At just the young age of 10, I had the opportunity to save the life of an animal that was next-in-line for the euthanization table. This was the day that I somehow convinced my mother to let me bring a puppy home from a locally known 'kill-shelter'. At the time, I was unaware of the consequences of the animals that were left after the adoption day was over. More than likely these animals would be euthanized if they were not adopted which seems absolutely insane and immoral no matter the situation. After adopting Jolly, the runt of his litter and the smallest puppy at the adoption fair that day, I later learned more about the type of shelter he was from. Being an avid animal lover, since that day, I have yet to understand why anyone could possibly kill innocent, voiceless animals. 

There are 2 main categories of shelters that are affluent today: kill-shelters and traditional, no-kill shelters. Each are fairly self-explanatory but many people don't know what really goes on in each shelter. Kill-shelters euthanize animals while no-kill shelters do not. Euthanization refers to the painless process of injecting an animal with fluids that stop their heart that eventually leads to their death. When asked, it may seem like an easy choice as to which shelter should be mandatory, but after conducting more research, I found no-kill shelters to be the opposite of how they are portrayed. No-kill shelters are inhumane and should be completely eliminated while kill-shelters should be the mandatory type of shelter. Kill shelters kill animals that are ill, old, or unadoptable while no-kill shelters don't kill as much kill with the needle, as they fail to practice the proper care for their animals which leads to inhumane, preventable deaths.

Animal shelters haven't always been viewed as "shelters" for homeless animals. The shelters and facilities we know of today evolved from pounds, which housed animals that were found wandering and could be reunited with their owners/new owners for a small fee. The next advancement in this field was the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or ASPCA which was founded in 1866. This was the first animal welfare organization in the United States and many other organizations and programs were created soon after (Lila Miller). PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals was created in 1980 and is the largest animal rights organization in the world, with more than 3 million members and supporters. PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation. Special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns (PETA). Both of these organizations created the basis of what would become the largest animal rights activists' groups that we know of today. 

More often than not, people favor the side of no-kill shelters versus kill-shelters mainly due to moral reasoning. No one feels that it is okay to kill innocent animals but what the same group of people don't know is the reasoning behind these euthanizations. In PETA's article, "The Deadly Consequences of No-Kill", a great example was given to help better understand this issue: "you're walking next to a river and you see a kitten floating past. You jump in and save the kitten. Then another one floats by, so you save that one too. Then another and another float by, and you soon realize that you can't save them all. So you run upstream to see who's throwing kittens into the water- and you stop that person" (The Deadly Consequences of No-Kill). This is the same situation that is related with no-kill shelters. The problem isn't necessarily all of the animals, but those that breed them and cannot take proper care of them leading to the running away and reproduction of strays. This is one of the biggest problems that should be stopped or controlled first. Creating new laws on breeding and neutering would greatly help control this particular issue. It addresses the issue of strays from the source- if animals are spayed/neutered at the beginning of their lives, there is no chance of the reproduction of more animals if they were to become a stray. Thus, rates of strays would be lower, allowing for less animals to be at risk of unnatural death.

Although no-kill seems like the most moral and appropriate choice of shelter, there are consequences behind it. "It's appalling to contemplate, but when shelters give in to pressure to go no-kill before they have overcome the breeding and selling of animals in their communities and before establishing sufficient spaying and neutering services, the results are often far worse for animals than a peaceful death through euthanasia" (The Deadly Consequences of No-Kill). Where are the animals supposed to go when they are turned away at the shelter door? Other than living on the streets, the only other option is to go to animal control which is no 'homey' place for anyone. These animals still die, but very painfully. Those that become stray, do all that they know to do- survive and reproduce creating more strays that is a never ending cycle. Meanwhile, the animals that are taken into the shelter, spend extended amounts of time squeezed in cages many times with other animals, leading to them become withdrawn, depressed, anxious or aggressive. Neither of these situations should be occurring today as they are extremely inhumane and no-kill shelters are doing nothing other than adding to this problem. PETA added photos to show what conditions these animals are living in and they are heartbreaking. This is only the beginning of an issue that will continue to get worse as time goes on.

Now the main question that many would like to know is "why are these animals being killed?". Why do kill-shelters kill these innocent animals? That is not how it usually goes. The main reasons behind euthanizations are simple: illness, age, aggression, and overpopulation. "Animal shelters are breeding grounds for diseases" (3 Big Reasons). If the animal is too sick to survive and has little to no hope for survival, they would be euthanized and released from the pain they are enduring which opens up more spots in the shelters for other animals with a chance to be adopted. Overpopulation is an issue that no-kill deals with more than kill shelters due to the facet that they keep all animals no matter the condition. Each shelter only has so much space for incoming animals and those that seem to be "unadoptable" would be considered for euthanization as well. No-kill shelters do not turn animals away which leads to the inhumane aspect. Animals are locked in cages, some multiple animals per cage (shown in the photos above) and there is little to no care given to them that is a requirement for their health and survival. This often makes animals more aggressive and lashing out to humans due to their lack of care. At this point, the animals would more than likely rather be euthanized than have to endure pain and suffering for their remaining time alive. 

Winnie Hu, a New York Times reporter, wrote an article called "Shift to 'No-Kill' Shelters Leaves Town Deluged by Strays". As it may seem, the reports of stray animals greatly increased after a local shelter in Ulster County turned into a no-kill shelter. "We are no longer the dumping ground for animals" said Christie French, the shelters executive. After this change, they have "created new headaches for local governments and publicly financed shelters left to cope with a deluge of unwanted dogs and cats" (Hu). The strays reproducing and creating more strays, leaves towns and cities unable to properly take care of them all. If all shelters were required to be kill shelters, this would greatly decrease the number of strays while finding homes for many adoptable animals. Knowing this, kill-shelters would be vital for stabilizing and decreasing the rate of stray animals all together. 

