"Loving Them to Death: Blame-Displacing Strategies of Animal Shelter Workers and Surrenderers"

Authors of original article: Stephanie S. Frommer and Arnold Arluke
Originally published in Society and Animals
Volume 7, Number 1, 1999*

The authors examined how animal shelter workers at a large shelter in a major U.S. city and people who surrendered companion animals to the shelter managed guilt over animals' deaths. Of the nearly 7,000 animals the shelter received in 1995-mostly cats and dogs-2,195 were adopted, 2,422 were euthanized after a holding period, and the rest who were not dead on arrival were returned to their caretakers, sent to the city's animal control facility, or euthanized immediately at the caretaker's request. After interviewing 8 paid shelter workers and 10 surrenderers, the authors described strategies they used to cope with guilt over the killing of surrendered animals.

Some surrenderers resisted self-blame by blaming others. If someone forced them to give up their companion animals, they could claim no alternatives existed. A landlord did not allow companion animals; a spouse insisted a man surrender the couple's dog; undefined others failed to take responsibility for animals, necessitating their euthanasia: These were among surrenderers' claims.

Some surrenderers passed the buck, claiming, for example, that shelter workers were at fault if adoptions did not occur, since surrenderers built strong cases for animals' adoptability by emphasizing their youth, playfulness, and other appealing characteristics. Some passed the buck by explaining why the shelter they chose was the most likely to place their companion animals. Some blamed the animal victims by pointing to their perceived needs: Death was preferable to a lower quality of life than the animals had come to expect or to being a stray. Some pointed to a possibility that, if not euthanized, an animal might present a danger to human beings-by biting someone or by fighting with another animal and injuring someone who tried to break up the fight.

Shelter workers, too, blamed others, especially surrenderers, in whom they sought to instill guilt. Shelter workers held surrenderers responsible because they created the problems leading to the deaths or had failed to meet their responsibility. They extended blame to the general public by recognizing that most killings occurred because there were not enough good homes for animals. By blaming surrenderers, shelter workers set themselves apart from and above surrenderers, claiming the moral high ground and better enabling themselves to judge surrenderers as not having tried sufficiently to maintain appropriate relationships with the animals. Shelter workers also blamed the animal victims: Euthanasia was preferable to a bad life or a painful death. Some thought of the animals' deaths as inevitable or already underway so that they were just facilitating the process.

The authors point out that shelter workers and surrenders share a common concern for animals but by blaming each other for animals' deaths they prevent improvement in animals' well-being. Understanding each other's feelings of guilt about euthanasia and each other's feelings about the animals could lead shelter workers to devise more effective educational programs on responsibility for animals and could lead animal caretakers to work out better solutions than surrendering animals, but investing so much energy in avoiding guilt precludes such progress.