The best explanation Ive ever seen on how we can genuinely become a No-Kill Nation -- END THE KILLING… by Doug Fakkema Note: the word “kill” means many things to many people. Some suggest it means an unlawful or horrible death, to others it simply means the ending of a life. This essay implies no negative connotation. The word “euthanasia” also means many things to many people. Its use here is in the strictest denotation: “good death” or death without fear, stress or pain. The problem is too many animals; the solution is reducing population growth to a level where rehoming (adoption) programs will support 100% of healthy adoptable animals. A community-based spay-neuter program is the core of the solution. Euthanasia or killing by animal shelters has never been any part of the solution; it is merely a symptom. At a minimum, animal care and control agencies nationwide must provide community-level, low-cost sterilization services. Since the government is mandated to fund shelters for homeless animals, it is fiscally irresponsible for them to not reduce the need (and accompanying cost to the taxpayers) for that sheltering. It is well understood (and proven over and over) that it is much more cost effective for a municipality to invest in programs that prevent homeless animals, than to build bigger shelters to house them. And is there any doubt that prevention is kinder than killing? The spay-neuter solution has worked in cities all over the United States. The objective of zero euthanasia is achievable. Whether to limit admission (“no kill”) or accept every animal that comes to the doors (“open door”) is entirely missing the point. The “no kill” position is a marketing philosophy, a fund raising edge to get animal lovers to open their pocketbooks and give money. A “no kill” policy is not solution-based it merely declares the organization’s admission policy. Hanging out a sign proclaiming “no kill” does nothing to further zero euthanasia. It neither teaches nor informs. It sends out a mixed or even wrong message. It implies that a good rehoming program is all that’s needed, it says: “look at us, unlike the agency down the road, we don’t kill”. A “no kill” policy does nothing to raise people’s awareness of the problem of pet overpopulation or tell them what they need to do to help solve it. A typical “no kill” organization is by necessity a limited or closed admission facility. Since killing of healthy and adoptable animals for space is (by policy) prohibited in no kill organizations, animal intake is limited to available space. Also, only those animals that have a better than average chance of being rehomed; the good looking, young, and unusual dogs and cats are taken in as space allows. This means the dog and cat who isn’t quite so adoptable is refused and sent “down the road” to whatever fate awaits. In a zero euthanasia community (there are now dozens of such communities across the US) the animal shelter takes all animals but does not euthanize healthy or treatable animals for space. Although simple, the solution is far from easy. It is simple because we know how to get it done and success stories are plentiful. The solution requires a strong and uniform commitment from the community. In order to stop the killing of healthy, adoptable dogs and cats, community-supported low cost spay-neuter clinic or clinics must be built. An aggressive education and an adoption program that informs the community and reaches out with healthy and treatable adoptable animals are also part of the solution. Within 10 years the surplus begins to melt away. Euthanasia of adoptable animals for space at the local animal shelter diminishes and then stops altogether. It is not necessary to spay and neuter 100% of the community’s animals. Some suggest that if 50-75% of the community’s animals are sterilized, then zero euthanasia will be achieved. Zero euthanasia is about eliminating the conception and birth of unwanted dogs and cats. It is best achieved by being honest and transparent with the public. A limited admission or no-kill position is essentially dishonest in that it implies that the problem is euthanasia. It is also dishonest because even in so called no-kill organizations, animals are still killed for behavior and / or health reasons. The problem isn’t euthanasia, the problem is unwanted animals. Some excellent models for zero euthanasia communities exist Such communities do not euthanize dogs or cats for space, haven’t done so in several years. By all means, strive to be an organization that does not euthanize healthy, adoptable animals, but do it honestly. Do it by reducing the community’s dog and cat population growth through spaying and neutering. Once that’s done there will be a home for every healthy adoptable animal that comes to the shelter.
Posted on: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:38:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015