But what about the pro no-kill believers? Morality plays a large role in the argument. Who favors killing animals? Better yet, in some cases, who favors killing kittens and puppies? Not many can say they do in that manner but that is instantly what people think of when they hear the words "kill-shelter". The main reason that people favor no-kill shelters is just knowing that they are no-kill. The thought of killing or murdering innocent animals turns people away from kill-shelters. This boosts adoptions because many people choose the no-kill shelter rather than the kill-shelter to pick out their new companion. Another reason to favor no-kill is that it "brings in more volunteers and improves staff morale leading to greater community support and better charitable missions" (Good vs. Bad Shelters). These reasons bring people together and create unbreakable bonds in the process. But, what many don't know is what goes on inside of these shelters and the treatment of these animals, which in many cases, would change people's opinions about favoring no-kill.

Other than strays, many times animals that are brought to shelters are brought by their owners who can no longer care for them properly. This is known as "relinquishing" the animals. "Relinquishing a nonhuman animal to a shelter is a complex decision that, it is often believed, ultimately may represent a breakdown of the human-animal bond. The result of such a breakdown is an animal companion surplus in the United States" (Kass).  An experiment was conducted to examine the companion animals who are relinquished by their owners to shelters for adoption and compared them to those relinquished for euthanasia. The results consisted of 74% of dogs and 80% of cats were potentially adoptable while 24% of dogs and 17% of cats were turned to euthanasia. In other words, a large proportion of animals that would be euthanized could potentially be adopted. Why kill animals that may be perfect for a loving family? This is one of the biggest arguments against kill shelters and this information shows that animals could have futures outside of the shelter but these are some of the ones being killed. 

In an interview between Lisa Sandberg and Nathan J. Winograd, both working to stop the killing of innocent animals in shelters, discussed the reasoning and morality of what is wrong with this controversial topic. Both the interviewer and interviewee are animal rights activists that strongly believe in giving animals second chances and a real chance at life. When asked what strategies are fundamental to no-kill, Winograd noted that "The No Kill communities across the U.S. today have little in common. Some are in conservative parts of the country, and some are in liberal enclaves. Some are large and urban; others, small and rural. Some are affluent; some have high rates of poverty. But they all share the model they used to end the killing of healthy and treatable animals. It's a series of cost-effective programs and services that I call the "No Kill Equation." These shelters encourage high-volume adoptions. They work with volunteers, foster families, and rescuers. They treat medical and behavioral problems. They neuter and release, rather than kill, feral cats. Perhaps the most important characteristic they all share is that they embrace the public rather than blame it. By reaching out to community groups, by treating each life as precious, we can transform any shelter" (Inhumane). This interview discusses the many aspects and options that no-kill shelters face such as strategies that are fundamental to no-kill, traditional shelters' view of the public, the uncertain fate of the animals, and screening adopters. Although many no-kill shelters have nothing in common, things that they do have in common is the effects they are making on communities and the lives of animals, both being negative. All of these points are valid and important to the favorable side of this argument.

A YouTube video of a news report gave an inside look at what no-kill shelters are really like. These shelters are giving animals second chances at life in hopes of finding a home without being next in line for the euthanization table. This sounds like a great option, but what about all of the animals that they are refusing to take in? Overcrowding is the biggest issue within these shelters. In Kansas City, the euthanization rates were 3 times higher than they are now all because of no-kill. This is a huge improvement as our country maintains a kill rate of 50% or 1 out of every 2 dogs or cats living in shelters will be euthanized. Around 4 million dogs and cats are euthanized every year ("No-Kill" Animal Shelters). Knowing this, why would anyone want to knowingly be okay with the killing of that many animals? Yes, those numbers are extremely high but not all animals will find homes outside of the shelters and most that are euthanized are injured, sick, old, or considered "not adoptable". No-kill portrays kill shelters as something way worse than they really are. Kill shelters don't just kill innocent animals for the sake of killing, they euthanize those who are suffering and don't have a high chance of survival or finding a home.

Joshua M. Frank and Pamela Carlisle-Frank also argue that no-kill shelters should be a required characteristic of all animal shelters in the country. An important organization relevant to this side that they mention is Maddie's Fund, a family foundation founded in 1994 by Dave and Cheryl Duffield that is he creation of a goal towards achieving a no-kill nation where all healthy and treatable shelter dogs and cats are guaranteed a loving home. "The couple has endowed over $300 million and have awarded more than $172 million in grants toward their goal" (Maddie's Fund). The results from Maddie's Fund helped decline shelter euthanasia as expected. This organization is one of the most well-known that hopes to end all animal mistreatment. "The most recent estimate of how many animals are euthanized per year has been reported as 4.2 million dogs and cats or 14.8 animals per 1,000 Americans" (Frank). I knew there are a lot of euthanizations yearly but I was not expecting the numbers to be that high. 

Gathering all of this information taught me a lot more than I thought it would and even convinced me to change my initial argument from one side to another. Of course, no one is really okay with innocent animals being killed but I believe that it would be better for the animals' sake to be euthanized rather than spending their entire lives locked in cages with minimal care and love. Imagine yourself being an animal in a shelter, would you rather be crammed in a cage for long periods of time with little to no affection? No-kill shelters are inhumane and should be completely eliminated while kill-shelters should be the mandatory type of shelter. Kill-shelters are more humane in other ways than it may seem. Euthanizing ill, old, and aggressive animals is not as inhumane as keeping multiple animals locked in small cages with little to no care that they need to survive happily. If we were to make all shelters kill-shelters, there would be more room for adoptable animals in the shelters and it would take the suffering animals out of their uncontrollable pain. 

