The Danger of Labeling Shelters
Trigger warning: this article discusses euthanasia
You likely have shelters and rescues in your area. You probably even know which ones are the “kill” and “no-kill” organizations. However, this language is not only problematic in its own right, it also doesn’t accurately describe how these shelters operate. These terms also play a huge role in why there is currently an epidemic of reactive and aggressive dogs living as pets in homes.
Before we go any further, we need to accept one thing: ALL shelters and rescues perform euthanasia. It’s simply not possible to provide care to animals and not have to euthanize at some point for behavioral, medical, or other reasons.
What’s in a name?
When people use the term “kill shelter” they are generally referring to municipal animal shelters - these are your city or county shelters that takes in strays, abuse cases, and surrenders from the community. These shelters are funded by the local community – a city council or county board determines their budgets, salaries, etc. and then the public supports this budget through their tax contribution and other appropriations.
The term "no-kill" often refers to private shelters or rescues that operate on private funds and donations. These can be Humane Societies, SPCAs, or any other private facility or rescue organization. They are typically non-profit entities, they may or may not have a building where they house animals, and they often pull animals from municipal shelters or other locations, sometimes obtaining animals from far outside their local areas.
Municipal shelters
Because municipal shelters are funded by the local tax base, they cannot take in private dollars or donations and are entirely dependent on what the city or county leaders allocate for their budget, salaries, and other resources. Adoption costs do provide some financial support but compared to the cost of running such a facility they are neglibigle. Since animal care and control are generally low-priority funding recipients within a community, their budgets are often shoe-string and may barely cover their operational costs. They need to also pay their staff a living wage (including a qualified veterinary team for health care of shelter animals and spay-neuter for adoptions) but this is often at the low end of that spectrum and the staff they can afford to hire come in as entry-level and often without any animal care experience.
Municipal shelters are also mandated to take in every animal brought to them, regardless of whether they have the space or resources to provide care. This means if the shelter is already full, space has to be made somewhere, and the already overworked and underpaid shelter staff have to euthanize an animal which is not something they enjoy or want to do.
And this leads us to the first issue with the term “kill shelter”: it villainizes the shelter staff who are forced into this position. These are your community members and neighbors, not horrible, compassionless people. The bigger issue with this term is that it ignores the real issues and causes of having to euthanize animals: municipal shelters are notoriously under-funded, under-staffed, under-resourced, and over-crowded; this occurs in part because shelters are under-valued as a community resource, dogs are irresponsibly bred in puppy mills and through "backyard breeders", and there are unfortunate misconceptions about shelter dogs, dog behavior, and community expectations of shelter services.
Private shelters and rescues
Like municipal shelters, private shelters and rescues also struggle to receive the financial support they need and face many of the same resource and staffing challenges as public shelters. Depending on the organization, a private shelter or rescue may take in animals from the community, pull animals from public shelters to open up space, or accept animals from other rescues, disaster events, and law enforcement cases.
The main difference is that private shelters are not required to accept all animals that come to them - they can choose which animals go into their care. They can turn away animals that do not meet specific criteria, are not good candidates for adoption, or because they simply don't have space.
And this is really where the term "no-kill" becomes problematic. Because these shelters and rescues do still euthanize animals. It may because an animal became too ill to adopt, behavioral issues were discovered, or any number of other reasons. But these organizations can and do reduce their euthanasia rates because they can limit their intake. This is not to say these organizations are ill-intentioned in doing this; they simply have the benefit of working within their financial and staffing means and can be selective about the animals they accept. And again, it doesn't mean they never euthanize because there will always be animals that for ethical reasons are candidates for humane euthanasia. But it does mean their staff and organization tend to euthanize less and for different reasons than what a public shelter might be facing.
What language should we be using?
Because euthanasia rates are not reflective of the intentions or ethics of the shelter and its staff, we should instead refer to these organizations as what they really are: "open-admission" and "limited-admission." Open-admission shelters are ones that take in every animal that comes to them and limited-admission shelters and rescues are ones that limit who they accept into their care. This language not only removes the blame from the shelter (which implies one is "bad" and one is "good") but also removes the focus on euthanasia rates, which in reality are a symptom of much larger problems that all shelters face.
This language also helps us see that both open- and limited-admission shelters serve important roles in their communities. They share an overall mission of humane and ethical animal care, they just do this in different ways. Each provides a needed community service and because of their different structures and admission policies they can have different focuses for their resources. Having a variety of options in a community makes it stronger so it's important to recognize that both types of shelters serve a critical function and one is not better or worse than the other.
