# No-kill shelters.... a BAD thing?



## bigmutts

I have heard a few things about a no-kill shelter being a bad thing, and that it isnt the best idea.
Is there anyone who would like to share opinion and links on this matter?
I know my local shelter is a no kill shelter. They have a very low adoption rate. They turn down half of the dogs that come in, and they have not taken any more cats in since October.
This shelter is small. It is massively over crowded. Many dogs are kept outside on chains. These dogs are pitbulls and mixes of. Or black lab mixes. Seeing another breed there is pretty rare.
Many of these dogs have been there for over a year, a few residents pushing on 3 years.
to me THAT is why a no kill shelter is in general a bad idea.
of course I dont want dogs to be put down, they all deserve a chance, but what about the ones that were denied admission to the shelter? or the dog aggressive pit mix who has been there for 3 years tied on a chain...? Thats not fair


----------



## Salina

Our local shelter is a no kill shelter (humane society) and they do good. They do a lot though...events, fundraiser stuff, dog training, ...
I follow them on fb and ever week they adopt out AT LEAST 5 cats and 7 dogs dogs, but often more. Last week it were 10 cats and 11 dogs. They are open 7 days a week, from i believe 10-6 and two nights until 8.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest

That is why those specific people who run that no kill shelter are bad. No kill shelters are great. I have not personally dealt with one that isn't full of crap, but it's always the people that suck rather than the idea.


----------



## gingerkid

I am personally in favour of no-kill shelters, but I could see how they don't work in all areas. I live in a relatively dog- and animal friendly area with a strong animal rescue community and large (awesome) shelter with a very large and active volunteer and support base where most of the dogs that come in are what I like to call "farm breed" mixes (mostly shepherd, collie, husky, lab crosses) which are pretty popular in general. The longest time a dog has spent on the adoption floor in our shelter is just over six months. So in our area, No Kill works.

I could see, however, in an area with less animal support, where most abandoned/neglected/stray dogs are of breeds that people already have aversions to... I would not want to be in the position of picking and choosing which dogs get to live when there's no clear reason that they shouldn't get to, but then on the other hand there are probably so many more dogs that could be helped and placed in new furever homes if there was a restriction on er "length of stay", as it were.


----------



## RabbleFox

I am in favor of No-Kill Shelters as long as they keep in mine that they are there to adopt out dogs. If the dog is un-adoptable (mainly for being overly aggressive with people or dog fighting past) then I think they should be humanely euthanized. I believe that being humanely put to sleep would be better than a life out on chain for 3 years. It would be very hard to make the decision of which dog to put down; if the No-Kill rescue truly believes that all the dogs they have at the shelter are adoptable, then the shelter has to accept that it is full. The dogs that are turned away will have to go elsewhere (perhaps to another shelter where they will be adopted or unfortunately to be put down there instead of at this particular shelter).


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest

The term "no kill" is really a misnomer. It doesn't mean they don't euthanize, and usually unfixable aggression and terminal illness. True no kills are sanctuaries, and even they will euthanize if an animal is terminally ill and they can't treat them.


----------



## Candydb

Our no kill shelter cheats-- it sits accross the street from our local animal control that is a kill shelter. So they get the adoptable dogs, and ACC kills the rejects....
Better bet is Best Friends Animal Sanctuary in Utah-- they are no kill, and work extensively with the animals to get them adopted out if at all possible.. It has extensive grounds the dogs that live there permenantly are not chained or locked into tiny kennel runs-- This is what no kill should be, IMHO....
But of course, as TWAB says above, they do euthanize around terminal illness.....


----------



## Alfy

I support no kill shelters. But they are a luxury that is afforded because others do the dirty work. Shelters that euth make no kill shelters possible. Both have their place.


----------



## Bones

It really depends on the community and whether this shelter is municipal or an animal rescue. If the community has adequate animal welfare laws (licenses, etc, enforced fines) then No-Kill could certainly be an option as long as the stray animal population is not overwhelming. Now, in the absence of these laws then no-kill is just not practical. The point of municipal animal shelters is to service the public by picking up stray and unwanted animals that are either a hazard to the public or a nuisance. In areas where you have a large population of stray/abandoned animals it will be nearly impossible to move animals either by adoption or transport and continue to be able to service the community. So if your shelter is municipal/county or at least funded for animal control I will file a complaint with the county commissioner or whatever government agency that has oversight that they are not doing their jobs. Animal rescues on the other hand do not have that limitation and thus can be no-kill as they are not expected to incur the volumes of animals that a government funded shelter would. So in short it really depends on the type of shelter and the community that it resides in.


----------



## DJEtzel

As with any organization, they can fail and be completely unhelpful if there isn't a strong organizational mission behind it with volunteers, fundraising, the dog's best interest in mind, etc. Our local "no-kill" facility doesn't have any money, but they do have a decent organizational backing that is keeping everything together and getting a lot of dogs out of there that would otherwise be euthanized. Our only true no-kill is a sanctuary that does not euthanize for aggression issues, medical issues, etc. and they don't really adopt dogs out, but do take in more and more because they have the money for it, which is nice to give the dogs who would typically be pts by a "no-kill" shelter a chance at a nice life. And I think every dog deserves that.


----------



## RedGermanPinscher

Salina said:


> Our local shelter is a no kill shelter (humane society) and they do good. They do a lot though...events, fundraiser stuff, dog training, ...
> I follow them on fb and ever week they adopt out AT LEAST 5 cats and 7 dogs dogs, but often more. Last week it were 10 cats and 11 dogs. They are open 7 days a week, from i believe 10-6 and two nights until 8.


This is how the shelter I use to work for was, and they were considered a no kill (In the sense that they did not euthanize simply because of lack of space.) They never gave an animal an exact time limit. There were animals there for a number of years before being adopted.. As long as temperment and health remained stable they were safe.. For those that had issues, training options and medical treatment options as well as Foster placement options were exhausted before a decision was made to euthanize... We even had a couple of Cat Sanctuaries on speed dial for those "Feral" cats (you know the ones that did great with other cats and limited human contact.) that came in.... We also were in contact with several breed specific rescues for those dogs that we KNEW were purebred or a prodominant mix of say Shepherd and Husky...


