Fault lines.

 I have been reading a lot lately about the supposed divisions between “traditional” shelters and advocates of a “no kill” approach.  The public disagreements and mutual criticisms sometimes obscure the many values that the two groups share, including most basically the belief that companion animals are valuable and people should try to make their lives better.  The conflict is not about whether or not we should help them but rather about the best ways to help them given the limitations imposed by available resources.  Traditional shelters believe that the central issue is that there are not enough homes for all the dogs and cats in the country, which means that the most important goal of animal welfare is to reduce population through spay/neuter programs.  Because, as they say, “There are not enough homes for them all,” the population of dogs and cats must be sharply reduced.  That has begun to happen, but continuing overpopulation still makes it necessary for many animals to die in shelters.  From this perspective, shelters that euthanize animals do society’s “dirty work.”

This “traditional” view sees “no kill” rescue groups and shelters as privileged precisely because of the population reduction done by other shelters.  Craig Brestrup, author of Disposable Pets (1997), quotes the director of a Midwestern shelter which kills almost 80% of its animals:  “These shelters aren’t really ‘no-kill’ shelters.  They are ‘you-kill’ shelters meaning that their clean hands and pure hearts exist at the expense of other shelters like [her shelter] which accept the animals they will not.” 

In response to this criticism, no kill advocates point out that some public shelters have managed to reduce their euthanasia rate dramatically while remaining open access.  The main difference, they say, is that shelters aspiring to kill fewer or no animals work hard to increase adoptions (and reunite strays with owners), usually because they have directors who implement several key programs.  (Low-cost spay/neuter programs remain central in the no kill paradigm as well.) 

In addition, it is important to point out that many private rescue groups take in primarily, and sometimes only, animals who have been slated for euthanasia at traditional shelters.  They do not cherry pick the most adoptable pets but rather wait for the ones who have no other options.  This is not true of every rescue group, but many – including a number of our local private rescues – consistently take in animals who have been slated for euthanasia at one of the local public shelters either because they have run out of time in the adoptable section or because they never made it to adoptables because of health or behavior issues.  In other words, they are taking the “least adoptable” animals – and they are turning around and adopting them out to good families, often very soon after rescue. 

Private rescue groups in our area have higher adoption rates than public shelters for several reasons.  First and foremost, many people prefer to adopt from no-kill groups because it is a more positive experience, both because they know that the animals left behind do not face an uncertain fate and because the adoption venue is usually more pleasant than the cement and steel of most public shelters.  In addition, private groups often advertise adoptable pets more energetically, get them out into the community, and have events on weekends when potential adopters can attend.  Further, the fact that most private rescue groups house adoptable pets in foster homes means that they have much more information about the animals’ behavior, temperament, and other factors that help adopters make good decisions.  Foster homes also socialize and train animals so that they can make the transition to permanent homes more easily. 

 

Using these methods, rescue groups take in countless animals that did not seem “adoptable” at the public shelter and find them loving permanent homes.  This fact counters the accusation that “no kill” is achievable only by preselecting highly desirable animals. 

This season of giving thanks is the right time to acknowledge the amazing work done by many of our local private rescue groups.  Here’s a special thank you to just a few – there are more of you out there, and we love you all. 

 

Second Chance Farms specializes in dogs who do not even make it to the adoptable section because of treatable medical conditions.  Typical of their dogs are these two bulldog mix pups (above), both placed on the euthanasia list because they had demodex mange.

 Many other local rescues also take in dogs who have no other chance.  Helping Hands Rescue gave a future to Lady Penny, who came to the shelter as a young puppy with a broken leg and other medical problems.  (After a long recovery, she was recently adopted!)

Rescued dogs often require enormous investments of time and money before they can move on to permanent homes.  Like other local groups, Phoenix Animal Rescue regularly takes in hard-luck cases, including Homer (above), who was so terrified in a rural shelter that he cowered and urinated every time he was approached.  Homer’s behavior was transformed as soon as he reached a loving foster home, where he enjoys a soft bed and plays with other dogs.

 

The Alachua County Humane Society is the largest rescue no kill group in our area and the only one with its own facility.  ACHS regularly takes in animals who have run out of time in adoptables as well as those with treatable medical conditions, like Chloe (above), a sweet adult pit bull mix who was slated for euthanasia because she is heartworm positive. 

The Humane Society and Gainesville Pet Rescue are the oldest no kill groups in our area.  Both began with the mission of taking animals from the local shelter’s euthanasia list.  In the past decade or two they have been joined by many other groups, including the ones mentioned above. The animals they save are diverse, countering both the claim that no kill groups cherry pick and also the notion that only certain kinds of dog run out of time at the shelter.  Their success at placing these animals in loving permanent homes does not prove that euthanasia is never necessary, but at the least it challenges the conventional wisdom that “there are not enough homes for them all” and that some animals are simply unadoptable.  These groups do not leave the "dirty work" to someone else -- they roll up their sleeves and make miracles happen on a daily basis.

And for this we are thankful.