Millions of dogs and cats enter shelters nationwide every year; nearly half of those animals are euthanized. While some are euthanized due to irreversible health or behavioral issues, others are adoptable but shelters simply have no room for them. In recent times shelters have begun to adopt no kill policies to prevent the unnecessary deaths of healthy animals. All animals, be it a dog, cat, or otherwise, deserves a home that can provide them with love and safety. Shelters should not euthanize any healthy companion animal to save space or resources; it is not only unethical but leads to excess expenses for shelters.

Veterinarian, Vanessa Ashall, provides an argument for no kill shelters; she discusses the ethical issues involved with euthanizing adoptable animals. She explains that there is a “difference between killing a being for its own benefit and killing it because we choose to care for another animal in its place” (Ashall). Not one animal is more important than the next and it is not only unfair but unethical to choose a healthy animal with no aggression over another simply because a shelter may not have space or resources currently available. If one shelter cannot provide for one or multiple of its residents, it should locate another facility that has the necessary resources; the job of a shelter is not simply to ensure there are no more strays but to rescue and find proper, caring homes for every animal to enter their doors. As shelters continue the authorization of adoptable cats and dogs, they continue to do the opposite of the work that they set out to do in their communities.

There are many available alternatives to euthanasia that shelters can take advantage of. One such option is presented my Diana Kruzman in an article for USA Today Online. She writes about an organization that gives companies feral cats to help control pest population in their buildings. It provides a safe environment in which these cats will be properly provided for although they cannot be placed into a family home due to their feral nature. This and similar programs will assist in preventing future unnecessary euthanasia for healthy animals. If more shelters were presented with alternatives, they could not only save millions of lives yearly, but they could also save the limited space and resources that is available within their facilities. If a shelters mission truly is to rescue and place, they should do so no matter the means; as long as the animal is safe, comfortable, and cared for with the company they are placed with, these programs present a wonderful new opportunity for shelters who suffer from overpopulation issues. There are more than two options available for communities and they must open their eyes and push the local shelters to consider the many opportunities open to them. 

Many factors effect the how long an animal may reside in a shelter. William Brown and Kelsey Morgan conducted a study to find how different characteristics effect shelter cats. The study focused on age, breed, and coat color and pattern of cats living at Tompkins County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. This study found that older cats and those with darker colored fur tended to have longer stays while kittens and cats with lighter fur were adopted faster.  “Understanding how long cats remain in different types of shelters and which physical traits are preferred by adopters is important when determining shelter management practices, yet this information is surprisingly underreported: Preferred characteristics of cats adopted from no-kill shelters have not been published” (Brown). Shelters who practice no kill need to know what effects lengths of stay to help them function and operate to the best of their abilities and provide optimal care for all animals. Brown and Morgan provided useful data, in an area many before had neglected to report on, to the shelter in order to help them understand why some cats may have a significantly longer length of stay and hopefully alleviate the issue. “For example, although not in place at the time of this study, the TCSPCA has implemented a color-coding system that indicates the behavior, personality, and energy level of individual cats for potential adopters based on behavioral assessments” (Brown).

                                              
Some may argue about how the length of an animals stay effects its behavior and mental health. A group of scientists, including S. Cafazzo, addressed this topic by studying the welfare of shelter dogs in Italy, which at the time the study was conducted, had embraced no kill for fifteen years. The study focused on how the shelter environment effected mixed breed dogs within eight different Italian shelters. The scientists found that dogs who received more walks were less anxious and had higher antioxidant levels; while some animals may suffer from extended shelter stays, shelters can prevent this by providing proper attention and exercise to each animal. Dogs that were allowed more socialization with others were over all happier and healthier; “[the] results also suggest that dogs that performed a lower frequency of displacing activities (particularly auto-grooming, scratching and body shaking) and stereotyped behavior (particularly repetitive pacing in circles, catching flies, coprophagy, the act of scratching the platform and/or the ground) had a higher total antioxidant capacity” (Cafazzo).  By ensuring that the animals are not only physically, but mentally healthy, shelters can increase their residents’ adoptability. This study provided important information that is “crucial towards establishing the standards of management of dogs in shelters, especially in countries where the no-kill policy has been implemented by law” (Cafazzo).

Some organizations believe that no kill policies are not beneficial, even harmful, to shelters and the animals they rescue. One such organization is PETA, a popular animal activist group. They believe that it is simply unrealistic to rescue and place every animal to enter a shelter; some animals, in their opinion, need to be euthanized to make room for other, more adoptable, animals. “Finding homes for needy dogs and cats is gratifying, but to use another apt analogy, it’s like bailing out a sinking ship with a teaspoon: The boat will still go down unless we fix the gaping hole in the bottom” (PETA). They consider no kill policies a distraction to the real issues, uncontrolled animal populations and reproduction rates. While the United States, and the world for that matter, must focus on preventing further animal homelessness, shelters were created for the purpose of saving animals in need.

Homeless animal population are going unchecked; more and more abused, neglected, and abandoned animals are entering shelter doors daily, nonetheless, it is not time for communities to give up on rescue and adoption efforts. Of course, the United States needs to reach the bottom of the issues that contribute to the epidemic, but the country should not stop trying to save as many lives as possible along the way. Rescues are not a distraction and until the continuously growing animal population crisis is put to an end, they are necessary. Shelters are meant to provide an equal opportunity to all. They cannot simply give up on a healthy adoption candidate simply because they have had a longer stay; animals whose lives are ended through unnecessary euthanasia are having their rights and potential to be adopted wrongfully taken. 

Nathan Winograd, in his article “Economic Benefits of No Kill Animal Control”, breaks down the myth that no kill policies are expensive. They benefit shelters, and the economy as a whole, by cutting out the cost of euthanasia, therefore increasing shelter revenue. If the benefit to animals was not enough to persuade some shelters and organizations, then they can no longer use the potential expenses as an excuse to not embrace the initiative. The argument that no kill policies lead to overcrowding can also no longer be used; if euthanasia prevention saves money, the money can be used to improve facilities and purchase more resources to provide for shelter residents. Even if no kill policies were to be costly for shelters, their mission should still be rescue, rehabilitation, and placement, with nothing preventing them from giving every ounce of their efforts and resources to fulfill their missions.

No kill policies are beneficial to both shelters and the animals they house. When shelters except the initiative, they not only save lives, they save money. Shelters will benefit from the elimination of the costly euthanasia of healthy animals. The money could be used to improve and expand shelters and purchase more resources to compensate and provide for an ever-growing population of homeless and neglected pets. Communities must work together to push for change within their local shelters in order to protect innocent lives. 