----------



## gingerkid

Candydb said:


> Our no kill shelter cheats-- it sits accross the street from our local animal control that is a kill shelter. So they get the adoptable dogs, and ACC kills the rejects....
> Better bet is Best Friends Animal Sanctuary in Utah-- they are no kill, and work extensively with the animals to get them adopted out if at all possible.. It has extensive grounds the dogs that live there permenantly are not chained or locked into tiny kennel runs-- This is what no kill should be, IMHO....
> But of course, as TWAB says above, they do euthanize around terminal illness.....


The original "No-kill" philosophy actually doesn't state that shelters should NEVER euth. As TWAB said, its is kind of a misleading name.


> The most widely accepted definition of a no-kill shelter is a place where all adoptable and treatable animals are saved and where only unadoptable or non-rehabilitatable animals are euthanized.


. Of course there are always those to home ANY euth, regardless of whether it is humane, means a shelter is a "kill" shelter. I also find it interesting to note that the strongest supporter of "Kill" shelters is PETA.

Our no-kill shelter shares a facility with city AC, and because of local by-laws the shelter can only directly admit animals that were found (or claimed to be found) outside of the city limits. Any animals picked up within city limits and not claimed within the time period that are potentially adoptable (i.e. no extreme medical or behavioral circumstances) are transferred to the shelter. The shelter is has an open admission policy - they will take any dog, cat, goat, rabbit, pony, lemur, or lizard that comes through their doors regardless of species and initial health or behavioral status, as long as they have room for more animals. They never turn animals away, even when full - but if they are "closed" to admissions due to being over capacity, owners who surrender their animals sign a paper for immediate euthanasia - they are given the option to come back at a later date. The shelter only euths admitted animals for things like parvo in very young puppies, distemper in kittens, and sometimes cancer, and extreme aggression (i.e. multiple serious attacks of people or dogs while in the shelter with no evidence of improvement). A lot of "difficult" dogs end up being adopted by staff or volunteers before they ever make it on the adoption floor.

It seems that most people assume that a "no-kill" shelter automatically means it is not "open admission" - or am I missing something?


----------



## elrohwen

My local rescue is a no-kill and has a high adoption rate for most dogs (the dogs with behavioral issues obviously don't go very quickly). We don't have a pet over population issue where I live, so the majority of the dogs are brought up from the south. When choosing dogs to bring up, the rescue folks bring up dogs with good temperaments of a variety of adoptable breeds (ie not pit bulls). It's sad that the pit bulls stay behind, but by bringing up the beagles and the lab mixes they get dogs adopted out quickly that would otherwise be euthed for lack of space.

I don't have any experience with a no kill shelter in an area with an overpopulation problem. I am convinced though, from reading about the successes of individual shelters that have switched to no kill, that it is all a leadership problem, not an inherent problem with the idea.


----------



## Candydb

Let's clarify, what I liked best about Best Friends Animal Sanctuary in Utah, is not only do they work with dogs to get them adopted out-- those deemed UNADOPTABLE are guarunteed a place for life in their generous sized dog spaces with other dogs for socialization (provided the dog is comfortable with other dogs)....


----------



## Willowy

Best Friends is a sanctuary. It's not quite the same thing as a no-kill shelter.


----------



## luv mi pets

Depends on what the No-kill shelter rules and regulations are, The local no-kill shelter states for no kill for adoptable animals. While looking good for the public eye boasting about their no-kill policy would bring dogs down to county shelter to euth. The once adoptable animal would be deemed unadoptable usually due to cage aggression and would be euthed. So the couny shelter would be frowned upon by the general public because sweet poor innocent animals were being euthed out there, while people would donate money to support the no-kill shelter. While the county shelter could turn no animal away and had to except anything that came thru the doors, the no-kill only took what could be easily adopted. Just like any other goverment ran office, the funds are often in the red. This leaves many county shelters understaffed and limited on what can be done for the animals. Life can be so unfair at times.


----------



## wz2p7j

No Kill Shelters are a great thing. The true definition of a No Kill shelter is a shelter that accepts all animals from its service area and does not kill any animals. Euthanasia is reserved for the truest sense of the word, only used for animals that are irremediably ill or vicious. Yes, some shelters pass themselves off as No Kill when they are, in fact, not No Kill.

However, No Kill is sweeping the nation. The entire state of Utah just went No Kill thanks to Best Friends. Delaware should be next - 4 of their 5 counties are No Kill. Currently there are about 160 No Kill communities in the US servicing another 500 communities.

I saw some Michigan posters on this board. I'm from Michigan. Michigan has 10 No Kill counties, recently joined by Genesee to make it 11. We have a manager committed to No Kill installed at Macomb's shelter and think they will be next. There are currently strong advocacy groups in Oakland and Lapeer counties. We have the Michigan Companion Animal Protection Act before Senator Pappageorge and it will soon be introduced into the state legislature.

Move forward and help or be left behind.

Chris

Chris Anderson
Michigan Pet Fund Alliance - Board of Directors
Oakland Pet Advocates - Voting Block Co-Captain-District 7
[email protected]


----------



## Adjecyca1

I don't like no kill shelters at all, no kill rescues where the dog spends most of it's time in a foster home is one thing, i am okay with that. What i am NOT okay with is shelters that have dogs sitting in kennels/cells for years. That is NOT fair to the dog, i worked in kill shelters, and i saw dogs "loose it" after being kenneled for 2 weeks, i couldn't imagine seeing a dog go through that for YEARS


----------



## RabbleFox

Where do the dogs go when the shelter is full? Oakland county (mine) has an awful lot of dogs coming in and there are definitely not kennels for all of them...


