The Petfinder article says that "Research suggests that there is no difference in the success rates of the adoptions between organizations that screen heavily versus those that have more open adoption policies."

The research is not cited, but it hardly matters as research and statistics are so misused and distorted that scientific credibility is almost non-existent. In the words of British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli more than a century ago, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. To that can be added research.

Long-time anecdotal accounts are more credible. My own personal experience of fifteen years of dog rescue and fifteen years of talking to other dog rescuers is that many people who buy a dog from a pound or an SPCA do not want to return the dog to a cell or possible death so they beg rescue groups to take the dog. The most common reason for the failure of the dog that was bought is that it has behaviour problems and when the owner has phoned the pound or the SPCA to say that they can't deal with the biting or the separation anxiety for example, they have been told that if they bring the dog back it will be (or may be) killed. I was told that by several SPCAs as recently as this Spring. Telling that to returners would certainly tend to make your "adoption" success rates look good.

Also, many other little groups are taking huge numbers of pets from abandoners in order to keep them out of these facilities in the first place. In the last 18 months alone the number of these groups registered with Revenue Canada Charities has increased 30% and that is only the ones that choose to register. We know that there are many individuals and small groups doing animal rescue that are not registered, perhaps even more than are registered. Each of them prevents a few or many pets a year from going to pet disposal facilities. Some have even taken animals sent by the SPCA to vet clinics by the to be killed. The rescuer has seen that a cat only had a cold, or the "feral" cat was only timid, that the SPCA has labelled "unadoptable", and they have taken it into their rescue group, treated it, and rehomed it.

These reasons alone account for the pet disposal agencies having decreasing kill rates ("euthanasia rates" is the fallacious but soothing euphemism they prefer to use). But there are other factors that account for the pet disposers' lessening kill rates and that is the mighty internet rescue network. Pet dumpers go on the internet in ever-increasing numbers so that they don't have to dump their pet at a facility with cells and cages that might label their pet "unadoptable" and then kill it. Colds, diarrhea, kennel cough, ringworm, timidity, fear, all these treatable conditions are on the pet disposers' list of "unadoptable" reasons that permit them to kill many animals while still telling the public that they don't kill any adoptable animals. There is nothing unadoptable about a cat with a cold if the cold is treated. This word-illusion, that is used by every, or almost every, agency in the pet disposal industry, was first exposed by AAS in 2000 when we started the AAS website.

Then there are the rescue societies that report that they are contacted by the SPCA and told that if they don't take an animal or animals that they will be, or might be, killed. Litters of sick kittens or kittens that need bottle-feeding, old dogs with health problems for example. That would certainly tend to reduce the "euthanasia" statistics.

Saying over and over and over that you do not "euthanize" any "adoptable" animal also tends to make the public believe that you are no-kill. We and others have been told many times by animal-lovers that the BC SPCA for example, is no-kill. When asked directly, the BC SPCA has said it is not no-kill. But the illusion persists because of the words, "We don't euthanize any adoptable animals."

Real no-kill treats what is wrong instead of killing animals because they have been so foolish as to catch a cold from the facility they are in, or because they attempt to bite the hand that suddenly reaches for them while they are backed into a corner of a terrifying cell, or because overcrowding has made them angry or depressed, or because they are unsold and taking up room that can be refilled with animals that might be more sellable.

I don't believe the Petfinders' research. AAS dogs very seldom come back to us. We hold out for the right home that meets our exacting standards. We supply medical and behavioural assistance if it is needed. We keep on top and we stay in touch. We know many little groups who do the same.

We also don't have pound contracts and never would as pounds are public safety agencies and must intake stray and dangerous dogs, some of which they must kill to protect the public.

Nor do we take on more animals than we have "resources" for and then kill them for not having "enough resources". That is not animal welfare and in fact smacks of "pest-pet disposal" to me and others.

If the pet disposal agencies' "euthanasia" statistics are improving, I think it has much to do with the expanding number of rescue groups and the power of the internet.

If the big organizations and pounds' kill stats are improving, that is good news of course, but have any of these bodies given fair credit where credit is due? Credit for a charity translates into donations. AAS constantly gives credit to those groups. We tell their stories, link to their sites, and even send them money.