Defining the Term "No-Kill," in Concept and Practice
AAS comment: the qualifier words that most organizations use to kill unsellable animals while still claiming the moral high-ground of no-kill are in red)
"This may seem like a simple question but one I'm not sure I fully understand yet. What exactly does no-kill mean? I thought no-kill meant that you didn't kill animals, but there is a no-kill shelter near me that does euthanize animals that have treatable diseases like heartworm or broken bones. It seems different people have different ideas...."
A lot of folks are using the term no-kill these days. They're claiming they have a no-kill shelter, a no-kill city or a no-kill community. That's all fine. But along with using the term, they need to describe what they mean by "no-kill." As is obvious from the question above, everyone's definition is not the same.
The goal of Maddie's Fund is to help create a no-kill nation. We are striving to reach a time when every healthy and treatable shelter dog and cat in this country is given a loving home.
Our first step in getting to that goal is to help provide a nationwide adoption guarantee for all healthy, adoptable shelter dogs and cats.
Maddie's Fund and most in the no-kill movement define a no-kill shelter, a no-kill city, a no-kill community or a no-kill nation as a place where all healthy/adoptable and treatable animals are saved and where only non-rehabilitatable animals are euthanized. How we define these terms is important, so here again, are our definitions.*
Healthy/adoptable. Animals eight weeks of age or older that, at or subsequent to the time the animal is impounded or otherwise taken into possession, have manifested no sign of a behavioral or temperamental defect that could pose a health or safety risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and have manifested no sign of disease, injury, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the animal or that is likely to adversely affect the animals health in the future. Healthy/adoptable animals may be old, deaf, blind, disfigured or disabled.
Treatable. Any animal that is not healthy/adoptable but that could become so with reasonable efforts. Sick, injured, traumatized, unweaned or un-socialized, these animals need appropriate medical treatment, behavior modification and/or foster care to turn them into healthy animals ready for placement.
Non-rehabilitatable. Non-rehabilitatable animals are neither healthy/adoptable nor treatable. They include 1) cats and dogs for whom euthanasia is the most humane alternative due to injury or disease; 2) vicious cats and dogs, the placement of whom would constitute a danger to the public; and 3) cats and dogs who pose a public health hazard.
AAS comment: it would be of value to know what is meant by a public health hazard. Cats with FIV or FeLeuk? What else?
One way to think about the meaning of no-kill is to apply the same standard to an animal shelter as you would to your own pet. Would you put your cat down if he had a broken bone? What if your dog had kennel cough or separation anxiety? I don't think most people would take their pet's lives for these conditions.
AAS comment: " apply the same standard to an animal shelter as you would to your own pet". These are the precise words that AAS used many years ago to define no-kill - without all the qualifiers. Limited intake means that we do not need qualifiers to "explain" so many deaths.
As shelters improve their lifesaving records and look for ways to gain community support, many are proclaiming a no-kill victory. But unless the organization defines its terms, publishes its statistics (impounds, adoptions, redemptions, deaths by category), and publicly articulates what it is actually doing to save animal lives, such proclamations can be misleading and confusing. As more animal advocates demand transparency, the definition of no-kill will have greater uniformity.
AAS comment: Any agency or organization that does not publish its deaths by category does not qualify to be called no-kill
* Maddie's definitions of healthy/adoptable and treatable were originally drawn from California law aimed at protecting consumers purchasing pets from pet shops.
Note: Richard Avanzino is the person who reformed the San Francisco SPCA from a morally and financially bankrupt dog-catcher to a world leader in animal welfare.
By Rich Avanzino
(This question stems from a recent discussion on the Best Friends No More Homeless Pets Forum.)