Not all dogs are good pets
So how does all of this contribute to the current high rates of behavior problems we’re seeing in dogs, such as reactivity, anxiety, and aggression? There is a campaign called “Save Them All” that advocates for saving every single dog that goes through a rescue or shelter. While this is a compassionate idea, it’s deeply misguided and has contributed to some significant problems.
This campaign, coupled with the optics of being labeled as “kill” facilities, has put serious pressure on open-admission shelters to reduce their euthanasia rates and adopt out as many dogs as possible. But this doesn’t mean those dogs are good candidates for adoption, or will make good or safe pets in homes with humans. In fact, to reduce their euthanasia rates, they are housing more animals at a time (often multiple dogs in the same kennel) and screening dogs less carefully before they are adopted into homes. Open-admission shelters don’t magically have larger facilities, more staff, or bigger budgets, but they do have to move a lot more dogs to prevent euthanizing them.
Because of overcrowding, limited interactions and enrichment options, and quick turnaround times, more dogs that are not good pets are ending up in homes with people who do not have the skills or abilities to manage their behavior issues. These are not the kind of dogs people think they are getting, but they feel guilted into keeping them. They often find themselves spending thousands of dollars on training, changing their whole lifestyle and schedule around, and feeling isolated and that they have done something wrong that caused the situation they’re in.
A fate worse than death
Another reason the “Save Them All” campaign is misguided is that it determines death to be a worse outcome than a bad life. In many cases, this is simply not true, especially with the ability we humans have to provide humane euthanasia. Living a life of suffering is not a good alternative to a peaceful death. Dogs that have significant behavior issues are likely to be returned to the shelter multiple times, or they may be rehomed or bounced from foster to foster. What they need is consistency and calm support; what they get is chaos and confusion on a daily basis.
Dogs that have been traumatized through abuse or just tough life circumstances may eventually be rehabilitated, but the cost and effort is often enormous, and the outcome is not guaranteed. It will take years of careful behavior modification and the adopters will likely have to adjust their own lives significantly. Dogs that have serious medical ailments are also good candidates for behavior problems and we often see the two presenting together. If they are subjected to numerous surgeries, vet visits, and other invasive care, not to mention the financial burden of the adopter, can we honestly answer the question “is this what’s best for the dog?” with a resounding “YES”?
While it is painful for us to say goodbye to an animal, one of the most compassionate things we can do for them is give them a peaceful exit from their pain and suffering. Keeping animals alive for our own personal benefit, or to live up to some potential we have assigned them, is not a kindness to them. Death is a natural part of life; shouldn’t we also consider the life they will have until that death?
How to support shelters
Unfortunately, many dogs do get euthanized for reasons that are not related to behavior or medical reasons. The simple fact is that shelters and rescues of all kinds do not have enough resources, funding, or staff; there are too many dogs and not enough adopters and perfectly good pet dogs do get overlooked or run out of time. Shelters and rescues need our support and there are a number of things you can do to have a meaningful impact.
One of the main things all shelters and rescues need is volunteers. You don’t even need to interact with the animals to make a difference! Often, just donating a couple hours of your time each month to wash dishes, keep laundry going, do administrative work, or help prep for an event can give that time back to the staff to do other things that help keep the shelter running. And if you want to help with animal care, there is certainly no shortage of need for that either.
Fostering is another critical support mechanism for shelters. Not only does it physically remove an animal from the shelter, which frees up space for another one, it also allows you to learn about the animal in your home. This means you can tell potential adopters all the really important things they need to know, like does the dog like kids? How does it do with cats? Does it dig in the backyard? Is it a counter-surfer or barker? None of this can be determined effectively at the shelter.
It may sound obvious, but adopting from your local shelter or rescue is also a good way to support them. This supports your local community by providing revenue for the shelter and opening up space for a new dog to come in. Additionally, many veterinarians, dog walkers, and trainers (including me!) provide discounts to newly adopted shelter/rescue dogs to thank you for your community support. There are many sketchy ways to obtain a dog these days: Craigslist, “backyard breeders”, puppy mills, pets stores, and more. Show that you care how dogs are treated by only supporting ethical and legal adoption organizations, and avoiding unscrupulous people and places that cause trauma and harm to the animals in their care.
Finally, appropriate budgets and finances are vital for any shelter. The biggest way to have an impact on your local shelter’s resources is by speaking up at your local county or city council meetings. Advocate for larger budgets, speak up for salary increases for staff, and make it clear that you support these valuable resources within your community.
The next time you hear someone refer to an animal welfare organization as a “kill shelter” or “no-kill shelter”, I hope you feel confident in helping them understand why this language is not only inaccurate, but also how problematic it is. We can all do better to educate ourselves on a system that has been broken for a long time and give our time and energy to help fix it.
