Roxanne Bosse
Audience: People planning to donate money to an animal shelter.
Purpose: To convince them that they should give to a no-kill facility.
Monet, plagued by the perils of old age, maintained her sweet and gentle disposition as she walked down the hall, slowly, but steadily approaching the room where she would be medically examined. She knew she was not young and healthy anymore by the pains she experienced in every step. The doctor knew, too, at first glance, that she needed medical attention. Like any good doctor would, he first assessed the problems and then offered scholarly inquiries. Unfortunately, for many like Monet, the question is not only, “How can we treat you?” but also, “Should we even spend the time and money to treat you?” Why is this the case? Because Monet is a dog, a 10-year-old golden retriever mix.
To her benefit, Monet was brought to a no-kill animal shelter (a type of shelter that believes all adoptable pets are worth the time and money spent) in Richmond, Virginia, in May 2003. She was deemed an “adoptable” animal meaning that she would be accepted into the center and not euthanized. After being rehabilitated and kept at the center for more than a year, she was adopted by a 97-year-old widow (Szabo).
No-kill shelters, such as the one in Richmond, Virginia, offer a brighter future for neglected animals. But because of the services provided, this type of shelter also requires more funds, more space, and more generosity! No-kill shelters are a worthy cause deserving of all the support they can be given.
In opposition to “kill” or typical shelters, no-kill shelters view euthanasia as an unacceptable management tool and, therefore, only euthanize terminally ill or dangerous animals, if any at all (Nieves; Schencker). “Kill” shelters normally euthanize unclaimed animals within seven days (Baranauckas). Yet some shelters, such as the Humane Society of Northwest Georgia, euthanize owner give-ups after a mere two-day period, thus quickly abandoning all chances of a new future for the deserted pet (Mahony). Supporters of no-kill facilities discourage such unnecessary killing of healthy animals (Baranauckas). The Durham County Animal Shelter, located in Durham, North Carolina, serves as a further example of the needless extermination of potential pets. This shelter routinely exercises a practice it calls “pulling papers.” Through this process, a shelter worker will randomly select a number of files from the shelter’s current collection. Those animals that are unlucky enough to have their files pulled will be euthanized by a lethal injection and then cremated. Each year, during high kitten season, one fluffy, lifeless body after the next can be seen piled outside the shelter’s dull, green furnace waiting for incineration (Kirkpatrick).
Greek for “good death,” the term euthanasia is a generalized term used by those who execute it to soften its reality for the public (Nelson). To most people, euthanasia means being stuck by a needle and injected with a substance that somehow leads to a happy, painless death. Afterwards, of course, the animals are, in some way, nicely disposed of — like you would do with your own pet by possibly being buried with his or her favorite toy or blanket. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case.
To begin with, lethal injection is not the only means of euthanasia used on animals. Many shelters across the United States are using an alternative procedure, and the Enoch Animal Shelter, found in Iron County, Utah, is among them. To rid themselves of unclaimed dogs, the shelter congregates the animals in a closed-in, concrete room and then proceeds by attaching a hose from the exhaust of a car to a hole in one of the walls. As soon as all shelter workers are out of the area, the car is turned on and the exhaust is pumped into the room, leaving the animals to die from carbon-monoxide poisoning (Perkins). Even the most widely accepted practice of euthanasia, lethal injection, has its shortcomings. According to the Euthanasia Training Manual, “an injection into a conscious animal’s chest cavity is stressful and extremely painful, especially if the technician is unable to locate the heart chamber in the first attempt.” Euthanized animals at the Santa Fe Animal Shelter and Humane Society are wrapped in a plastic bag and piled in an outdoor refrigerator until they can be taken to the Caja del Rio landfill where they are buried with yesterday’s trash (Nelson).
No-kill shelter supporters exhibit many negative feelings towards this type of animal control. Tom Hart, executive director of the S.P.C.A. in Jersey City, New Jersey, comments, “Killing animals has become a convenience to people; euthanasia is merely killing” (Baranauckas). Natalie Owings, administrator of The Heart & Soul Animal Sanctuary (a no-kill shelter in New Mexico), agrees, saying, “We consider them excess. But it’s our obligation since we’ve created these problems — to solve the problems, not just to euthanize for convenience” (Nelson). Most supporters of no-kill shelters are opposed to euthanasia because they feel it is humankind’s moral responsibility to save adoptable pets (Hu). Because of this, no-kill refuges have shifted the idea of animal-control-by-euthanasia to a more focused effort on finding animals homes and educating the public on animal birth control.
