No-Kill Shelters Vs Animal Shelters
Homelessness is not a new issue, it has been around for many many years, but for not only people, this includes animals as well. The unfortunate reality is that there are not enough people for the number of animals that are living on the streets, which is where animal shelters come in as an important role in this issue. There are two specific types of animal shelters, and the two different types are opposites. There are no-kill shelters, which don’t use euthanasia unless that is the only option and kill shelters which use euthanasia as a way of controlling the stray population.
Many pet activists believe strongly in shelters strictly being no-kill, in order to help keep the rights of healthy animals that have a chance at adoption. The reason no-kill …show more content…
shelters believe so strongly in what they do, and why the people that began no-kill shelters want to make every animal shelter in the United States no-kill, is because they believe that all animals should have a fair chance at a second, and better, life. That specific type of animal shelter has a goal of saving as many animals as possible, and not putting animals to sleep unless there is no other alternative. These no-kill shelters only take in a limited number of animals because they don’t want to take in so many that they can’t handle. They often turn people away when they are trying to surrender the pets they can no longer keep for whatever reason. But despite this, they save and get about 90% of the animals they take in, adopted out into better homes for another chance. That is one of the main reason so many people prefer no-kill shelters, because of the high save rate. The only reason that no-kill shelters would euthanize the animals is because of certain things such as, the animal being too old, the animal being too sick to recover, the animal being too aggressive beyond repair, or they have some type of contagious disease that could affect the whole shelter.
On the other hand, kill shelters euthanize for any number of reasons. Since kill shelters will take in any animal that comes through their door, no matter how little space they have, or how sick, injured, or aggressive the animal. This creates problems if the shelter were to try and keep every animal that gets surrendered or brought into that shelter. So, if the kill shelter decides that for any of those reasons the animal is most likely not to be adopted, then the kill shelters will euthanize it in order to maintain open space at the shelter for animals that are more adoptable, as well as help to minimize and try to control the stray animal population. Kill shelters also claim that since no-kill shelters do not take every animal in, people in need of giving up their pets are forced to go to kill shelters. This then forces the kill shelters to do the dirty work that no-kill shelters simply want to avoid. The no-kill shelters like to show their high save rate of animals, but kill shelters claim that they then euthanize the animals that the no-kill shelters turn away for whatever reason. This is another issue that drives a stake between the two different types of shelters.
Since the majority of the people that either volunteer or donate to shelters are trying to help the animals in the shelters in their area in any way they can, many prefer the no-kill shelters rather than the kill shelters. Since the no-kill shelters are proud of their save rate, and the good they are doing, people tend to volunteer more, donate more, and even adopt a high amount of animals because of the fact that the no-kill shelters save every animal possible. While on the other hand, people also tend to go to kill shelters, since they feel obligated to go and rescue the animals that they know are going to be euthanized for whatever reason, most likely space issues, the shelter is having. Shelters often will put out a list of pets that are being euthanized very soon as a last chance effort to get those animals adopted out before the shelter puts them to sleep. This brings people in because many of the capable owners in the area feel like they need to help the animals as a last chance to get a good home.
Some shelters don’t always accept the feral animals that get caught off the street and brought into the shelters. Especially cats that live their entire lives out on the streets with no human contact, it is very hard, almost impossible, to get those animals put into homes. So some shelters use “TNR” as a way of managing the overpopulation. TNR stands for “trap, neuter, release”, and they capture the animals, sterilize the animals whether that is a spay or a neuter, and release them back into the wild. That helps decrease the population of stray cats by preventing future litters. Other shelters disagree with these tactics, because it still puts other animals and people at risk in case the cats attack other animals or people. So while this tactic does help in preventing the overpopulation of animals, especially cats, from growing larger, it does not help prevent certain diseases from spreading from cat to cat, or even more major ones from spreading from cat to people.
