“No-kill” shelters still kill plenty of animals. Generally they euthanize the ones that they determine are not viable candidates for adoption.
I’m not criticizing Madrid’s policy (not even sure exactly what it is), or the actions of “no-kill” shelters (because I think that euthanizing un-adoptable animals may be the only realistic solution), just pointing out that “no-kill” is an inaccurate term.
I actually assume there is more dissonance in buying meat from the grocery store without having to care or see or think about where it comes from. If you’re eating the bullfight kill, you’re at least owning up on some level to what is happening and what you’re doing.
None of the no-kill shelters I’ve been involved with have ever euthanized any animal. They have sometimes had to turn away animals because the shelter was full, and that’s always difficult. But if you over-fill the shelter, the state intervenes and shuts down the operation, and then lots of animals get killed.
Granted, my experience is limited, but I think you should provide some kind of evidence or explanation if you’re going to make public accusations of fraud against animal shelters.
Nice strawman. I’m not accusing anyone of fraud. “No kill” is interpreted differently among various shelters.
I’m wondering if you haven’t seen this because your experience is limited to California, or perhaps another state where there is legislation addressing shelter practices.
Strawman? You made a totally unequivocal statement and I asked you to support it.
You’ve still provided absolutely nothing that supports your claim. Your Wikipedia cites certainly don’t.
BTW, I am 3000 miles from California. The shelters and animal workers I’ve been known are in Delaware, Maryland and North Carolina. And while I personally have no objections to euthanasia, I’ve been in close contact with people who are dead set against it, I find it very unlikely that they are secretly killing animals while claiming not to. That’s not the particular kind of nut I find in that particular bag.
When the sign says “Humane society” or “Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals” it might very well euthanize animals. But when it says “NO KILL SHELTER”, it’s generally understood that it’s staffed and run by people who are fundamentally not willing to euthanize. If one person tried to do it, the rest of the staff would probably beat them senseless. Again, in my limited experience, of course.
The links I’ve provided contain plenty of evidence that there is controversy surrounding the use of the term “no kill” by animal shelters, and even legislation enacted to regulate the use of the term, because shelters vary in their interpretations of of what constitutes a sick, vicious, or “adoptable” dog.
If you want even more evidence, there’s a good article cited in the first WIkipedia article I posted, here: http://www.nokillnow.com/definition_nokill.htm , about how “no kill” is variously interpreted, and that shelters kill animals if they are sick, vicious, or “unadoptable”, and that the latter is the term that most needs to be regulated.
I don’t know what you mean about a “sign” that says “NO KILL SHELTER”.
I mean, that I’ve been in shelters that were no-kill, and they did not kill animals. They had signs that said they were no-kill shelters, and they didn’t kill animals. They don’t really have the facilities to kill animals secretly, and their staff would not allow it to happen, because they are committed to not killing animals. Most of them are volunteers and they often take so-called “unadoptable” animals into their own homes. (I have a three-legged cat and another cat with an incurable respiratory disease myself.)
Seriously, I’m not trying to bust your chops, but you aren’t supporting your original statement.
Reading your links, though, I’m convinced something deeply weird is going on in California. Apparently shelters that most definitely do kill animals are trying to redefine the word “no” to mean “sometimes, well, perhaps quite often”? Am I getting that right?
Again, I have no problem with euthanasia, in fact I am of the “man kills his own dog” type, which many people find reprehensible. But around here, there’s no special unusual meaning to no kill, it literally means no killing.
I’ve been told, with absolutely nothing to back it up, that while some no kill shelters don’t kill, they regularly -do- ship out unadoptable animals to shelters that do. So, while technically they’re no kill, dropping a dog or cat off there is no guarantee it won’t just be shipped to another facility and euthanized. I’d love to know if this is in fact, true for some, or most, no kill places.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
