The morality of killing animals in animal shelters is questionable. The killing of shelter animals because they have been living in a shelter for too long without being adopted is immoral; it is murder and these animals deserve the right to live.  The reasoning adopted by most shelters for euthanizing animals is overpopulation.  The movement against kill shelters believe that animals should not lose there lives because there is not enough space for them, although both sides of the argument are animal rights supports wanting the what is best for the animals, like PETA for example.  PETA supports kill shelters, but they claim to be animal rights advocates.  Most of the time, in the media, the only aspect of animal cruelty that is discussed is the animal's life before it is rescued, but most people do not know that the animals are killed even when they are in shelters.  Being an animal lover and a pet owner is what brings about my interest in the controversy between kill and no kill animal shelters and whether killing the animals in shelters should be considered animal cruelty.  Life should not be taken so often for such a ludicrous reason, which is what is happening everyday in kill shelters.  In my own experience, most shelter animals are sweet, appreciative, and loving.  If my cat had been euthanized due to overpopulation in the shelter before I had adopted him, not only would he have been robbed of his life, but I would have been robbed of all the great times I have had with him.  Most pets in shelters, if they are young and healthy, have high chances of adoption and not being euthanized to make space for other incoming animals.  Is it not contradictory to kill animals to make space to save other animals?

A no-kill animal shelter, is one that has a less than 10% rate of death per year, not due to poor health or fatal injury, or a shelter with only two animal deaths per 1,000 people in the community.  According to a survey in 1997, 64% of the animals that entered shelters were euthanized (American Humane Association), but in 2014 another survey showed 32% of the animal were euthanized, which shows a drastic decrease in deaths (PAWS).  Also, a survey done on a smaller scale than these national ones, showed that there was only a 15% death rate in the shelter that was studied.  These numbers show that it is a reachable goal for all shelters to have, or be close to having standards such as those with no kill policies.  Some shelters are already displaying this by being very close to reaching less than 10%.  Although, all shelters should already be following the no kill policy because it's in the best interest of the animals.  

Animals are living beings just like humans.  Humans have rights so why should animals be left without complete protection from the law.  Animals need protection from abuse, neglect, and believe it or not, shelters.  Animals have the ability to suffer and feel pain like humans, which means that they deserve rights just the same as humans.  It is not moral in the United States to kill people healthy or ill, therefore it is not justifiable to kill animals in shelters even if they are in perfect health.  Andrew Rowan makes a similar point when comparing abortion to euthanizing animals, "There is still violent disagreement over the morality of killing the human fetus or using it in experiments.  By contrast, society accepts the killing of adult animals" (par.3 Rowan).  A fetus is a living thing, and so are animals.  Both are living things that can feel pain and suffer, so there is no reason for it to be morally okay to kill one but not the other, therefore animal life should get the same consideration as human life.  Euthanasia in shelters is normally the answer to overcrowding, but just because you find an answer to a problem, that does not mean it is correct, and they also justify which animals are killed by labeling them as unadoptable.

The animals in shelters that are normally euthanized are most commonly the ones labeled unadoptable.  Unadoptable can mean many things, such as older pets, ones with behavioral issues, or some that can have the sweetest personality, but they lack a desirable appearance.  Animals that enter shelters with diseases or injuries are also deemed unadoptable if their ailment does not have an easy solution, because most people adopting want a pet that they can have for a long time.  Shelters also do not want these animals because veterinary treatment can be expensive.  Most adopters look for a long term relationship with their pet instead of a quality one.  A study was done to collect data on the traits of animals and how they affect the length of stay at the shelter for the animals, or their adoptability.  Some of the results conncluded that males were adopted sooner than females, and kittens were adopted faster than adults.  They also concluded that lighter colored cats, and those with patterned coats were adopted more quickly than those with dark coats.  "Every physical characteristic of cats examined from studies conducted in traditional shelters influenced the LOS, the likelihood of adoption, or the risk for being killed" (176 Brown), therefore, unadoptable cats according to this experiment can be labeled as female adults with a high LOS (length of stay) and a dark coat color.  The length of stay of the cat at the shelter has an affect on its behavior making the cat less desirable and higher up on the list of unadoptable cats that are in risk of being euthanized to create more space in the shelter for more adoptable cats.

Animals in shelters have no control over their appearance, therefore it should not be a deciding factor in whether they are allowed to live another day; some of the ugliest animals have the sweetest personalities.  For example, one of my cats, Tiger, is the sweetest, most playful cat who also loves to cuddle.  We adopted him as a kitten.  He was the runt of his litter and very skittish.  He did not like people to pick him up, and handle him, and he could never meow like a normal kitten, and still to this day his attempts to meow sound like a scratchy squeal.  None of my siblings wanted him, but as a little six-year-old obsessed with any and all animals, I wanted him.  Of course there were kittens who were cuter and more friendly, but I was adamant about getting him, and as the youngest child, I was used to getting my way.  My dad said to wait another day before making the decision to adopted one.  This was to make sure we were all sure about our decision.  However, when my dad talked to one of the employees at the shelter, they said if we came back tomorrow he would be gone, and not in the sense that he would be adopted.  We ended up adopting him that day and officially making Tiger a part of our family.  Over time he became the best companion I could ask for, and to think that he was considered unadoptable is beyond my disbelief.  All animals deserve the chance to have a home with people who will love and care for them.  They deserve a chance even if they are ugly, shy, or cannot meow normally; people are given the chance to do what ever it is they want in life no matter their flaws.  Animals, just like humans have feelings, they may not be as complex, but they still feel joy, excitement, sadness, pain, suffering.  If that is the case, then why is it that humans can so easily take the life of these creatures, because by the opinion of some person in a position of power they were labeled unwanted?  Pets can feel emotions, they make conscious decisions about what they do in their lives, so their life does matter and no one should be allowed the authority to take that life away from those animals.  A foundation called Maddie's Fund did an adoption sponsor weekend in New York, where they paid shelters a certain amount of money for each dog and cat adopted.  A total of "3,104 dogs and cats were adopted ...  Maddie's Fund paid the shelters $500 for each dog and cat under 7 years that was adopted, $1,000 for each animal over 7 and $2,000 for each animal over 7 with a medical ailment" (par. 20 Winerip), not only did this increase the shelters funds for animal care, it also created awareness to people that even the older and not as healthy pets are worth adopting and that they also deserve a chance to have a loving home just as much as puppies and kittens do.  Adopting the animals is not the full solution to the problem, their new families have to take care of them.  So many animals get adopted and end up back in shelters making them seem less adoptable, when it is actually the pet owner's fault for not caring enough for the animal to keep it healthy or by creating behavioral issues from abuse.  If people took the responsibilities of animal care more seriously then less animals would go back into shelters, and the amount of overcrowding might decrease.

