No Kill Communities vs No Kill Shelters -- and why confusing the two endangers the movement

MSN had an article last week (editor's update: the article was actually written last summer, but just popped up on my MSN last week, which is odd -- go MSN) about how, as a country, we may be coming close to becoming a No Kill Nation. While the article was mostly good, there was one big thing that stuck out at me in the article that is bugging me.

I'm tired of there being talk about no kill shelters.  It is time we make the conversation about being no kill communities instead.

The article begins talking about the Richmond, VA SPCA - -and their decision to become a no kill shelter int 2002.  When the announcement was first made, the SPCA CEO Robin Starr said she got unexpected vocal opposition.  And possibly, rightly so.

Two paragraphs later explains:

So the Richmond SPCA, a private organization, entered into a partnership with Richmond Animal Care and Control, the city’s shelter, with the joint goal of ending the killing of healthy, homeless animals in the community.

The Richmond SPCA began limiting the animals it accepted, opened a spay/neuter clinic, implemented a foster care network and instituted new programs emphasizing adoption and responsible pet ownership. Richmond SPCA also created programs to help pets remain with their owners, including a pet food bank and animal behavior-training classes. Richmond Animal Care and Control, in turn, pledged to focus on public safety issues.

First off, let me state, that most of the programs mentioned here are extremely good programs -- and I applaud the Richmond SPCA for putting them into action. However, the part that I bolded is exactly why many shelter and rescue people cringe when they hear the words "no kill shelter". 

While the act of not killing any adoptable dogs and cats in a shelter is the end goal, it should not only be done through limited admittance. Limiting admittance into the shelter only means that other animals (often "less adoptable" ones) have no place to go -- putting a much great strain on other shelters and rescues in the community. That's not no kill -- that's just making it so that other people have to do the killing.

If we are to really get to being a no kill nation -- where no healthy or treatable animal is killed for being homeless -- we need to quit talking about being "no kill shelters' -- and have all organizations in a community in order to become "no kill communities". This way everyone can take an equal share in finding the animals homes, intaking all homeless animals, and finding space for them in other shelters in the community.

But choosing to be limited admission by limiting the number of animals you accept, then touting yourself as "no kill" while leaving other rescues to deal with the animals you didn't accept only divides the animal welfare community...which in the end is bad for the animals.

I don't really mean to pick on just the Richmond SPCA for this (it's worth noting that Richmond is HSUS's model when it comes to no kill) because they are far from the only guilty party here. I see this across the U.S -- and even in my own city -- and see the divide and anger it causes.  I am just using them as an example of the problem of focusing too narrowly on one shelter -- and not on the community as a whole. 

It should also be noted that the Nevada Humane Society, one of Winograd's success stories, is also mentioned in the article -- with no mention on limiting intake as part of their "success" model.

It is time we quit talking about 'no kill shelters' and make the conversation about 'no kill communities'. We need the idea of not killing adoptable dogs and cats to be something EVERYONE embraces....not cringes and opposes because we are forcing the problems off on other people. We need to quit making the words 'no kill' bad words in our community -- and instead, make them community initiatives. If we don't, the whole movement is jeopardized - - which will be bad for the animals.

Comments

[Brent]

Calmassertive,

Interestingly, the types of things YOU suggest are exactly the types of programs that have FAILED over the past decade. The shelters need to quit talking about how horrible it is that these animals will die and trying to guilt people into adopting dogs. The sheltering community badly needs to bring the fun back into pet ownership and make people realize they WANT an adopted dog or cat. That's a way more motivating message than "adopt or they will die". Sheesh.

The reality is that most high-kill shelters (many of them are city run, where the emphasis is on law enforcement, and not on the shelter facility) could more than halve the number of animals killed in less than a year if they implemented the ideas from the No Kill movement (not rehashing the ideas you promote). Heck, we cut euthanasia in Kansas City by 35% and our shelter isn't even all that well run and we have several crummy laws in place making it harder on them -- just by TRYING to get the animals into homes.

I would agree that maybe we couldn't get to true no-kill overnight. But if we could cut in half the number of animals killed overnight, why would we not do it? Vs rehashing failed efforts? It doesn't make sense.

But the goal should be to do it as a community, vs just forcing the problem onto someone else.