----------



## wz2p7j

RabbleFox said:


> Where do the dogs go when the shelter is full? Oakland county (mine) has an awful lot of dogs coming in and there are definitely not kennels for all of them...


First of all, the shelter manager in Oakland is Bob Gatt. He hasn't declared Oakland a No Kill shelter and, frankly, the local rescues are suspicious of him as a result. They would rather pull from shelters like Macomb, where Jeff Randazzo has pretty much proclaimed No Kill.

Rescues that have stepped up to try and help have been told this or that animal cannot be pulled for various reasons.

Lastly, Gatt is a liar. He told a group of rescues at a recent meeting the reason Oakland kills all feral cats is due to Oakland County Health Department policy. So I called Oakland County Health and asked if that's their policy. They said, no, that's the shelter's call and even offered to give me their phone number.

Gatt needs to go, it's as simple as that, for Oakland to truly become No Kill.

Chris


----------



## wz2p7j

Adjecyca1 said:


> I don't like no kill shelters at all, no kill rescues where the dog spends most of it's time in a foster home is one thing, i am okay with that. What i am NOT okay with is shelters that have dogs sitting in kennels/cells for years. That is NOT fair to the dog, i worked in kill shelters, and i saw dogs "loose it" after being kenneled for 2 weeks, i couldn't imagine seeing a dog go through that for YEARS



Dogs shouldn't be in kennels for years or even months. The intent of No Kill is to get animals into foster homes or to rescues ASAP. Progressive shelter practices such as getting dogs into "play groups" with other dogs will do wonders for dogs "losing it." Seen it with my own eyes. It works. Still think just killing them is better?

Chris


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest

wz2p7j said:


> No Kill Shelters are a great thing. The true definition of a No Kill shelter is a shelter that accepts all animals from its service area and does not kill any animals. Euthanasia is reserved for the truest sense of the word, only used for animals that are irremediably ill or vicious. Yes, some shelters pass themselves off as No Kill when they are, in fact, not No Kill.
> 
> However, No Kill is sweeping the nation. The entire state of Utah just went No Kill thanks to Best Friends. Delaware should be next - 4 of their 5 counties are No Kill. Currently there are about 160 No Kill communities in the US servicing another 500 communities.
> 
> I saw some Michigan posters on this board. I'm from Michigan. Michigan has 10 No Kill counties, recently joined by Genesee to make it 11. We have a manager committed to No Kill installed at Macomb's shelter and think they will be next. There are currently strong advocacy groups in Oakland and Lapeer counties. We have the Michigan Companion Animal Protection Act before Senator Pappageorge and it will soon be introduced into the state legislature.
> 
> Move forward and help or be left behind.
> 
> Chris


I wouldn't quite call Genesee a no kill county yet, especially not with Stepheni Lazar appointed the interim AC director.


----------



## RabbleFox

I don't know Gatt personally nor do I know much about him. Feral cats are probably mostly put down because who wants a cat that is unhandable? That cage space is needed for a cat who actually wants human attention. I know Oakland county is not no kill. I volunteer and walk dogs there. 

What happens when everywhere is no kill? There is limited cage space and frankly, even with rescues and fosters and extra money, I don't know if there will ever be enough space for the homeless animals. :/ In reality, some animals who are deserving of homes will be put down because of limited space or funding. 

To rid of over population within dogs and cats more effort must be put forth by way of prevention. More low cost spay/neuter clinics. More education on dog fighting rings and "backyard breeders". More information on positive training should be advocated at Michigan shelters. More TNR programs. You get it.


----------



## Adjecyca1

wz2p7j said:


> Dogs shouldn't be in kennels for years or even months. The intent of No Kill is to get animals into foster homes or to rescues ASAP. Progressive shelter practices such as getting dogs into "play groups" with other dogs will do wonders for dogs "losing it." Seen it with my own eyes. It works. Still think just killing them is better?
> 
> Chris


Like i said i don't have a problem with places taking dogs and than soon after placing them in a foster, but there are FAR too many "no kill" shelters keeping animals kenneled for months/years that is WRONG and i think euthing would be a better option than letting a dog rott in a cell for months.


----------



## SDRRanger

As long as the shelter is operating on a level that extremely ill, vicious or otherwise unadoptable animals are euthanized I see it as a good situation; HOWEVER I believe that for them to work correctly, there needs to be a spay/neuter program in effect for the area. Preventing large numbers of stray/abandoned/etc animals is important otherwise there is nowhere for these animals to go. 

If you find a stray cat in your backyard here, trying to find somewhere for it to go is extremely hard. The shelters are full, the feral cat programs are full and so are all the other rescues. It doesn't seem to be as big an issue here with dogs as it is with cats. 

In my hometown, the humane society used to be paid for by a woman who had demanded that no animal be euthanized. I remember dogs being tied to dog houses year round and having to avoid those areas. Another time a batch of sick kittens ended up killing half the cats they had in their care.


----------



## annadee

It depends on the extent of no kill. I volunteer for the BCSPCA, which is technically no-kill... but unfortunately from time to time we get dogs that are way too aggressive to be adoptable and have to put down.


----------



## wz2p7j

RabbleFox said:


> I don't know Gatt personally nor do I know much about him. Feral cats are probably mostly put down because who wants a cat that is unhandable? That cage space is needed for a cat who actually wants human attention. I know Oakland county is no kill. I volunteer and walk dogs there.
> 
> What happens when everywhere is no kill? There is limited cage space and frankly, even with rescues and fosters and extra money, I don't know if there will ever be enough space for the homeless animals. :/ In reality, some animals who are deserving of homes will be put down because of limited space or funding.
> 
> To rid of over population within dogs and cats more effort must be put forth by way of prevention. More low cost spay/neuter clinics. More education on dog fighting rings and "backyard breeders". More information on positive training should be advocated at Michigan shelters. More TNR programs. You get it.


