"If it's a healthy, adoptable animal, regardless of breed or age or shelter
capacity, you will not euthanize them," Coun. Karen Leibovici said."

Look for the wiggle-room words in this initiative. They're "healthy" and "adoptable". It's not unlikely that the majority of animal control/disposal bodies in North America now have a list of conditions which condemn animals to death for being "unadoptable" or "unhealthy", like the BC SPCA's list which, as well as including ear mites etc, also names "too many" as a reason to kill animals. (See: http://animaladvocateswatchdog.com/cgi-bin/watchdog.pl/noframes/read/1868 )

"Euthanasia" for killing and "shelter" for grim prisons where the "sheltered" may be killed, and "animal welfare" for both, are also words that are commonly used by the pet-disposal industry to hide the repellancy of their actions. Everyone obligingly repeats the words for the industry, as the councillors did, helpfully embedding these false words in the public mind for the industry. Even real animal welfarists, who are horrified and angry at these pounds and "shelters", and are wearing themselves out by "rescuing" (their word!) animals from these places obligingly repeat the words as in "I rescued the dog or cat from the (blank) 'shelter'". How in God's name can it be a shelter if you have to rescue animals from it?

Words matter, a great deal. Calling something by its false name only prolongs the falsity. That's what animal welfarists and rescuers do when they repeat the industry's words for them.