My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Tivo-worthy TV | Main | Incompetence Kills »

August 24, 2008



Gee, I'm surprised that warehousing or hoarding weren't mentioned...sigh.

No Kill doesn't mean never, ever kill animals.

That letter sounds as though it was written by Ingrid or Wayne. It probably was.


Brent, do you know this person? This letter presents some pretty awful misinformation (lies) to our public. Pretty strange. The Star would not publish my first letters about Michael Vick after he'd been arrested, because it had not yet been proven that he did what they had charged him with. They specifically told me they would not print a letter for which there was no proven basis in fact. Yet, they will publish garbage like this?


It doesn't seem to me like they were praising "kill" shelters as much as giving much-needed props to the people who work in them, breaking their backs and their hearts when there is just not enough space or resources in place for the animals. I'm a volunteer at a city animal shelter that's working very hard to be "no-kill" but that's not a reality yet - we take in over 30,000 animals a year and are working as hard as we can.

It's very difficult to know that some of the animals I work with will be euthanized, but I only work that much harder. And the author of the letter is right - many shelters call themselves "no-kill" but they only means "we'll take as many animals as we can fit and then turn them away so you can take them somewhere worse." That's NOT no-kill, and the author of the letter was right to criticize them. At no point did they advocate killing animals in a PETA- or HSUS-like way.

s kennedy

Straightening out what it means to be no kill is not as important as understanding that there are plans in place that do work across the country, but those efforts don't come quickly nor easily.When no kill is first "thought" of as a cure, it requires work prior to implementing it because each city is different. When 50,000 animals come in a year, but you don't set up all the logistical requirements (how many mobile spay units,how many volunteers, fosters, rescues, other non profits, education, multi-language outreach,fund raising targeted etc etc) then just talking about no kill regardless of what it means, does nothing.
If the foundation is not set up, there won't be no kill if it's a large city.And that has been proven in Los Angeles, which in 2003, declared 2008 to be the year no kill in LA would take place. Well, it took place all right, on paper, by passing MSN. And now they claim they can't enforce it because no money, no education, and no preparation was done. But that was told to LA in 2005 by the Executive summary. Because they had dog killing reduced by 50% but cat killing was leveled out for 4 years. Address the cat problem? Nope. Charlotte Laws the AR of the DAWS project gets an F no matter who she worked for, and the LA County shelters (which have MSN) is sued by Nathan for not taking care of animals. Boks (LA city shelters) just lost his pitch for AB1634, statewide MSN. A fine mess, indeed. And in the Executive Summary, it was noted and admitted that AR problems of harassment and smoke bombs+ more have made the shelters a very difficult place for shelter workers.


Are they harassing the shelters because they want to implement policies to save more animals or because they don't?

Of course it takes time, just like implementing a proper program like Calgary's does, but if you never start you just get further behind.

You need the political will and as Nathan says, the right people in charge.



Upon re-reading the post, I do realize I may have been a little hard on the folks that work at kill shelters. I realize that getting to no-kill is a REALLY tough task. I realize that a good many of the shelter people work really hard to save lives. My frustration is with people who are NOT working to be No-Kill and taking the necessary steps to save as many lives as possible.


"No Kill doesn't mean never, ever kill animals."

Which is exactly why writers like this, and the general public, doesn't understand.. or support... "no kill". It's a deception because its proponents refuse to find a more accurate term.

Winograd is a true visionary, and his "vision" is exactly what we should be striving for: "no killing" of animals that aren't irredemably unhealthy or aggressive. Find another name for it that conveys that the goal is 90-95% survival (which would be a truly awesome achievement) and the vision may become possible.


I agree, the term No Kill is misleading - in fact, I used to think I was against it before I found out I was for it LOL.

It has impact though, more than Low Kill or Kill a Few would.


No Brent you weren't too hard on them...Alanna may work at a shelter that does care and does try to save as many as they can. But in the KC Metro, we have several shelters filled with people that just don't give a shit, period. They are too busy eating chips to scan dogs for microchips or go search the kennels for lost dogs when people call looking for their pets. Word has it, Lee's Summit, a wealthy community, kills when they get to 1/2 capacity so cleaning is easier.

We also have a lot of rescues and several shelters touting they are no kill when they not only have selective admission, they kill for space. I think we're going to have to have a "No-Kill Seal of Approval" like we do for organic food...


I agree that there should be some sort of official criteria for a shelter to call itself "no-kill." The other shelter in my city calls itself "no-kill" - by which it means it tells people to send their animals to us so we can kill them instead. Our shelter gets the bad rap, theirs looks lovely and kind. They actually have a sheet of paper they hand out with directions to our shelter from theirs.

PAMM - People Against Misleading Messages

We have SEVERAL shelters in KC that do this. For just one, Pet Connection calls themselves no kill and they send all their rejects to Animal Haven - they aren't even open admission for Mission. Humane Society of Greater KC does the same and they kill for space PLUS are in KCK - which has BSL so they can't take in bullies. That isn't their fault, HOWEVER, you cannot be No-Kill if you can't take in all anmials, period. And a community can't be No-Kill when they have pet slaughter laws on the books.

Wayside Waifs is honest that they are not No-Kill and don't have any interest in trying to be. Well, honest to the rescue community, to the general public they still try to come across as low kill.

Alanna, from what I've read/heard what you just posted is the #1 critisism of No-Kill. That drives me nuts because No-Kill isn't the problem, its people calling themselves No-Kill when they aren't. Passing off the killing to someone else makes you a kill shelter.


The term really IS unfortunate. Winograd should revisit his promotion of SF as no-kill city. When the leading example can't hold up to the ideal, then you know we have a little definition problem. Insiders consider the lofty label a bit of a bad joke, which alienates the hec out of organizations and does nothing to further the cause of building partnerships to save lives.


I look at No Kill as an appropriate label - euthanasia still takes place. But I guess the way I'm looking at it No Murder would be more appriate.

No Kill is all about partnerships but I've never been a part of anything that is full of so many over-sized egos as the AW community - egos are to blame for alienation not No Kill.

I often wonder if the term "No Kill" was originally for the AW or maybe AC community. But now that the term is reaching the masses, I think its even harder to convey the message. "No Kill" is a tidy little label that represents a very complicated, holistic solution to our AW problems. And SOO many people are using the term inappropriately.

The part I haven't gotten my head around is that NoKill doesn't address the concerns of city leaders looking to "do something" about dangerous owner situations - which is the crisis de jour in this country. (Good Lord how long will this lunecy last!?!?) I think the No Kill Solution is going to have to at least touch on the AC part of the picture to gain ground in a lot of places. Oh yeah, and people getting off their duffs and voting appropriately!


> And SOO many people are using the term inappropriately.

Maybe they've been spending too much time in San Francisco. LOL!

My sense is that the No Kill movement is still a half-formed concept. A good concept, but still in the oven so to speak.

I know that the breed fanciers LOVE it because the 'No such thing as overpopulation' tag line supports their political battles. But in other realities, there are pit bulls --- way too many pit bulls. And cities like SF that will destroy them, berate them and legislate against them all the while staunchly defending their very lofty No Kill label. It's no good, I tellya.

Interesting times.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)