No-kill shelter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or section may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.

A no-kill shelter is most widely defined as an animal shelter where all adoptable and treatable animals are kept alive and where only unadoptable or non-rehabilitatable animals are euthanized.^[1]

The California Law, SB 1785 Statutes of 1998, also known as "The Hayden Law", defines the terms as follow:

Adoptable animals include only those animals eight weeks of age or older that, at or subsequent to the time the animal is impounded or otherwise taken into possession, have manifested no sign of a behavioral or temperamental defect that could pose a health or safety risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and have manifested no sign of disease, injury, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the animal or that is likely to adversely affect the animal's health in the future.

Adoptable dogs may be old, deaf, blind, disfigured or disabled

A treatable animal shall include any animal that is not adoptable but that could become adoptable with reasonable efforts." Sick, traumatized, infant or unsocialized dogs need appropriate medical treatment, behavior modification and/or foster care to turn them into healthy animals ready for placement.

"Unadoptable" or "non-rehabilitatable" means animals that are neither adoptable or treatable. By way of exclusion, SB1785 defines "unadoptable":

1) Animals eight weeks of age or younger at or subsequent to the time the animal is impounded; 2) Animals that have manifested signs of a behavioral or temperamental defect; 3) Those that could pose a health or safety risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet and 4) Animals that have manifested signs of disease, injury, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the animal or that is likely to adversely affect the animal's health in the future.

Approximately three to four million pets are killed yearly in shelters across the United States.^[2] The no-kill movement is trying to end this killing by increasing the demand for shelter dogs and cats and reducing the supply. The no-kill movement hopes to reduce the number of animals born and thus the number of animals which end up in shelters through increased spay/neuter, including low-cost/free help for low-income people. Coupled with increasing the number of adoptions through various techniques the no-kill movement hopes to ultimately end the killing of homeless pets.

The No-Kill Movement received a financial boost with the establishment of the $250 million Maddies Fund. A number of communities in the United States have significantly increased their live-release rate and gotten closer to their no-kill goals with the help of Maddies.^[3]

The No-Kill Movement has also been promoted with the No-Kill Declaration.^[4] It has been signed by over 10,000 groups and individuals.

Contents 1 Techniques used 2 Notable No-Kill Shelters and No-Kill Communities 3 Criticism 3.1 Divisive labeling 3.2 Limited admission 3.3 Shelter conditions 3.4 Overpopulation issue 3.5 Failed attempts 4 References 5 External links

[edit] Techniques used

To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup because it is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this section to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (February 2008)

• Low cost/high volume spay/neuter programs
• Using Trap-Neuter-Return(TNR) to control feral cat populations
• Working with local or national breed rescue groups to better target potential adopters with specific breeds in mind
• Increasing the use of volunteers to assist shelter operations, socialize animals, promote adoption and act as foster care workers
• Extending operation hours to evenings and weekends to accommodate potential adopters
• Showing of adoptable animals at offsite venues, including Petsmart and Petco to increase outreach
• Use of adoption friendly/cageless shelters
• Partnering with veterinarians, veterinary colleges for medical support and local businesses for funding and sponsorship.
• discouraging owners from surrendering their animals by evaluating their reasons for abandonment and offering ways to remedy the situations, and through programs, fees and fines.

[edit] Notable No-Kill Shelters and No-Kill Communities

In 1994, the City of San Francisco popularized the trend towards "No-kill" shelters. The San Francisco SPCA, led by President Richard Avanzino who would later become the President of Maddie's Fund, along with the San Francisco Department of Animal Care and Control guaranteed a home to every "adoptable" dog and cat who entered the shelter system.^[5]. Since then the city of San Francisco (the SPCA along with the Department of Animal Care and Control) has consistently been able to keep San Francisco as a no-kill city. In 2007, the live release rate of all dogs and cats in the city of San Francisco was 82%.^[6]

