Kill shelters, also referred to as open-admission or municipal shelters, are misconstrued in society to be considered worse alternatives to no-kill shelters. Though both shelters benefit the economy, I would argue municipal shelters provide more.
No-kill shelters do not live up to their name in the same way kill shelters do not euthanize every animal past capacity. No-kill shelters earn their name by saving at least 90% of animals within their care, according to bestfriends.org. The obvious goal is to give every animal a chance at a loving home, but that is not realistic. Some animals exhibit severe behavioral issues, and some are suffering because of medical problems. No-kill shelters will euthanize animals if their chances at living a good, long life. More goes into these decisions, but typically, kill and no-kill are not black and white terms.
Due to the 90% placement requirement to be considered no-kill, these shelters have limited capacity—that means they only accept as many animals as they have space for. Ethically, this seems reasonable. But what about the hundreds of sick, injured or stray animals that wind up at the door? They get turned away.
Kill shelters almost never have an admission cap. The doors are always open, meaning they can take in any animal, no matter the case. Most kill shelters do not have adequate funds to provide for every single animal that walks through the door, though.
“Because there are no health standards, the shelter is often forced to euthanize pets in order to protect the health and safety of the general animal population,” an author for vocalforpets.org wrote. “Some diseases… are very treatable for a pet in a home environment. However, in a shelter setting certain diseases can rapidly spread to other animals and even the volunteers.”
But why are they euthanizing these poor animals? Why do perfectly healthy pets who just need a bit more time have to suffer?
Overpopulation.
Unnecessary breeding, uneducated pet owners and underfunded animal programs all lead to overpopulation, which leads to an excessive number of animals who need care. Junior nursing major Kylee-Ann Dixon experienced this issue over a two-year period, going from owning three cats to 21.
“We were happy with three,” Dixon said. “But they all got outside and got pregnant. They had about six kittens each… between finances and the drive to the vet, we weren’t able to
fix them all at the right time, and they kept getting pregnant again. We had 21 cats at one point.”
Rehoming 20 cats proved to be difficult, but she managed to get every cat a home. Her family was unable to fix every kitten they gave away, so this cycle is possible to repeat again and again. This is a small-scale example of what happens every day, unchecked and uncontrolled. Even at ULM, this problem is visible. A few cats can be seen walking around Bayou Village Apartments—calico, black and a brown tabby are a few that I have seen. Recently, I noticed one of the cats is obviously pregnant. These cats do not have homes. I feed them occasionally, like several others do, but these cats are not vaccinated, fixed or safe. The shelters in Monroe are all at capacity, and we students cannot take these cats in—where should they go? Should this pregnant cat be left outside to the elements? It is not a matter of if, but when one of these cats is hit by a car, who is to blame?
If you want shelters to stop killing animals, do not villainize the practice. Educate yourself and help where you can. The Louisiana Pet Overpopulation Advisory Council has several resources to get started.