Increasing adoption efforts and creating a more knowledgeable public are merely the starting point for a variety of other programs. Courtesy of a generous $25,000 donation, the Second Chance Animal Shelter, located in Brookefield, Massachusetts, now has the funds to launch a new program called SPOT (an acronym for Stop Pet Overpopulation Today). This program will allow the shelter to offer spaying and neutering at a low-cost to pet owners who are financially eligible. Despite the initial costs, shelter directors believe that spaying and neutering programs will eventually pay-off when they help prevent the overpopulation of stray or unwanted animals in the future (Miner). Some shelters, to further promote adoption, even go as far as offering training and animal behavior programs for dogs, daily pet care as a service to working adults, paying veterinary bills, and assisting older people who want to adopt (Nieves).
Because no-kill shelters have limited funding and space, they primarily focus on supporting adoptable pets. This leads them to be rather selective with the animals they choose to admit into their care. Such “selective” admittance policies are often criticized because they tend to leave some animals out for other shelters to handle (Hu). Totaling only 250 out of the nation’s near 5,000 animal shelters, no-kill shelters cannot be expected to handle each and every animal (Szabo). Until more no-kill shelters can be built and supported, the burden must be shared. Noga-Dorio, shelter manager of the Humane Society of Hernando County, simplifies the situation by saying, “If we don’t have room, we refer to other shelters” (Gray). Because most of the shelters the animals are referred to often practice euthanasia, no-kill shelters are continually working to raise funds for expansion. Due to a number of generous donations, the Atlanta Humane Society now has a facility large enough to house more than 300 animals. This enabled the shelter to save 23,000 animals between 2000 and 2003. Sherry Greenblatt, fund development officer for the Atlanta Humane Society, comments on the benefits of the increased shelter space by stating, “We had an incredibly high save rate. We have no limits on the animals here. They can be here until they find a home” (Mahony).
What if the animal doesn’t find a home? Can they really be happy in a shelter? These are just a couple of the questions commonly posed by no-kill shelter pessimists. Recognized as legitimate concerns by no-kill advocates and adversaries alike, “animal-happiness” matters have already been dealt with at some shelters. There is no doubt that any animal, whether adopted or not, could be content at Maddie’s Pet Adoption Center in San Francisco, California. This shelter provides large, sunny rooms, jungle gyms and grass to play on, and a large, loving staff that plays with the animals and even teaches many of them new tricks. The delightful duo that originally provided the funds for such a spectacular shelter, Mr. and Mrs. Duffield, is willing to provide grants to launch nearly any new no-kill shelter (Nieves). However, despite the many initial costs covered by grants, such as one from the Duffield’s, the shelters must also be supported by continuing donations.
It costs approximately $20 to euthanize any small animal, i.e. a dog, cat, rabbit, etc (Perkins). Through personal research conducted at a standard supermarket in Fort Collins, Colorado, I have found that a $20 donation can feed a medium size dog for nearly 48 days. An average size cat can be sustained for almost 90 days. A period of 48 days for a dog and 90 days for a cat should provide ample time for an adoption to take place. A $20 donation to a typical shelter is a donation to kill, whereas a $20 donation to a no-kill shelter is a donation to save.
No-kill shelters must continually work against the traditional animal control practices conducted by many well-established organizations. This process is not easy or cheap; however, it is very much appreciated by those who get a second chance at life. To see to it that no more loving pets are needlessly put to a premature death, full support should be given to no-kill shelters. The tails will wag – and they will thank you.