You don't keep ferals in cages. That is NOT modern shelter practice. Are you familiar with the work of Kate Hurley? Ferals and other cats should be spayed/neutered and vaccinated and returned to the location at which they were found. If the cat is truly feral it can live on it's own. If the cat is someone's pet it has something like an 80% chance of being reunited with it's caretaker versus something like a 6% chance if warehoused in a shelter.

Chris


----------



## wz2p7j

Adjecyca1 said:


> Like i said i don't have a problem with places taking dogs and than soon after placing them in a foster, but there are FAR too many "no kill" shelters keeping animals kenneled for months/years that is WRONG and i think euthing would be a better option than letting a dog rott in a cell for months.


No true "No Kill" shelter does what you say. But if you want to just give up and make excuses and advocate killing the animals, you need to own that. Not me. I'm done with you and moving on.

Chris


----------



## RabbleFox

wz2p7j said:


> You don't keep ferals in cages. That is NOT modern shelter practice. Are you familiar with the work of Kate Hurley? Ferals and other cats should be spayed/neutered and vaccinated and returned to the location at which they were found. If the cat is truly feral it can live on it's own. If the cat is someone's pet it has something like an 80% chance of being reunited with it's caretaker versus something like a 6% chance if warehoused in a shelter.
> 
> Chris


Like I said, I just walk the dogs. I guess I don't know much about it but I am an advocate for TNR programs. You still didn't answer my question of what happens when everywhere is no kill. What happens when there is no space but there are dogs still pouring in?


----------



## wz2p7j

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> I wouldn't quite call Genesee a no kill county yet, especially not with Stepheni Lazar appointed the interim AC director.


I'm a little worried about that, too. For sure she's "interim?"

Chris



annadee said:


> It depends on the extent of no kill. I volunteer for the BCSPCA, which is technically no-kill... but unfortunately from time to time we get dogs that are way too aggressive to be adoptable and have to put down.


That's euthanasia, not killing.

Chris


----------



## wz2p7j

RabbleFox said:


> Like I said, I just walk the dogs. I guess I don't know much about it but I am an advocate for TNR programs. You still didn't answer my question of what happens when everywhere is no kill. What happens when there is no space but there are dogs still pouring in?


There's something like 4 million cats and dogs killed in "shelters" every year. A recent study showed something like 18 million people in the US every year were contemplating adding an animal companion to the family and had not yet made a decision where to acquire the animal. Coupled with modern feral cat, animal control and other policies, a No Kill nation is readily attainable.

Chris


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest

wz2p7j said:


> I'm a little worried about that, too. For sure she's "interim?"
> 
> Chris


Yep, officially appointed by the city commissioners. GRACE is not pleased and requesting she must comply with the current euthanasia ban among other things during her temp stay but obviously the commissioners weren't super interested in their input when making that decision. One step forward, two steps back.


----------



## Adjecyca1

wz2p7j said:


> No true "No Kill" shelter does what you say. But if you want to just give up and make excuses and advocate killing the animals, you need to own that. Not me. I'm done with you and moving on.
> 
> Chris


 What ? Lmao there are TONS of "no kill" shelters who do exactly that, i am not making an "excuse" to advocate killing animals, like i said i have no problem if the dogs can live happily in a foster home until adoption but in the situation that they do sit in the kennel for months, that is NOT fair, and i think euthing is a better option..


----------



## Bones

wz2p7j said:


> No Kill Shelters are a great thing. The true definition of a No Kill shelter is a shelter that accepts all animals from its service area and does not kill any animals. Euthanasia is reserved for the truest sense of the word, only used for animals that are irremediably ill or vicious. Yes, some shelters pass themselves off as No Kill when they are, in fact, not No Kill.
> 
> However, No Kill is sweeping the nation. The entire state of Utah just went No Kill thanks to Best Friends. Delaware should be next - 4 of their 5 counties are No Kill. Currently there are about 160 No Kill communities in the US servicing another 500 communities.
> 
> I saw some Michigan posters on this board. I'm from Michigan. Michigan has 10 No Kill counties, recently joined by Genesee to make it 11. We have a manager committed to No Kill installed at Macomb's shelter and think they will be next. There are currently strong advocacy groups in Oakland and Lapeer counties. We have the Michigan Companion Animal Protection Act before Senator Pappageorge and it will soon be introduced into the state legislature.
> 
> Move forward and help or be left behind.
> 
> Chris
> 
> Chris Anderson
> Michigan Pet Fund Alliance - Board of Directors
> Oakland Pet Advocates - Voting Block Co-Captain-District 7
> [email protected]


You make it sound like municipal No-Kill is just flipping a light switch which it is not...


----------



## wz2p7j

Adjecyca1 said:


> What ? Lmao there are TONS of "no kill" shelters who do exactly that, i am not making an "excuse" to advocate killing animals, like i said i have no problem if the dogs can live happily in a foster home until adoption but in the situation that they do sit in the kennel for months, that is NOT fair, and i think euthing is a better option..


Length of stay at shelters following best practices is 14 days. When Winograd ran Tomkins county average length of stay was 8 days and no animal celebrated an anniversary at the shelter. 

My cat Tyler was in a No Kill shelter for probably 8 months. I took care of him as a volunteer every Friday night. Took him to adoption events and such but just couldn't get him adopted so eventually I took him home. Oh, speak of the devil, he just walked into the office, soon to be in my lap. Happiest cat that ever lived. I am SO happy people with excuses and a defeatist attitude such as yours did not operate that shelter.

What you're wrongly calling euthanasia is more correctly termed killing. If it makes you feel better, so be it.

Chris


----------



## wz2p7j

Bones said:


> You make it sound like municipal No-Kill is just flipping a light switch which it is not...


I simply stated facts. I don't see anything in my post about a "light switch." What exactly is your beef with my post?

