Intermittently one reads or hears an animal welfare organization, particularly the new kids on the block with politically correct intentions, claiming to have a no-kill policy. Any organization making this claim is doing it purely for publicity, emotional blackmail, popularity extortion and financial gain.
Imagine the veterinary profession, which deals far more profoundly with the welfare of animals from goldfish to elephants, having a similar philosophy?! What would then happen to those poor creatures suffering from terminal illness, extremely painful conditions, advanced senility or any other incurable condition which is causing misery in an artificial human environment? In nature, any animal that is weak, ill, incompetent, old, and no longer able to cope with its role will be killed by its own kind or predators. The latter system has been in existence since creation but now along come these modern bunny-huggers looking for attention as self-acclaimed animal lovers who suddenly believe that not to kill these animals is caring and in the interest of welfare. Animals with severe behaviour disorders or aggression need to be removed from society depending on each individual case where rehabilitation is impossible. No-kill shelters reject euthanasia, are pro-life so what do they do for these unhappy animals with emotional, physical and mental hardship?!
The reason most people have this misguided and cruel approach is because they have never suffered to appreciate the feelings and situation. A similar analogy is the boards of directors governing retirement villages for the elderly and certain hospital institutions who disallow pets without appreciating how lonely these people are their sufferance; because the decision-makers have never been in that predicament, although their time eventually arrives. This is nothing more than a misanthropic myopic attitude to fellow humans.
If a no-kill shelter advertises this rule what happens to the overflow of animals? More shelters need to be built, more funds are required, more facilities need to be created and who is expected to subsidise this never-ending concept. The reason many animal welfare organizations go bankrupt is because they are not run with astute business principles coupled with a mature rational ethical approach to the welfare of the animals in its care.
In the USA six to eight million animals end up in shelters annually. The minimum cost of each animal is about one hundred rand per day. It costs the country fifteen billion rand per annum to sterilize forty million animals per year and an identical amount of money to capture, care for and euthanase those that require it in any given year. All this statistically said and done they still cannot cope.
Some of the no-kill shelters in the USA will spend sixty-five million rand per year just to house about one-thousand five-hundred animals over a year when the same money could have sterilized two-hundred thousand dogs and cats preventing hundreds of thousands of unwanted births. Even some of the most radical international animal welfare groups have queried what happens to the animals turned away from these no-kill shelters due to lack of space availability or overcrowding to levels beyond welfare.
Attempting to build enough shelters to deal with the endless overpopulation of homeless animals is equivalent to placing a plaster on a gunshot wound.
Some of the professed no-kill shelters have been fraudulent in their tenet by disposing of animals in an extremely cruel manner such as carbon monoxide poisoning from car exhausts, as long as euthanasia does not come in to the equation. They also manipulate statistics as a public relations exercise. Some of these shelters have failed numerous health and safety inspections. They are compromising the well-being of animals by adopting ludicrous views. Some have been closed down by authorities. A veterinarian and assistant professor was once quoted as saying that some of the worst places to be, if you are an animal in North Carolina, are a no-kill shelter!
Some shelters with the no-kill label has been used as a cover by some people with obsessive compulsive tendencies, better known as animal hoarders.
In the true international definition the no-kill shelters are expected to euthanase any animal that cannot be adopted or rehabilitated but does vary in its interpretation from organization to organization. This has led to misuse, misapplication and public deceit. Any animal welfare cannot profess to be a no-kill and still selectively kill. The nomenclature has to be more clear and honest.
No-kill shelters have to rely on volunteers to assist the daily functions, socializing of the animals, promotion of adoption and acting as fosterers.
No-kill sounds so romantic at the outset but when the people behind this concept face the real world they quickly learn the difference between fantasy and reality. In some countries like Italy where euthanasia of healthy companion animals was outlawed in 1991 the government was very successful in trapping, sterilizing and returning stray dogs and cats to where they were found however the abandonment of pets rocketed and they are still facing serious issues.
The trend of no-kill was conceptualized eighteen years ago in San Francisco, USA and with all the good intentions, donations and commitment there has only been an eighty-two percent success rate.
The no-kill policy has divided the animal welfare community world-wide. It is advertising no-kill and traditional kill centres. The people who refuse to euthanase may be exacerbating animal-related problems so the public will then turn to kill centres to ensure that their pets do not suffer. Some of the no-kill centres refuse to admit animals due to lack of space and so many awaiting adoption that the overflow ends up at the welfare centres which euthanase anyway. Some are so full with strays that they have closed their doors because intake has exceeded adoption due to the impractical no-kill dogma.
In the nitty-gritty of life the stray animal problem is directly a societal tragedy created by human neglect. Instead of legislating the rights to own animals, governments and animal welfare organizations are treating the symptoms and not the cause.
New animal welfare rescue schemes are opening up all over the place by do-gooders hoping to save lives. New catchy names are given to these shelters hoping it will give animal lovers a whiplash and a reflex deep dig into their pockets for assistance. People are running these shelters from houses and plots with good intentions. They then turn their passion into other people’s burden by begging for financial support, draining public funds and resources, begging for donations of food, materials, accessories, catteries and kennels construction. How do these people make a living out of this and still obey the codes of conduct regarding animal welfare?!
Certain advocates of no-kill claim that there are sufficient homes for all dogs and cats requiring adoption if everyone would open up. This undiplomatic comment has caused a serious disservice to population control efforts causing pet owners to refuse spaying and castrating their pets.
Some societies which had a no-kill commitment surrendered their beliefs acknowledging the difficulties encountered in trying to keep animals alive, admitting that a no-kill status will never be a reality.
One Canadian no-kill cat shelter was found four years ago with over fifty cats suffering from starvation and infections, most were euthanased and the director charged with animal cruelty; and these people claim to love animals!!!
No-kill proponents are nothing more than no-clue ignoramuses. It is similar to the people who become vegetarians because they do not want animals to be killed for their benefit. These vegans and vegetarians have never investigated how many flocks of birds and thousands of rodents such as porcupines and cane rats are shot and poisoned every year to look after the crops of fruits and vegetables they love to eat.
There is a true story, anecdotal to the topic and principle, about a man who approached a no-kill shelter to have his dog euthanased. He was turned away. He then grabbed his dog, got in to his truck and left. At the first intersection he threw the dog out of the truck and ran over him to put him out of his misery. Shelter workers who refused to help the dog before it died collected the remains.
Humans have assumed the role of the dominant creature on this earth yet we have no idea how to manage the creatures under us. We have distorted anthropomorphic views on values because people are the only creatures on earth which are sentimental and care for other animals. With this in mind the rationale of being caretakers is nothing but political, egotistical and ignorant hypocrisy.
Those people who believe in a no-kill policy let it be on your conscience the suffering you protract living your idea at the expense of the animals that depend on you for their needs.
Advertising a no-kill policy is purely an extortion tactic for extruding funds from the public.