With several large-scale cases in California of alleged cruelty by animal rescues in the spotlight, including the most recent accusations of Miranda’s Rescue in Humboldt County with ties to some Bay Area shelters, it’s time to talk about a major reason these disturbing stories came to be.
Over the course of my four decades working in animal welfare, I’ve seen many changes. The field has evolved, and most of those advances have been just that — an advancement. Changes include ways homeless pets are treated and sheltered; the creation of professional certifications for those who work in animal welfare; and how impactful programs are implemented to help both animals and the people who love them.
However, during the mid 1990s, a new philosophy in animal welfare took root. Thanks to its feel-good name, it quickly became something embraced by many. I’m referring to the label of “no kill.”
To be certain, no one wants animals to lose their lives and at that time, around 10 million animals were being euthanized in shelters each year. Practices like “trap, neuter and release” for feral cats were not commonplace yet (instead, feral cats were automatically euthanized). In addition, there was very little attention given to the importance of spaying and neutering.
The definition for what makes an organization “no kill” has varied over the years. Today, the criteria are applied when at least 90% of animals leaving a shelter or rescue are either adopted, transferred to another shelter or rescue center, or returned to their owner. Achieve 90% by any means necessary and you can call yourself “no kill.”
Sadly, what we have seen are shelters/rescues either turning animals away they deem unadoptable, keeping them in inhumane, overcrowded conditions or transferring them somewhere else (often with no questions asked) to avoid tough conversations and decisions.
Municipal shelters and those with contracts to provide animal services must, by law, accept stray animals brought to them. They don’t have the luxury of turning away dangerous or extremely sick animals. Often, those underfunded, overwhelmed shelters are demonized for not being “no kill” regardless of the never-ending stream of animals coming through their doors.
“No kill” has also proven to be a successful way to raise money. It hits any animal lover viscerally, and some groups have capitalized on those feelings.
The pressure to transfer animals to “sanctuaries” or rescues to avoid criticism and hard decisions, along with the marketing of “no kill” has in fact led to animals being sent to places like Miranda’s Rescue.
Judging organizations primarily by whether they call themselves “no kill” does little to address the underlying challenges facing animal welfare, including inadequate resources, limited access to veterinary care and a lack of community support services.
Now is the time to end the use of the misleading label “no kill.”
Now is also the time to focus on the establishment of regulations for all animal shelters and rescue organizations in our state. At Marin Humane, we have been working with CalAnimals (a state association of animal welfare organizations) over the past few years to develop ways the state could oversee the organizations caring for animals and track the intake and outcome of animals. With real-life cruelty cases now coming to light, I hope these initiatives can be realized.
Lastly, we need to address the complex reasons animals are ending up in shelters in the first place: Why families are being forced to consider giving up their pet (often economics, housing policies or access to affordable veterinary care). Why is there so little funding for animal service agencies, especially in impoverished communities, and how can we address the acute shortage of veterinarians to ease the backlog of spay/neuter surgeries?
My hope is that the future includes a pendulum shift away from the tunnel vision on euthanasia statistics and instead has a wider lens on prevention efforts, pet safety nets and, of course, encouraging more people to adopt a shelter animal.