Chrus


----------



## Bones

wz2p7j said:


> I simply stated facts. I don't see anything in my post about a "light switch." What exactly is your beef with my post?
> 
> Chrus


It's not a beef per say. More like I get annoyed when people make it seem like the key to no kill is the shelter when in truth the key to no kill is the community as a whole. There is no way a municipal shelter can be no kill and not have that mind set within in the community in place (IE in terms of the people and politicians)


----------



## wz2p7j

Bones said:


> It's not a beef per say. More like I get annoyed when people make it seem like the key to no kill is the shelter when in truth the key to no kill is the community as a whole. There is no way a municipal shelter can be no kill and not have that mind set within in the community in place (IE in terms of the people and politicians)


I'm cool with that. There's not a successful No kill shelter out there that spent $billions on a monster shelter to warehouse animals. That's just not the model. Every single successful No Kill community called on the community for help. The No Kill shelter directors I know say, if you're No Kill, the community will usually overwhelmingly respond.

Chris


----------



## SDRRanger

RabbleFox said:


> Like I said, I just walk the dogs. I guess I don't know much about it but I am an advocate for TNR programs. You still didn't answer my question of what happens when everywhere is no kill. What happens when there is no space but there are dogs still pouring in?


Like I said, up here in NS there doesn't seem to be the dog issue like there is cats. If there is no room for the cats, they go on a waiting list I believe. You can 'sometimes' get help from different rescues, but as a whole they're maxed and can't take new ones in....the cats are either left where they are, or the citizen tries to help them the best they can.


----------



## RabbleFox

wz2p7j said:


> Length of stay at shelters following best practices is 14 days. When Winograd ran Tomkins county average length of stay was 8 days and no animal celebrated an anniversary at the shelter...


How do you make that happen? I'm not an expert at what happens behind the scenes at a shelter and I'm having a hard time imagining pushing dogs out so quickly. And how do you manage to push more dogs out than you get in? The Pet Store I work at is "No-Kill". We adopt cats out from a the Oakland Pet Adoption Center. Once they get here, they stay here until they are adopted. We've several cats that have been up for adoption for months. I don't see them going anywhere soon. :\


----------



## wz2p7j

I was quoting best practices for shelters. You seem to be a rescue, not a shelter. Rescues are always No Kill, that's why they're called rescues.  The animals are now safe with a rescue, good on you. Most cats should not end up staying in shelters anyway, read my previous posts. By the way, it's not the Oakland Pet Adoption Center anymore. Gatt renamed it the The Oakland County Animal Control and Pet Adoption Center.

Chris


----------



## RabbleFox

wz2p7j said:


> I was quoting best practices for shelters. You seem to be a rescue, not a shelter. Rescues are always No Kill, that's why they're called rescues.  The animals are now safe with a rescue, good on you. Most cats should not end up staying in shelters anyway, read my previous posts. By the way, it's not the Oakland Pet Adoption Center anymore. Gatt renamed it the The Oakland County Animal Control and Pet Adoption Center.
> 
> Chris


Technically, the cats are still part of the shelter. Are rescues meant to hold animals for extended periods of time? Months and months? One cat has been at the store for NINE months. Thats a darn long time to be there...

They better change the road sign on Brown Rd. if they are changing the name  . And I'll prolly end up calling it what I always call it "That shelter I walk dogs at, Mom!"


----------



## Bones

wz2p7j said:


> I was quoting best practices for shelters. You seem to be a rescue, not a shelter. Rescues are always No Kill, that's why they're called rescues.  The animals are now safe with a rescue, good on you. Most cats should not end up staying in shelters anyway, read my previous posts. By the way, it's not the Oakland Pet Adoption Center anymore. Gatt renamed it the The Oakland County Animal Control and Pet Adoption Center.
> 
> Chris


Not all rescues...I know of a big rescue in Birmingham Alabama that only takes owner surrenders and euthanizes (or used to) a large number of them on intake, sometimes before the owner has even left the premises. Though there was a big scandal after they had taken several animals from a rural shelter that was being closed due to a drug raid (lol Alabama) and euthanized a great dane that still had owners. I know the director was fired after that so I'm not sure if they still have those practices but I wouldn't be surprised :/


----------



## wz2p7j

OK, so one rescue was a kill rescue. Maybe there are more. Rescues by definition don't kill. 

Chris


----------



## Bones

wz2p7j said:


> OK, so one rescue was a kill rescue. Maybe there are more. Rescues by definition don't kill.
> 
> Chris


Well they're not supposed to at least  Should be laws governing conduct of rescues as much as shelters in my opinion...but that is a bit of a tangent from this thread


----------



## Adjecyca1

wz2p7j said:


> Length of stay at shelters following best practices is 14 days. When Winograd ran Tomkins county average length of stay was 8 days and no animal celebrated an anniversary at the shelter.
> 
> My cat Tyler was in a No Kill shelter for probably 8 months. I took care of him as a volunteer every Friday night. Took him to adoption events and such but just couldn't get him adopted so eventually I took him home. Oh, speak of the devil, he just walked into the office, soon to be in my lap. Happiest cat that ever lived. I am SO happy people with excuses and a defeatist attitude such as yours did not operate that shelter.
> 
> What you're wrongly calling euthanasia is more correctly termed killing. If it makes you feel better, so be it.
> 
> Chris


 That's great that shelters following the "best practices" do this, but the fact is A TON of shelters fall short, and the dogs suffer because of it, i can't count the number of no kill shelter and some rescue horror stories i have heard, in a lot of cases the dog may be better of dead, you can't save anything. You can try and twist it, but yea i don't have a problem with shelter dogs being humanely killed, rather than suffering because no one wants them, and someone who can't afford it or provide for them properly wants to "save them all"


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest

Bones said:


> Well they're not supposed to at least  Should be laws governing conduct of rescues as much as shelters in my opinion...but that is a bit of a tangent from this thread


Fo' real. I know of way more euthanasia going on with "no kill" rescues than the general public would like to believe. There is a lot of festering going on within the rescue system and it would be nice if private rescues couldn't necessarily get away with whatever they wanted behind closed doors.


