals into homes. This creates a logjam. The organization has posted video of dozens of no-kill shelters turning away sick and injured animals because of months-long waiting lists. Some charge $100 for admission, even though owners often surrender animals because they can't afford to care for them. These organizations can only call themselves no-kill, PETA says, because they have the luxury of sending overflow animals to other shelters with the gumption to make tough decisions or the legal obligation to take all comers.

The conditions in some no-kill shelters are awful. "If you don't euthanize animals due to over crowding, they get into fights," says Nachminovitch. "They injure each other. They kill each other. They spin around and throw themselves against the cage. They stop eating. They get sick, and they eventually die. This is the reality."

There is such animosity between the no-kill movement and PETA because both sides are so passionate about this issue. No-kill advocates accuse PETA of taking a 19th-century view of animal rights. Francione writes that early animal rights advocates like Jeremy Bentham focused solely on suffering, not on the animal's inherent right to life. In his view, PETA's willingness to kill to alleviate overcrowding perpetuates that idea.

PETA characterizes no-kill advocates as detached from the reality of shelter management. "These people aren't in the trenches, they're on Facebook," says Nachminovitch. "They believe that anyone who is compassionate and loves animals can run a shelter, but bad management leads to hoarding, bad adoptions, and cage deaths."

Behind the vitriol, the two sides agree on many things. Shelters should have partnerships with rescue groups and veterinarians. They should be staffed with caring volunteers who look for good homes, not just any home. They should offer animals exercise and attention. They should actively push spay and neuter programs. If you're looking for a shelter to support, these are the things you should care about. They are what make the difference between a good shelter and a bad shelter. You may be able to avoid the difficult philosophical question of whether euthanizing shelter animals is humane.

No-kill is a truly admirable goal, but it only works when a community is willing to back it with time and money, and to open their homes to unwanted animals. If that doesn't happen, no-kill can become a very dangerous slogan. If a shelter can't guarantee a good home to an animal, is it right to keep it alive in a cage, or bouncing back and forth between the shelter and a bad home? Or is it better to give the animal a quick death? I suppose only a dog could answer that question.

 

1
Text Only
Community News Network
  • cleaning supplies Don't judge mothers with messy homes

    I was building shelves in my garage when a neighbor girl, one of my 4-year-old daughter's friends, approached me and said, "I just saw in your house. It's pretty dirty. Norah's mommy needs to clean more."

    July 25, 2014 1 Photo

  • taylor.armerding.jpg Inequality crisis shot with factual problems, hypocrisy

    President Obama, various media and political liberals say inequality, of all things, is the defining issue of our times. Yet this message is delivered by multimillionaires and a president who jets from tee time to stump speech on the taxpayer's dime.
     

    July 25, 2014 1 Photo

  • How spy agencies keep their 'toys' from law enforcement

    A little over a decade ago, federal prosecutors used keystroke logging software to steal the encryption password of an alleged New Jersey mobster, Nicodemo Scarfo Jr., so they could get evidence from his computer to be used at his trial.

    July 25, 2014

  • Russia's war on McDonald's takes aim at the Filet-o-Fish

    Russia said earlier this week that it had no intention of answering Western sanctions by making it harder for Western companies to conduct business in Russia.
    But all bets are off, apparently, when you threaten the Russian waistline.

    July 25, 2014

  • Has the iPad lost its swag?

    July 24, 2014

  • Facebook continues moneymaking trend

    Facebook seems to have figured out - for now at least - the holy grail for all media right now: how to make money selling mobile ads.

    July 24, 2014

  • Lindley, Tom.jpg Better police needed for college teams enticed to cheat

    The NCAA once cracked down on colleges that went too far luring top prospects, then it targeted teams that lathered players with special treatment. That was until the NCAA's get-tough approach backfired, rendering it ineffective and creating an opportunity for those who want to play dirty.

    July 24, 2014 1 Photo

  • Police Brutality screen shot. Technology plays key part in battling police brutality (VIDEO)

    Allegations of police brutality are nothing new -- as long as there has been law enforcement, citizens have registered claims that some officers cross the line. But in the last few years, the claims of excessive force are being corroborated with new technology from cell phone cameras, police dash-cams and surveillance videos. 

    July 24, 2014 1 Photo

  • Arizona's prolonged lethal injection is fourth in U.S. this year

    Arizona's execution of double-murderer Joseph Wood marked the fourth time this year that a state failed to dispatch a convict efficiently, according to the Constitution Project, a bipartisan legal group.3

    July 24, 2014

  • Almost half of America's obese youth don't know they're obese

    The good news is that after decades of furious growth, obesity rates finally seem to be leveling off in the U.S.. The bad news is that America's youth still appear to be dangerously unaware of the problem.

    July 23, 2014