Some shelters go as far as suggesting that the owners simply abandon their unwanted pets. Since no-kill shelters don’t always take in the animals that are going to be surrendered, some no-kill shelters suggest that the owners just leave them to fend for themselves (PETA 1). This just causes more problems, since animals that lived with people for their entire lives don’t know how to survive on the streets with other strays that have been living on their own for years, or even their whole lives. The ones that do end up surviving, eventually go on to reproduce, resulting in even more homeless and stray animals. It also increases the amount of diseases that spread from the stray animals to each other.
Even with some people being activists for animals, they do support the kill shelters for one main reason. They don’t want all of the stray dogs and cats to become so overpopulated that nothing can be done for them anymore. People look at places like India, where there are only no-kill shelters, and see thousands of stray dogs that are all malnourished and sick, that find food from garbage and have no place to go, a shelter or a home, since the no-kill shelters can’t take them all in. This causes diseases to be easily spread, and fights between the stray dogs and cats are common, so having dozens of dead bodies are all over the streets.
Despite all of these negative aspects to all shelters, but no-kill shelters specifically, are something that should be recognized more for the things they do. So many people and families get their pets from no-kill shelters, and some have been there for an extended amount of time. And if that animal were to be in a kill shelter, they would most likely have already been euthanized for space. I believe that no-kill are a better choice of shelter. It just takes the right person to decide to adopt that animal that has been in the shelter for months, and if the pet were in a kill shelter, they would never get that chance of being adopted. Being in a no-kill shelter just allows the animal to stay in the shelter as long as it is needed, without the worry of being possibly euthanized. Both types of shelters are doing what they believe is best to help end the overpopulation of animals.
No-kill shelters believe that by no euthanizing the animals in their shelter for space, and just adopting them all out, no matter how long it takes, is the best way to go. On the other hand, kill shelters believe that the only way to stop the population from increasing is to euthanize the unwanted animals that have been in the shelters for an extended amount of time, since once space clears up, they can bring in more animals from the street. But, PETA believes that the best way to come about the animal overpopulation is to stop it at its source, which I agree with. This means that things like puppy mills are stopped, and once they are no longer breeding more, than the stray population will go down. This would benefit both types of shelters, considering they would no longer have to take in stray animals. Then, if that works out like PETA hopes, then all the current animals in shelters would be adopted, since buying puppies from puppy mills wouldn’t be an option. This is a good action plan, since it stops the problem at its source. This would help both shelters, as well as people in different
communities.
Many pet activists believe strongly in shelters strictly being no-kill, in order to help keep the rights of healthy animals that have a chance at adoption. The reason no-kill …show more content…
shelters believe so strongly in what they do, and why the people that began no-kill shelters want to make every animal shelter in the United States no-kill, is because they believe that all animals should have a fair chance at a second, and better, life. That specific type of animal shelter has a goal of saving as many animals as possible, and not putting animals to sleep unless there is no other alternative. These no-kill shelters only take in a limited number of animals because they don’t want to take in so many that they can’t handle. They often turn people away when they are trying to surrender the pets they can no longer keep for whatever reason. But despite this, they save and get about 90% of the animals they take in, adopted out into better homes for another chance. That is one of the main reason so many people prefer no-kill shelters, because of the high save rate. The only reason that no-kill shelters would euthanize the animals is because of certain things such as, the animal being too old, the animal being too sick to recover, the animal being too aggressive beyond repair, or they have some type of contagious disease that could affect the whole shelter.
On the other hand, kill shelters euthanize for any number of reasons. Since kill shelters will take in any animal that comes through their door, no matter how little space they have, or how sick, injured, or aggressive the animal. This creates problems if the shelter were to try and keep every animal that gets surrendered or brought into that shelter. So, if the kill shelter decides that for any of those reasons the animal is most likely not to be adopted, then the kill shelters will euthanize it in order to maintain open space at the shelter for animals that are more adoptable, as well as help to minimize and try to control the stray animal population. Kill shelters also claim that since no-kill shelters do not take every animal in, people in need of giving up their pets are forced to go to kill shelters. This then forces the kill shelters to do the dirty work that no-kill shelters simply want to avoid. The no-kill shelters like to show their high save rate of animals, but kill shelters claim that they then euthanize the animals that the no-kill shelters turn away for whatever reason. This is another issue that drives a stake between the two different types of shelters.