----------



## wz2p7j

Adjecyca1 said:


> That's great that shelters following the "best practices" do this, but the fact is A TON of shelters fall short, and the dogs suffer because of it, i can't count the number of no kill shelter and some rescue horror stories i have heard, in a lot of cases the dog may be better of dead, you can't save anything. You can try and twist it, but yea i don't have a problem with shelter dogs being humanely killed, rather than suffering because no one wants them, and someone who can't afford it or provide for them properly wants to "save them all"


OK, let's not push for all shelters to follow best practices. Let's just give up because some don't and let them continue to kill healthy and adoptable animals. Some people, like you Adjecya, are losers and defeatists. I'm going to continue to work towards best practices and saving as many animals as we can. You can continue to swim in your own pool negativity and defeatism if you wish. That's your personal call and i could care less.

Chris


----------



## wz2p7j

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Fo' real. I know of way more euthanasia going on with "no kill" rescues than the general public would like to believe. There is a lot of festering going on within the rescue system and it would be nice if private rescues couldn't necessarily get away with whatever they wanted behind closed doors.



That's BS and you know it. I work with 380 rescues in the state and know of none that do what you say. Cite some documented examples or shut up.

Chris


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest

wz2p7j said:


> That's BS and you know it. I work with 380 rescues in the state and know of none that do what you say. Cite some documented examples or shut up.
> 
> Chris


You're very charming and I think you will definitely sway people to get on board with your ideals treating people like that. 

Cite one documented example of what? Adoptable animals being euthanized at no kill rescues? You must be new.


----------



## Adjecyca1

wz2p7j said:


> OK, let's not push for all shelters to follow best practices. Let's just give up because some don't and let them continue to kill healthy and adoptable animals. Some people, like you Adjecya, are losers and defeatists. I'm going to continue to work towards best practices and saving as many animals as we can. You can continue to swim in your own pool negativity and defeatism if you wish. That's your personal call and i could care less.
> 
> Chris


You're being very childish it's real funny. I never said we shouldn't push shelters to be better we absolutely should! but i don't know if a no kill nation is possible and ethical


----------



## wz2p7j

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> You're very charming and I think you will definitely sway people to get on board with your ideals treating people like that.
> 
> Cite one documented example of what? Adoptable animals being euthanized at no kill rescues? You must be new.


Thanks for citing the fact I'm "not charming." Now cite examples of rescues killing adoptable animals. And, no, I'm not new. If there's some "rescue" out there killing adoptable animals, they're not a rescue.

Chris


----------



## MyCharlie

wz2p7j said:


> Some people, like you Adjecya, are losers and defeatists. I'm going to continue to work towards best practices and saving as many animals as we can. You can continue to swim in your own pool negativity and defeatism if you wish.


I, for one, come to the forums to try to educate myself in all aspects of dog ownership, training, rescuing, feeding, health, blah blah blah. If you can't participate in a discussion where other people have differing views (and let's face it, when it comes to dogs there will rarely (if ever) be a topic that everyone agrees on) without resorting to name calling, then perhaps you should find a different forum to express your views. The people here are awesome people and everyone has been very respectful of your opinions thus far, and I have enjoyed following the discussion. No reason to ruin this nice thread with personal insults.


----------



## RabbleFox

wz2p7j said:


> Thanks for citing the fact I'm "not charming." Now cite examples of rescues killing adoptable animals. And, no, I'm not new. If there's some "rescue" out there killing adoptable animals, they're not a rescue.
> 
> Chris


TWAB has seen her fair share of the scary side of rescues. She is referencing that "you must be new" to the forums as you don't know her story.


----------



## wz2p7j

Adjecyca1 said:


> You're being very childish it's real funny. I never said we shouldn't push shelters to be better we absolutely should! but i don't know if a no kill nation is possible and ethical


The only reason you think I'm "childish and funny" is because I threaten you. The reason you don't know if a No Kill nation is possible is because you're uninformed. The reason you don't know if a No Kill nation is ethical, is well, beyond my thinking. I guess just killing roughly 50% of kitties and doggies entering shelters nationally is ethical because we just want to give up?

Chris


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest

wz2p7j said:


> Thanks for citing the fact I'm "not charming." Now cite examples of rescues killing adoptable animals. And, no, I'm not new. If there's some "rescue" out there killing adoptable animals, they're not a rescue.
> 
> Chris


You don't get to circumvent the truth by saying "they're not rescues then" because these are 501c3 facilities operating as (they claim) "no kill" rescues. They are, and they kill.

I'll cite my own personal experience first, right here in Michigan: http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/201...d-bullying-at-the-spca-of-southwest-michigan/

Hi I'm Stephanie. I can also tell you about dogs that were sent to the local animal controls to be euthanized so the rescue could avoid incurring the kill statistic.


----------



## wz2p7j

RabbleFox said:


> TWAB has seen her fair share of the scary side of rescues. She is referencing that "you must be new" to the forums as you don't know her story.



I could give a rats behind about the bad shelters, rescues, etc. Sure they are out there. Did I ever say that's the direction we should be heading? So just because there are some bad rescues out there we give up and let bad shelters keep the animals and kill them? Here in Michigan with the Michigan Pet Fund Alliance we instituted a state wide rescue certification program to try and prevent such practices. Anyone want to learn more about it or do you just want to continue to wallow in defeatism? 

Chris


----------



## MyCharlie

I think there is a huge difference defeatism and realism.


----------



## RabbleFox

I think... we can't ignore the bad shelters. Even if they are few or far in between. We aren't giving up. We aren't being defeatist. We're trying to be realistic. Sometimes real life is bleak. You know, seeing a dog walk into the shelter only to know that he is going down the long hallway and its a one way street doesn't give anyone a positive attitude about shelters. Especially if they label themselves as "no kill".

Teach us more and maybe my outlook for the future of no kill shelters and rescues will change.

Set us up with a few information links or something, man!