In 2001, Tompkins County, New York transitioned over a two-year period to a no-kill community.^[7] The Tompkins SPCA, an open-admission shelter and animal control facility for Tompkins county, was instrumental in achieving this goal. Tompkins SPCA was able to achieve a live release rate of over 90% every year since then. Tompkins SPCA was able to achieve this while going from having a budget deficit to a budget surplus and was even able to raise millions of dollars to build a new cageless no-kill shelter^[8].^{[citation needed]} In 2006, 145 (6% of a total intake of 2353) dogs and cats classified as unhealthy or untreatable were euthanised.^[9] In comparison, the national average rate of euthanasia in 2005 was 56%.^[10]

In 1998, California passed three pieces of legislation directed to reduce animal suffering at shelters in California: the Vincent Law, the Kopp Law and the Hayden Law.^[11] The Hayden Law was enacted to help reduce the killing of animals in shelters and as a result many California communities have made significant progress in increasing their live-release rates and no-kill goals^{[citation needed]}

The Best Friends Animal Sanctuary in Kanab, Utah is a no-kill animal sanctuary providing homes for thousands of homeless pets. With financial help from Maddies totaling over $9 million spread over five years, they led a coalition of rescue groups called "No More Homeless Pets in Utah". The goal of the coalition was to move the state of Utah closer to a no kill community. In the period from 1999-2006, the organization reported that statewide adoption rate increased 39% while euthanasia rate droped 30%.^[12]

The Hermitage Cat Shelter in Tucson, Arizona is a no-kill cageless cat shelter housing about 400 cats.^[13]

In 1994 the city of Mumbai, India set an agreement to handle dog control on a no-kill basis .^[14] In 1998, the Indian government announced the goal of the whole country to become no-kill by 2005. At that time, cities such as Delhi, Chennai and Jaipur had already adopted no-kill.^{[15][update needed]}

Italy outlawed the euthanasia of healthy companion animals since 1991^[16] and controls stray populations through trap, neuter and return programs. A compilation of 10 years worth of data on feral cat colonies in Rome has shown that although TNR decreased the cat population, pet abandonment was a significant problem.^[17]

In spite in Portugal euthanasia is admitted and practiced by public-owned kennels, several different associations devote to active sheltering of strays. Among those, Patas Errantes, a non-profit private organization stands as practicing a policy of taking dogs off the street, vaccinating and sterilizing those, physically recovering them in their shelter, and, according to their nature, either putting them back on the streets again (where they will be unable to reproduce) or finding them new owners. Patas Errantes exists since 2006 and does not receive any state subsidy. Liga Portuguesa dos Direitos do Animal, a public utility state-recognized organization founded in 1981 is also quite active in animal sterilization and fights for a no-kill evolution. Sintra town kennel is noted for having ceased euthanasia practices in their town kennel.

[edit] Criticism

[edit] Divisive labeling

Although proponents of no-kill make the distinction between euthanasia and killing, some still find the term "no-kill" misleading. The term has also caused divide in the animal welfare community beyond ideological differences as it inadvertently implies other shelters to be "kill" shelters,^[18] an accusation that cast a bad light on traditional shelters.^[19] Professor of Sociology and Anthropology Arnold Arluke has stated that "The no-kill perspective has damaged the community that long existed among shelter workers, changing how they think and feel about each other. The vast majority of shelter workers suddenly are thought of as cruel; five million deaths each year are seen as avoidable rather than inevitable, as previously thought. The no-kill idea created culpability within the shelter world; open-admissionists became the guilty party."^[19]

Since its conversion to no-kill, the San Francisco SPCA has moved away from the use of the term stating that no-kill "misrepresents the reality that some of the animals in our care with serious medical and behavior problems are euthanized."^[20]

[edit] Limited admission

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a strong critic of no-kill, refers to no-kill shelters as “limited admission shelters” and claims that most no-kill shelters turn away animals if the facilities are full. They contend that this results in owners abandoning or harming unwanted animals, or simply shifts the burden to nearby traditional shelters.^[21]. No-Kill advocates counter that open admission shelters may actually lead to a great deal of abandonment because a lot of people turn their animals loose rather than give them up to a shelter where they may be killed.^[22][23].