[PAMM - People Against Mad Mothers]

I bought a yorkie from a puppy mill that I'm letting breed right now just for HystericallyAssertive.

[calmassertive]

I live a couple of blocks from a house where they own 3 dogs. The dogs are ungroomed, freely roam the street, and mostly hang out in the driveway barking at passersby. The house is probably 5000 square feet, on half and acre, with a 4-car garage, at the top of a hill, with great views, easily a $1.5 million property. The female dog is no more than 1 year old, and is now heavily pregnant.

Now you can believe all you want that the local shelter can solve all its problems if these miserable people would just adopt out a 4th and maybe a 5th dog, but the REALITY is that they as a result of failure to spay and neuter the ones they already have are going to add to the 'surplus' population by half a dozen, and maybe another half a dozen and Another half a dozen until the poor young mother dies from childbirth in the street.

While you fantasize about adopting out just one more dog, Ignorance and laziness on the part of these very well-to-do owners is going to result in many times that many being brought in for eventual euthanasia.
By analogy, one of us thinks the solution to a hungry man's plight is to give him a fish, while the other one of us wants to teach the man How to fish. One of us thinks the solution to an overgrown garden is to mow the weeds, while the other one of us knows that unless the weeds are gotten out by the roots that they'll just grow back, stronger and fuller than ever.

[calmassertive]

Just as a point of clarification, my point wasn't 'adopt or die', it was 'spay or die'.
You're right that adoption should be a happy thing, not a guilt thing. I never said otherwise.

[Brent]

Calmassertive,

No one that is in any way affiliated with the No Kill Movement is saying we shouldn't promote spay/neuter or provide low-cost spay/neuter options.

But at the end of the day, regardless of what outreach and education is done, there will always be someone out there who loses a pet, has an unplanned litter, etc. And that is exactly why we have a shelter program in the first place -- to provide an opportunity for animals who's owners failed them. And at some point the shelter community needs quit pointing fingers at "those people" who are causing the problem and realize that they are there to save the lives of these animals -- it's the whole point of their existence. And if they are killing them, and not saving them, then they are failing at the one thing they exist to do.

[Susan Houser]

Brent, thanks for writing such a thoughtful piece. I think a lot of the confusion could be avoided if we just started calling "limited admission shelters" what they really are -- rescues. A "rescue" does not become a municipal shelter just because it has a building to house animals.

I think the distinction we need to make isn't between a "shelter" and a "community," but instead is between a "shelter" and a "rescue." If we got out of the habit of referring to limited admission organizations as "shelters" then the problem would be solved.

That said, I entirely agree with you that the emphasis should be on the community, not the individual shelter. There are lousy shelters that have a great LRR because the community saves them (like Rockwall), and such shelters should not get the same recognnition that truly great shelters like Charlottesville get.

[mfzviku]

Work form home :

http://finance.uni.me/?post-eq.html
examples of bulletin board free download first certificate master class new england organ bank pizza hut woodville road guildford jobs tree stock photos
http://znakomstva.uni.me/?pictures-ai.html
http://dating.xaijo.com/?new-zx.html
dragon ball video gratis red mountain high school phoenix blow up swimming pools vindeo asia young sex telugu sex stories downloads amateur gay sex clips son fucks his horny mom videos phim sex nguoi gia loan luan humorous best man women ass smothering free mp4 psp hentai samples facts of a blue tang fish videos de sexo free de animais alt porn bbs porn tube pakistan teen girls amateur
http://zippic.info/?profile-CLYDE
http://xaijo.com/browse/?girl-LIDIA
http://adult-story.info/?profile-ORA
alyssa milano sex video free dildo videos north georgia college bear hotel oxford foto sex sma copper gutters cost per foot edison school code collier blacks asian gangbang hentai psp movie rapidshare xxx jenni lee

[Erich]

calmassertive, the article you cite claims:

Myth: "There are too many animals, not enough homes."
Reality: This is the old standby of the humane movement — an excuse developed to explain why the movement itself was killing so many pets. The truth of the matter is: there are homes out there, and it is up to us to appropriately promote our pets so they find their way into those homes. If there are really "too many animals and not enough homes," why are breeders and pet stores still in business?