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest

wz2p7j said:


> I could give a rats behind about the bad shelters, rescues, etc. Sure they are out there. Did I ever say that's the direction we should be heading? So just because there are some bad rescues out there we give up and let bad shelters keep the animals and kill them? Here in Michigan with the Michigan Pet Fund Alliance we instituted a state wide rescue certification program to try and prevent such practices. Anyone want to learn more about it or do you just want to continue to wallow in defeatism?
> 
> Chris


You don't care and acknowledge they are out there.. but when I stated that very thing you just told me it was BS and told me to "shut up."


----------



## wz2p7j

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> You don't get to circumvent the truth by saying "they're not rescues then" because these are 501c3 facilities operating as (they claim) "no kill" rescues. They are, and they kill.
> 
> I'll cite my own personal experience first, right here in Michigan: http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/201...d-bullying-at-the-spca-of-southwest-michigan/
> 
> Hi I'm Stephanie. I can also tell you about dogs that were sent to the local animal controls to be euthanized so the rescue could avoid incurring the kill statistic.



Steph, the SPCA of Southwest Michigan is NOT a rescue, it's an animal shelter, and not a good one.

Chris


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest

wz2p7j said:


> Steph, the SPCA of Southwest Michigan is NOT a rescue, it's an animal shelter, and not a good one.
> 
> Chris


They are a rescue with a shelter location. And I know they're not a good one, I worked there for an unfortunate amount of time.

ETA: Meaning, they are a "no kill" rescue that happens to have a kennel to keep animals. There are two others in town with kennel locations as well.


----------



## wz2p7j

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> You don't care and acknowledge they are out there.. but when I stated that very thing you just told me it was BS and told me to "shut up."


What exactly is your point? Are you trying to win an argument by twisting my words or do you really care about the animals?

Chris


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest

wz2p7j said:


> What exactly is your point? Are you trying to win an argument by twisting my words or do you really care about the animals?
> 
> Chris


It's your point I'm not sure of. Bones stated he wished that rescues could also be enforced in a way that municipal shelters are. I agreed, and commented about rescues doing wrong. You insisted rescues do no wrong.. but then told Rabblefox they do but that's not the important thing here and an excuse for.. something. When I gave you a source, a first hand experience nonetheless, you insisted that the place isn't a rescue when.. they are? Who's twisting whose words?

I'll never had to defend whether or not I care about animals. I don't talk, I do.


----------



## wz2p7j

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> They are a rescue with a shelter location. And I know they're not a good one, I worked there for an unfortunate amount of time.
> 
> ETA: Meaning, they are a "no kill" rescue that happens to have a kennel to keep animals. There are two others in town with kennel locations as well.


Sounds like the Michigan Humane Society. Well organized, privately funded, except MHS reports to the department of ag, so technically I guess MHS is a shelter.

Chris


----------



## wz2p7j

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> It's your point I'm not sure of. Bones stated he wished that rescues could also be enforced in a way that municipal shelters are. I agreed, and commented about rescues doing wrong. You insisted rescues do no wrong.. but then told Rabblefox they do but that's not the important thing here and an excuse for.. something. When I gave you a source, a first hand experience nonetheless, you insisted that the place isn't a rescue when.. they are? Who's twisting whose words?
> 
> I'll never had to defend whether or not I care about animals. I don't talk, I do.


It looks like I was mistaken, the SPCA of Southwest Michigan does appear to be a "rescue." I originally said rescues, by definition, don't kill. I've now admitted I was wrong, some organizations claiming to be rescues, do indeed kill. So let's return to the original question, what exactly is your point?

Chris


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest

wz2p7j said:


> It looks like I was mistaken, the SPCA of Southwest Michigan does appear to be a "rescue." I originally said rescues, by definition, don't kill. I've now admitted I was wrong, some organizations claiming to be rescues, do indeed kill. So let's return to the original question, what exactly is your point?
> 
> Chris


My point was what I said to Bones? I wasn't even talking to you, which I thought was evident when I quoted and addressed.. Bones. You objected and have now retracted said objection so.. what do you want? If we get technical here, it was Bones's point to begin with. I was agreeing with him. And now you agree. Party.


----------



## Kayota

Adjecyca1 said:


> I don't like no kill shelters at all, no kill rescues where the dog spends most of it's time in a foster home is one thing, i am okay with that. What i am NOT okay with is shelters that have dogs sitting in kennels/cells for years. That is NOT fair to the dog, i worked in kill shelters, and i saw dogs "loose it" after being kenneled for 2 weeks, i couldn't imagine seeing a dog go through that for YEARS


Yeah I can agree with this. Faxon was in the shelter for two months and was too terrified to move; they carried her out of the cage and set her on the floor where she sat cowering and staring into space, completely ignoring my offering of treats and Roxie's mild interest. It took her three days to take a step on her own. It took her a week to confidently walk through a doorway and a little longer than that to realize that walks are okay. It's taken her a month to trust me and Roxie enough to seem almost completely comfortable.


----------



## Willowy

The main reason I think shelters should not be allowed to kill animals is that it's such a total abdication of responsibility. Humans should be forced to face their responsibilities. Disposing of unwanted pets allows people to completely walk away from the consequences of their actions. As to what's best for the dog, well, I have a hard time believing that a premature death is better than almost anything in the long term, but even if it was best for the dog in the short term, I still don't think it should be done. 

Like the example of a dog that goes crazy from being kenneled 24/7---it's our fault. Why should we be allowed to dispose of that dog so we don't have to fix what we've done? If we were not allowed to kill that dog, we might have to think about what could be done to help him, or at least be forced to manage the situation. Far preferable to make the humans deal with their choices then let them just walk away scot-free. If we were up to our ears in stray cats, being inconvenienced by them on a daily basis, we might think twice before letting our cat have kittens, might be more careful to prevent an oops. But if all the stray cats are tidily disposed of and we aren't forced to look at the problem on a daily basis, well, letting one cat have kittens doesn't seem so bad, right?

It's just a matter of humans facing up to their responsibilities.


