We've been working on a gameplan here in Kansas City for building KC into a no-kill community. From some of the emails and comments we've received, there is clearly some room for clarification for what I mean when I refer to no-kill, which is how Nathan Winograd defines it, and how we're attempting to define it in Kansas City.
No Kill does not mean no animals get euthanized. Obviously it would be inhumane to not euthanize terminally ill, sick or badly injured animals.
No Kill means that no healthy or treatable animals will be euthanized in order to make space for more animals.
No Kill does not mean that we will be trying to adopt out dangerously aggressive dogs. It does mean that we will try our best to rehabilitate dogs whenever possible. In some extreme cases where a dog is aggressive and not rehabilitatible, euthanasia may be the only solution.
No Kill does not mean that shelters will be full and quit taking animals which would encourage people to dump animals in rural areas. Nor does it mean that we will only accept small dogs or highly adoptable dogs and cats. No Kill means open admittance of all animals, and finding new homes for all of them.
No Kill does not mean hoarding animals in shelters. In means finding homes for animals.
It does not mean adopting animals out to bad homes. It does mean that ridiculous restrictions (like mandating having a fence) on who can adopt should be gotten rid of.
No Kill relies on a lot of elements. Strong trap/neuter/release programs. Good shelters. A strong network of foster families. Off-site adoptions -- all the time. Aggressive promotion of aoptions. Voluntary low cost or no cost spay/neuter programs. People who are willing and able to help treat sick animals or help in rehabilitating behavior problems.
No Kill relies on having un-restrictive animal control laws. Pet limit laws decrease the number of foster homes that are available. Mandatory spay/neuter laws, Breed Specific Laws, and many tethering laws only encourage animal control officers to confiscate animals from homes -- increasing the number of animals that need to be found homes. The first option should always be to keep an animal in the home it is already in and improve its life there vs confiscation.
Hopefully that helps clear up any confusion out there.
Very nice summation!
Posted by: Christie | July 10, 2008 at 03:40 PM
Good for you folks! I wish you all the best.
The only problem with your explanation is that it just highlights how confusing (and wrong...) the name "no kill" is.
Reducing killing to a minimum by adhering to the sensible yet visionary Winogradian guidelines you lay out . Yes. Fabulous. Essential to creating a humane nation.
But why be surprised that the general public (and those who know better, but whose agenda is to maintain the killing status quo) naturally concluce "no kill" means "no" kill?
Which it does not.
How I wish there wasn't so much invested in that phrase.
Posted by: EmilyS | July 10, 2008 at 06:27 PM
I have read Redemption and been to Winograd's lecture, and I commend Brent for strictly adhering to Winograd's philosophy and steps, while clarifying this movement for those who have not seriously looked at this.
With the possible unfortunate exception of dogs that are found to be too aggressive to rehabilitate (which we have learned is an extremely small percentage), I believe that 'No Kill' is an appropriate term. In cases of the terminally ill who are suffering, I believe that 'euthanasia' would be an appropriate and correct term.
In spite of the controversy over the phrase 'No Kill', I think we should try to consider it as moving forward in a very positive direction.
Afterall, if we seriously commit to Winograd's steps, one would hope and tend to believe that cases of hopeless aggression and unbearable suffering will dramatically decrease -- and who knows -- perhaps with enough public education and moving in these positive directions, such extreme degrees of aggression may eventually cease to exist.
So with these positive thoughts and hopes in mind, I believe 'No Kill' is a very appropriate phrase for this endeavor. It is what this program hopes to eventually accomplish.
Posted by: Becky | July 10, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Sorry -- to clarify my post above, ie; Although No Kill is not yet the reality, No Kill is, in fact, the goal towards which the movement is working.
Posted by: Becky | July 10, 2008 at 10:44 PM
I think that any shelter which does poorly simply because it doesn't know what to improve, could actually do better just implementing some of the NMHP (no more homeless pets) items. Because it does require more work on part of the shelters, that is the main reason you don't see it succeed so often. Success is often disguised as hard work.
Posted by: s kennedy | July 11, 2008 at 12:40 AM
I have read Redemption and been to Winograd's lecture, and I commend Brent for strictly adhering to Winograd's philosophy and steps, while clarifying this movement for those who have not seriously looked at this.
===========================
casseysmith
Posted by: casseysmith | September 18, 2008 at 12:01 AM
I have read Redemption and been to Winograd's lecture, and I commend Brent for strictly adhering to Winograd's philosophy and steps, while clarifying this movement for those who have not seriously looked at this.
===========================
casseysmith
Posted by: casseysmith | September 18, 2008 at 12:01 AM
I have read Redemption and been to Winograd's lecture, and I commend Brent for strictly adhering to Winograd's philosophy and steps, while clarifying this movement for those who have not seriously looked at this.
===========================
casseysmith
http://www.legalx.net
Posted by: casseysmith | September 18, 2008 at 12:02 AM