While we're still arguing up here in Toronto about whether or not no-kill is a fairy tale, some American cities are already doing it and now an article on MSNBC talks about the possibility of achieving a no-kill nation in 5 years.
Okay, I think that might be a bit of a stretch but, hey, I hope they prove me wrong. However, the article does bring up pertinent points about some of the steps needed to make no-kill possible. First and foremost is the concept that no-kill can really only be achieved as a community. It doesn't count if one shelter calls itself no-kill and stops its open admissions policy forcing all the other shelters and rescues to take in, and possibly euthanize, the remaining homeless animals. The killing still goes on. It's just being done by someone else. It may be good bragging rights for the self-labeled "no-kill" shelter but animals are still dying in equal numbers in the community so nothing's really been accomplished from the animals' perspective.
That doesn't mean no-kill isn't possible. It means no-kill must be done right and that means working with the community at large. This concept is discussed in a post on KC Blog, No Kill Communities vs No Kill Shelters -- and why confusing the two endangers the movement. If you go and read his post and the comments on his post, the rest of this post will hopefully make more sense.
While having some informal discussions recently about a vision for the Toronto Humane Society, it's come up a few time that some people are against the idea of no-kill - except I get the feeling they're not really and that maybe it's just misunderstandings about what no-kill really means.
I would urge anyone who thinks the no-kill philosophy is naive or idealistic or unattainable in our community to go read about it first. Read about what it really is and about where it has been achieved and what communities are successfully transitioning into it. Then, if there is still doubt or argument, at least we can all discuss it from the same page.
Some people would still prefer the term "low-kill". That's fine. Whether it's called no-kill or low-kill or no more homeless pets or silly chubby pets in every lap, as long as we can agree to work towards the goal of not euthanizing healthy, adoptable animals then we can all work together at creating a better Toronto Humane Society. However, if that isn't the goal, then I have to ask: why bother? It will be too much effort and work just to recreate another mediocre animal shelter whose long term vision is to pick off the low hanging fruit.
On the flip side, no-kill is not a switch that can just be turned on, no more than someone can just declare himself a brain surgeon and start cutting heads open. It's going to take more than waving placards and joining facebook groups. It's going to take much planning, work and commitment. In the end, that's what gets an animal saved: a lot of hard work and commitment, and you can call that whatever you want.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
"It doesn't count if one shelter calls itself no-kill and stops its open admissions policy forcing all the other shelters and rescues to take in, and possibly euthanize, the remaining homeless animals. The killing still goes on. It's just being done by someone else. It may be good bragging rights for the self-labeled "no-kill" shelter but animals are still dying in equal numbers in the community so nothing's really been accomplished from the animals' perspective."
Well said -- throughout the post. And thank you for continuing the conversation. With my post, I certainly didn't intend to belittle the efforts of shelters who have made the decision to not kill any animals and that killing isn't acceptable. But that can't be the end goal. The end goal must be saving all of them...not just those in one building.
People always call things "naive or idealistic" when they're afraid. I can think of a thousand examples, but any time someone wants to follow their dream, there is always someone else around to tell them that their dream is...you got it...naive and idealistic. Those naysayers might as well say "I'm too afraid to try anything different than what I've seen and experienced in my own little world."
Almost anything is possible. And not killing healthy, adoptable animals is really possible. What's kind of crazy is for us to think it isn't.
Allowing shelters to say they have saved all healthy adoptable animals and thus claiming "No Kill" gives to much wiggle room. "No Kill" has to be you save over 90% of all animals entering your shelter. If not many shelters will change the meaning of adoptable to suit their purpose which is usually to get more donations.
No kill can only be achieved if low cost spay and neuter programs are available in every city.
Anonymous, I agree with your sentiment but I'm not sure where the number 90% comes from. Why not 95% or 85%?
The term "adoptable" is too generalized a term and needs to be better defined. Adoptable, I think, usually is used in reference to an animal's behaviour and it can very easily be turned around and used as an excuse to euthanize if we're not careful about what it means, and in my view, it encompasses much more than just behaviour. We need to work on that.
The 90% rule comes fron Nathan Winograd I think from his experiences working in shelters that at least 90% of the animals that he has see were savable.Now if a shelter can save 95% so much the better as long as their statics are honest.
Caroline,
I agree that having low cost spay and neuter available is extremely important, but it does no good if we aren't educating the public about why spaying and neutering is so critical. I live in the southern U.S., where there is a serious lack of education on the importance of spaying and neutering, especially in more rural areas. These are the same areas where people let their unaltered animals roam free. Its a recipe for disaster.
Personally, I don't think any animal should be adopted out from a shelter without first being spayed or neutered. I think that would go a long way towards helping to reduce the number of litters being born. History shows that the adopters who agree to spay and neuter their animals after adoption are not doing it. And unfortunately, the shelters here do not have the time or the resources to follow up.
Yes, the definition of "adoptable" has got to be changed. There have to be ways to reduce kennel stress for dogs with long stays and we have to work on improving some of those behaviours that get animals the automatic "PTS", and I also think we have to acknowledge some levels of adopters and consider their various levels of experience. I know that my dogs and those of many of my friends would never pass the shelter behaviour evals, yet they are fabulous dogs. They just need certain rules and a watchful eye.
There's much to be said on this subject, but we have to start with the recognition that it is possible (as you stated in your blog title that started all this discussion). It's an issue that I don't think will ever be resolved to everyone's liking, but we can get way, way closer to success than we are now.
I would like to see one of the shelters that have achieved "No Kill" make public a couple of things. 1. How many no/low cost spay/neuters they perform each year and how much it costs. 2. how many TNR's performed each year and how much it costs. 3. Their surender policies ie appointments required?feral cat surrenders etc. Without more details for me at least there is a bit of smoke and mirrors involved.
Hey, I love what you're doing! Please go to facebook, and search HeARTs Speak... I'd love if you'd join us!
Lisa
www.facebook.com/heartsspeak
www.printzphotography.com
There's a great deal of attachment to the nebulous term "no-kill". It is simply a marketing tool by the ambitious or a rallying cry for the gullible or a way for debutante's to be cute and think they care about something.
The first thing to do in any debate is define one's terms. What is no-kill? Low-kill? High-kill? Don't point and make an ostensive definition - look so-and-so is a no-kill shelter. Define it, back it up with credible and auditable evidence, not anecdotal jibberish.
Once again, Anonymous, I'm cutting your comment way down because most of what you're going on about is before the courts. I suggest, if you want a place to publish your opinions where you'll get much more challenging feedback than here, that you try one of the THS facebook groups, like this one:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=86351415753&ref=mf#!/group.php?v=wall&gid=297401112267
As for defining one's terms, as I wrote in the post, I think that debate is a time waster. The important thing is to get the policies and procedures to save as many animals as possible. Call it whatever you want.
Post a Comment