Since the majority of the people that either volunteer or donate to shelters are trying to help the animals in the shelters in their area in any way they can, many prefer the no-kill shelters rather than the kill shelters. Since the no-kill shelters are proud of their save rate, and the good they are doing, people tend to volunteer more, donate more, and even adopt a high amount of animals because of the fact that the no-kill shelters save every animal possible. While on the other hand, people also tend to go to kill shelters, since they feel obligated to go and rescue the animals that they know are going to be euthanized for whatever reason, most likely space issues, the shelter is having. Shelters often will put out a list of pets that are being euthanized very soon as a last chance effort to get those animals adopted out before the shelter puts them to sleep. This brings people in because many of the capable owners in the area feel like they need to help the animals as a last chance to get a good home.
Some shelters don’t always accept the feral animals that get caught off the street and brought into the shelters. Especially cats that live their entire lives out on the streets with no human contact, it is very hard, almost impossible, to get those animals put into homes. So some shelters use “TNR” as a way of managing the overpopulation. TNR stands for “trap, neuter, release”, and they capture the animals, sterilize the animals whether that is a spay or a neuter, and release them back into the wild. That helps decrease the population of stray cats by preventing future litters. Other shelters disagree with these tactics, because it still puts other animals and people at risk in case the cats attack other animals or people. So while this tactic does help in preventing the overpopulation of animals, especially cats, from growing larger, it does not help prevent certain diseases from spreading from cat to cat, or even more major ones from spreading from cat to people.
Some shelters go as far as suggesting that the owners simply abandon their unwanted pets. Since no-kill shelters don’t always take in the animals that are going to be surrendered, some no-kill shelters suggest that the owners just leave them to fend for themselves (PETA 1). This just causes more problems, since animals that lived with people for their entire lives don’t know how to survive on the streets with other strays that have been living on their own for years, or even their whole lives. The ones that do end up surviving, eventually go on to reproduce, resulting in even more homeless and stray animals. It also increases the amount of diseases that spread from the stray animals to each other.
Even with some people being activists for animals, they do support the kill shelters for one main reason. They don’t want all of the stray dogs and cats to become so overpopulated that nothing can be done for them anymore. People look at places like India, where there are only no-kill shelters, and see thousands of stray dogs that are all malnourished and sick, that find food from garbage and have no place to go, a shelter or a home, since the no-kill shelters can’t take them all in. This causes diseases to be easily spread, and fights between the stray dogs and cats are common, so having dozens of dead bodies are all over the streets.
Despite all of these negative aspects to all shelters, but no-kill shelters specifically, are something that should be recognized more for the things they do. So many people and families get their pets from no-kill shelters, and some have been there for an extended amount of time. And if that animal were to be in a kill shelter, they would most likely have already been euthanized for space. I believe that no-kill are a better choice of shelter. It just takes the right person to decide to adopt that animal that has been in the shelter for months, and if the pet were in a kill shelter, they would never get that chance of being adopted. Being in a no-kill shelter just allows the animal to stay in the shelter as long as it is needed, without the worry of being possibly euthanized. Both types of shelters are doing what they believe is best to help end the overpopulation of animals.
No-kill shelters believe that by no euthanizing the animals in their shelter for space, and just adopting them all out, no matter how long it takes, is the best way to go. On the other hand, kill shelters believe that the only way to stop the population from increasing is to euthanize the unwanted animals that have been in the shelters for an extended amount of time, since once space clears up, they can bring in more animals from the street. But, PETA believes that the best way to come about the animal overpopulation is to stop it at its source, which I agree with. This means that things like puppy mills are stopped, and once they are no longer breeding more, than the stray population will go down. This would benefit both types of shelters, considering they would no longer have to take in stray animals. Then, if that works out like PETA hopes, then all the current animals in shelters would be adopted, since buying puppies from puppy mills wouldn’t be an option. This is a good action plan, since it stops the problem at its source. This would help both shelters, as well as people in different
communities.