Works Cited
Anderson, Bob. “No-kill Goodwill Leads to Overspill; Overcrowding May Force Shelter to Euthanize Animals.” The Advocate 12 July, 2004:1-B,2-B. LexisNexis Academic. Colorado State University Lib., Fort Collins, CO. 1 Dec. 2004 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>
Baranauckas, Carla. “No Room at the Dog Shelter.” The New York Times 6 Nov. 2001: D2-1. LexisNexis Academic. Colorado State University Lib., Fort Collins, CO. 18 Oct. 2004 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>
Byfield, Link. “Is It Just Me, Or Is There A Disturbing Insanity These Days About Pets?” Alberta Report 19 Jan. 1998. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOHost. Colorado State University Lib., Fort Collins, CO. 5 Oct. 2004 <http://web14.epnet.com>
Fiala, Jennifer. “ New York Makes No-Kill Commitment for 2005.” DVM Magazine July 2004: 10. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOHost. Colorado State University Lib., Fort Collins, CO. 5 Oct. 2004 <http://web18.epnet.com>
Gray, Beth N. “Brookville Pet Shelter Sets Fundraising, Growth Plans.” St. Petersburg Times 16 Sept. 2004: 6. LexisNexis Academic. Colorado State University Lib., Fort Collins, CO. 1 Dec. 2004 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>
“Hahn Seeks ‘No-Kill’ Animal Policy In LA Shelters.” NBC 4 Online (2003): 18 Oct. 2004 <http://www.nbc4.tv>
Hopkins, Carol. “No-kill Shelter Finds Pets Homes.” Windsor Star 11 Sept. 2004:D3. LexisNexis Academic. Colorado State University Lib., Fort Collins, CO. 1 Dec. 2004 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>
Hu, Winnie. “Shift to No-Kill Shelters Leaves Town Deluged by Strays.” The New York Times 7 Feb. 2000: B4. LexisNexis Academic. Colorado State University Lib., Fort Collins, CO. 5 Oct. 2004 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>
Kirkpatrick, Christopher. “No-Kill Title Misleads.” The Herald-Sun ( Durham, NC) 24 May 2004: A1. LexisNexis Academic. Colorado State University Lib., Fort Collins, CO. 21 Oct. 2004 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>
Lyle, Morgan. “Four-Legged Bahamians Find Refuge.” The New York Times 3 Oct. 2004: 14LI-3. LexisNexis Academic. Colorado State University Lib., Fort Collins, CO. 1 Dec. 2004 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>
Mahony, Pat. “Humane Society Needs Money For a ‘No-Kill’ Shelter.” The Chattanooga Times 15 June, 2004: B2. . LexisNexis Academic. Colorado State University Lib., Fort Collins, CO. 1 Dec. 2004 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>
Miner, Bradford L. “$25,000 to Support Shelter’s Spaying, Neutering Programs.” Telegram & Gazette ( Massachusetts) 22 July 2004:B1. LexisNexis Academic. Colorado State University Lib., Fort Collins, CO. 1 Dec. 2004 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>
Nachminovitch, Daphna. “In Addition to Food and Water, Animals Need to Be Loved.” USA Today 30 Aug. 2004: 12A. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Colorado State University Lib., Fort Collins, CO. 5 Oct. 2004 <http://web18.epnet.com>
Nelson, Sandy. “The Lesser of Evils.” The Santa Fe New Mexican 19 Sept. 2004: 10. LexisNexis Academic. Colorado State University Lib., Fort Collins, CO. 21 Oct. 2004 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>
Nieves, Evelyn. “A Campaign For A No-Kill Policy For the Nation’s Animal Shelters.” The New York Times 18 Jan. 1999: A1-5. LexisNexis Academic. Colorado State University Lib., Fort Collins, CO. 5 Oct. 2004 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>
Perkins, Nancy. “Animals Finding Comfort, Not Death, at Shelter.” Deseret Morning News 16 Aug. 2004. LexisNexis Academic. Colorado State University Lib., Fort Collins, CO. 1 Dec. 2004 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>
Reid, Julie. “A No-Kill Shelter Doesn’t Mean It’s More Humane.” The Record ( Waterloo, Ontario) 25 Aug. 2004: A16. LexisNexis Academic. Colorado State University Lib., Fort Collins, CO. 21 Oct. 2004 <http://web.lexis-neixs.com/universe>
Schencker, Lisa. “ Chicago Shelter to Stop Euthanizing Strays to Focus on Adoption Efforts.” Associated Press 5 Sept 2004: State and Regional. LexisNexis Academic. Colorado State University Lib., Fort Collins, CO. 21 Oct. 2004 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>
Szabo, Liz. “Kinder, Gentler Animal Shelters.” USA Today 26 Aug. 2004: 01d. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOHost. Colorado State University Lib., Fort Collins, CO. 5 Oct. 2004 <http://web18.epnet.com>