Overcrowding is the main issue with shelters that is publicized as the cause of euthanizing animals, "Keeping large numbers of unadoptable pets alive means shelters will be more crowded" (par.3 LA Daily News).  The supporters of euthanasia in shelters label these animals as unadoptable to make it seem alright on a moral standpoint to kill these animals.  Leslie Irvine presents the idea that both no-kill supporters and their opposition both believe they are doing what is best for animals therefore the argument is at stasis. They argue that it is the animals best interest to be euthanized, in comparison to waiting in a shelter to be adopted.  People who are bullied and deemed unwanted by society are not told that suicide is in their best interest.  Death should never be the answer to any question.  These people are given a second chance by others, and encouraged to keep living because that is what is best for them, not death. In contrast to that, people believe that unwanted animals should die and that because they are flawed they should be put out of their so-called misery and be euthanized. What they really need is a chance to love and be loved.  

Kill shelter supporters use the term euthanasia as a euphemism for what they are really doing, which is murdering innocent animals.  In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary euthanasia is defined as "the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy", therefore, killing animals who are healthy, but labeled unadoptable are not being euthanized, they are being murdered.  There is no mercy shown in killing animals that have done nothing wrong in their lives to deserve death. These animals do not have any control over the overcrowding issues, it is the shelter managements' that have control over this. According to Francis Battista in his TEDtalk, 9,000 animals die in shelters everyday, so that is approximately 4 million per year.  Shelters should not be "the leading cause of death for healthy dogs and cats in the United States" (par.1 Winograd).  Shelters should be a safe haven for animals, a place for them to stay until they find a home, not a death sentence.  Shelters save animals so that they do not "die slowly and in agony on the streets, in backyards, under sheds, on chains and in the hands of abusive people" (par.8 PETA).  Animals that suffer through this deserve the right to a chance to live.  No animal, same as humans, asks for their lives to be full of suffering, but once they are saved and the suffering is over, why should they still be sentenced to death; it may not be as painful as it would have been if they were not saved, but the outcome is the same; the animal is still dead.  The animal is stripped of his/her rights to a happy life void of abuse and neglect.  In a way, this is still neglect.  Instead of taking care of the animal, they do the opposite.  The loss of an animal life seems better than using resources to help that animal, which is morally wrong on many levels.

Shelters do have alternatives to killing innocent animals, however, killing them is much easier than making changes to accommodate them.  Shelters take in animals to save them and find a home for them, but killing them defeats the purpose of saving them.  Animals are rescued from the streets to keep them from suffering from starvation, disease and abuse.  Killing them because space is needed for more rescues is the equivalent to making people jump out of a life boat, into the water so that other people have the chance to be saved.  It is a way for shelters to keep a constant amount of animals at all times.  Saving one animal off the street today, and another tomorrow does not guarantee life to both, it means that the more adoptable one with have the chance to live.  Instead of making improvements on how the shelter animals are managed, they resort to euthanasia because it is the easy answer to the problem.  The harder and more moral path requires improvements to be made in the shelters.  Better management can make a big deal in animal welfare in shelters.  If animals are closely monitored in shelters to avoid illness, injury, and behavioral problems, less animals would die, and more would have the opportunity to be adopted.  Good management also involves doing enough fundraising to be able to afford the costs of animal care and to improve living conditions for animals in shelters, because happy animals are more adoptable than ones with behavioral issues due to being in shelters.  Also, spay/neutering stray animals can help keep the stray populations lower and reduce the amount of animals that come into shelters.  Advertisement can also increase these chances.  There are so many people looking for pets to bring into their families that there should not be this amount of animals dying before they can be adopted.  No-kill shelters are in the best interest of animals and there are many people out there fighting for these animals' lives.  There are people who want to "give aid and comfort to homeless animals in a humane, healthy, and caring way" (par. 18 Foro).  It is these people who lead the movement to gain animal rights and encourage the public to take responsibility for their pets and the homeless ones.  The no-kill shelter model can only go so far in protecting the animals.  They also need good care, because saving the animal fixes one problem, but keeping them healthy and well fed is another that must be solved.  That is why some people are against no-kill shelters, but if these improvements are made then no-kill shelters will become the better option in many more people's minds, creating a better chance at life for pets.

Ending the murders of innocent animals in shelters cannot be done only through advocating for their rights.  Donations have to be made to shelters, and the shelters have to make the changes because it is possible to be no kill.  The communities that the shelters are in also have to help.  Even pet owners have to make better decisions and keep their animals from ending up back in shelters.  Change does not happen unless action is taken.  A no-kill shelter America is possible; killing these undeserving animals is morally wrong because their deaths can be avoided and they are lives that no one has the authority to take away.  