----------



## DJEtzel

Willowy said:


> The main reason I think shelters should not be allowed to kill animals is that it's such a total abdication of responsibility. Humans should be forced to face their responsibilities. Disposing of unwanted pets allows people to completely walk away from the consequences of their actions. As to what's best for the dog, well, I have a hard time believing that a premature death is better than almost anything in the long term, but even if it was best for the dog in the short term, I still don't think it should be done.
> 
> Like the example of a dog that goes crazy from being kenneled 24/7---it's our fault. Why should we be allowed to dispose of that dog so we don't have to fix what we've done? If we were not allowed to kill that dog, we might have to think about what could be done to help him, or at least be forced to manage the situation. Far preferable to make the humans deal with their choices then let them just walk away scot-free. If we were up to our ears in stray cats, being inconvenienced by them on a daily basis, we might think twice before letting our cat have kittens, might be more careful to prevent an oops. But if all the stray cats are tidily disposed of and we aren't forced to look at the problem on a daily basis, well, letting one cat have kittens doesn't seem so bad, right?
> 
> It's just a matter of humans facing up to their responsibilities.


But the thing is, the people running these organizations are doing it to help as many dogs/cats as they can, but do not have unlimited resources. They are not the ones that put the dogs there, they are just trying to make the best decisions with the resources they have to keep saving more and putting the current ones at ease.


----------



## sassafras

I have become soured on "no kill" because around here, it seems that the most vocal/strident no kill rescues do not have an open acceptance policy. It's very, very easy to be no kill when you pick and choose only the most adoptable animals to take into your organization. Drives me nuts.


----------



## Dragonomine

I fully support no-kill shelters but they need to be run correctly. The one I volunteer at isn't large, but our dogs are able to run free several times a day in a huge fenced in yard. There are actually 2 sections. Those that are dog friendly can play with each other in one and those with issues can go in the other section. They stay very active and get lots of attention. We have a cat room and a kitten room. Both have plenty of toys, climbing gear, huge windows to sunbathe by. I don't have an actual number on cats but we've adopted out approx 80 dogs since January and we can only hold about 10 adult dogs at a time. Luckily we have many fosters as well! None of our animals are lacking exercize and love.


----------



## Kayota

sassafras said:


> I have become soured on "no kill" because around here, it seems that the most vocal/strident no kill rescues do not have an open acceptance policy. It's very, very easy to be no kill when you pick and choose only the most adoptable animals to take into your organization. Drives me nuts.


Yeah the place I interned at was like that, they had beautiful dogs and puppies and small purebreds but when someone tried to hand off their 15 year old dog they said absolutely not. I was so upset.


----------



## ireth0

Dragonomine said:


> I fully support no-kill shelters but they need to be run correctly. The one I volunteer at isn't large, but our dogs are able to run free several times a day in a huge fenced in yard. There are actually 2 sections. Those that are dog friendly can play with each other in one and those with issues can go in the other section. They stay very active and get lots of attention. We have a cat room and a kitten room. Both have plenty of toys, climbing gear, huge windows to sunbathe by. I don't have an actual number on cats but we've adopted out approx 80 dogs since January and we can only hold about 10 adult dogs at a time. Luckily we have many fosters as well! None of our animals are lacking exercize and love.


Yes, our shelter is like this too, although we have maybe 15-30 dogs depending on the day. All the dogs get outside at least a few times a day for a good romp, in addition to walks from members of the public who drop by. 

I think if you're going to go no-kill, you have to do it responsibly and there are a lot of other things that go along with it rather than just declaring yourself no-kill and starting to reject dogs left and right. One of the MAJOR factors in doing it is helping to educate the public. You simply can't go no-kill while people in your area are still out there BYB'in and dropping animals when things get inconvenient. Educating the public is an core part of being no-kill, you can't ignore it. 

On top of that, you need to take extra initiatives to get the dogs adopted. Find trainers to help them learn manners, work on behavioural issues with them, make sure the public is aware of the dogs available and highlight ones who have been there a long time, encourage volunteering in the community, etc etc.

Responsibly running a no-kill shelter is a huge commitment, and isn't reasonably appropriate for all areas. I have a strong dislike for those shelters who misuse the label and give the responsibly run ones a bad name.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest

Kayota said:


> Yeah the place I interned at was like that, they had beautiful dogs and puppies and small purebreds but when someone tried to hand off their 15 year old dog they said absolutely not. I was so upset.


None of the no kills in this area are open admissions and I sincerely doubt they'd ever be. Our animal control is not no kill, but I feel in recent years they've done much better in keeping euth rates lower. Definitely not on the cat front last year, but better with dogs. The problem with places like my SPCA is of course they can carry on claiming to be no kill when they don't allow their pull team to pull Pits or large black dogs. Owner surrenders that are willing to drop a larger donation are given priority. Puppies and small cute dogs are major priority. Big mill bust with tons of Shih Tzus and mixes? Jump on it. Lots of Pit Bulls going to die at animal control tomorrow? Eh. 

The life of animals become a trade of business, which I don't care for. Rescue is a business, but when it starts becoming a creepy trade with very small constraints of what "adoptable dog" is then it ain't so much rescue.


----------



## Inga

Adjecyca1 said:


> I don't like no kill shelters at all, no kill rescues where the dog spends most of it's time in a foster home is one thing, i am okay with that. What i am NOT okay with is shelters that have dogs sitting in kennels/cells for years. That is NOT fair to the dog, i worked in kill shelters, and i saw dogs "loose it" after being kenneled for 2 weeks, i couldn't imagine seeing a dog go through that for YEARS


Agree and that is my experience as well. I think no kill shelters that are set up like sanctuaries where the dogs are outside to run for several hours a day, have been socialized in with other dogs. That or they are lucky enough to have more then enough good staff and volunteers to play, socialize and exercise with the dogs every single day. 

The idea of any dogs being stuck in one of those horrid little kennels most of the day every day for the rest of it's life in a stressful situation is not humane in my opinion.


----------