On August 28, 2007, WTVH-TV reported that "The Tompkins County SPCA has too many animals to handle." They noted that the shelter had to close for several days and that appointments must be made to surrender animals.^[24]

Collinsville and Jenks, Oklahoma operate no-kill shelters, but routinely send unwanted animals to Tulsa for euthanasia. According to Jenks operations superintendent Gary Head, the city "wants nothing to do with killing dogs....It keeps us low-key and out of the public's eye. We don't have a bad reputation here." Tulsa only charges $1 per animal for euthanasia and accepts about 4000 animals per year from surrounding communities for euthanasia.^[25]

[edit] Shelter conditions

In July 2006 PETA conducted an undercover investigation at All Creatures Great and Small, a no-kill shelter in Hendersonville, North Carolina and published graphic photos and video of alleged abuse and neglect.^[26] In October 2007, veterinarians from the N.C. Department of Agriculture investigated the shelter after charges of animal neglect. According to media reports, "the no-kill shelter has failed numerous health and safety inspections."^[27] In December 2007, the state entered into a consent order requiring All Creatures to “work diligently to improve conditions at the Hendersonville no-kill shelter… to release 350 animals to a state-designated animal rescue organization to relieve crowding” and not to admit any new animals for two months.^[28] While no-kill advocates accepts that there are some poorly run no-kill shelters, they consider them exceptions to the norm.^[29] They also contend that there are significantly more traditional shelters that are poorly run and that the vast majority of traditional shelters in the country operate under abysmal conditions^[30]

There is also the concern that animals who are not adopted from some no-kill shelters are confined for long periods of time in cages^{[citation needed]}, however some no-kill shelters are moving towards cageless sheltering with an emphasis towards keeping the animals comfortable^[31][32] allowing animals to live for an indefinite period of time. An example is the hermitage cat shelter in Tucson, Arizona which claims that "The shelter currently provides care for 400 cats and kittens in a clean and comfortable environment. Our facility comprises approximately 4,000 square feet indoors, with an additional 4,000 square feet of entirely fenced-in, covered outdoor areas. This allows our free-roaming felines access to fresh air and sunlight without the dangers an outside cat faces".^[13]

[edit] Overpopulation issue

Nathan Winograd of the No Kill Advocacy Center has stated that there is no real pet overpopulation problem and that there are more than enough homes for every dog and cat being killed in shelters every year. He claims that based on data from the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, the Pet Food Manufacturers Association, and the latest census that "there aren't just enough homes for the dogs and cats being killed in shelters. There are more homes for cats and dogs opening each year than there are cats and dogs even entering shelters."^[33]. Critics argue that such claims do a disservice to population control efforts by causing some pet owners to refuse spaying and neutering recommendations.^[34] They also point out that such calculations does not take into account the hundreds of thousands of animals sold by breeders and pet stores.^[35]

While some animal welfare advocates calls for mandatory spay/neuter legislation to curb the overpopulation problem, Winograd and others in the no-kill movement, have consistently opposed it, claiming that such mandatory legislation is ineffective and counterproductive.^[36]. They feel that better results are achieved by collaboratively working with legitimate breeders and providing low-cost spay/neuter options to low-income people.

[edit] Failed attempts

In 2008, a humane society in Tacoma, Washington backed away from its no-kill commitment, acknowledging the difficulties encountered in trying to keep animals alive.^{[37][dead link]}

The same year, Winograd withdrew his support from the no-kill efforts of the Philadelphia organization Philly PAWS, which runs the Philadelphia Animal Care & Control Association, claiming mismanagement and complacency. He had been hired in 2005 to review the organization and recommend changes to the clinic.^[38]

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• No Kill Advocacy Center Advocacy web site
• No Kill NOW Advocacy web site
• Going No-Kill Nathan Winograd statement on how Tompkins SPCA became no-kill over a two year period
• Answer to the difficult euthanasia question Louisiana SPCA's explanation of why they are not a "no-kill" shelter
• The No-Kill Controversy: Manifest and Latent Sources of Tension (view as HTML) by Arnold Arluke, from The State of the Animals II: 2003 ISBN 0-9658942-7-4