A New York shelter director says his community has reached a point where healthy puppies won’t have to be euthanized—but he won’t consider the race against animal homelessness truly won until everyone can declare victory
To kill or not to kill—is that the question? Not really.
It is a sexy notion that some people working to protect animals have found the magic formula to end the need for euthanasia while others have given up the search in favor of continuing the killing. But it is also a myth. And for the years I’ve heard this myth, I’ve heard tales of the mythical beast at its center: the shelter employee who lives for the thrill of the kill. Every time I visit a shelter I search the back halls and the euthanasia rooms in hopes of catching a glimpse of the fanged creature. He remains elusive, however, and for me is still merely the stuff of legend—a legend more believable to members of the public and newcomers to the field than to those of us who’ve been working for decades to reduce the number of animals entering our shelters. The truth is that even in the worst shelters I’ve visited, I haven’t yet come across anyone who enjoys euthanizing animals. Nor have I yet found the shelter that creates the homeless, neglected, or abused animals it cares for.
 |
| © Patricia Raine |
I find it disturbing that shelters are at the center of any discussion about dog and cat overpopulation. While it’s true that shelters are at the center of programs designed to prevent companion animal population growth—educating the community about the benefits of sterilization and providing low-cost spay/neuter or pre-adoption sterilization options—it is ridiculous to blame us for the problems facing animals and communities. This “lightning rod” effect has mystified me since I began my work in shelters and will perplex me till the bitter end. Members of the public, to some degree, have an excuse for their ignorance. They aren’t forced every day to face the results of their irresponsibility and find it much simpler to blame those people at the animal shelter who must not care enough. Even more vexing is the prevalence of that attitude in our own movement, where some individuals and groups still choose to throw stones and cast blame upon colleagues who face the harsh reality every single day.
There is undoubtedly a tremendous fundraising and marketing advantage for organizations willing to declare immediate victory in this age-old battle. Telling constituents what they want to hear is a tactic that might net a desired short-term result. But for those shelters continuing to handle the vast majority of the animals, closing the door when they are full is still not an option. The question should not be “Who is to do society’s dirty work?” The real question is “What strategies are actually getting us closer to a time when there will be no dirty work left to do?”
I operate under the assumption that most people working in the field of animal care and control do so primarily out of a deep concern for animals. I further assume that we are all in this for the same purpose: a day when homeless animals are as rare as hens’ teeth and, like other rare things, are in great demand. If my assumptions are correct, then the divisiveness within our own ranks makes no sense. You do not care any more about the well-being of animals than I do, nor do I care any more than you. I simply believe that it is too early in the battle for anyone to declare victory. We should not create enemies within our ranks when the real enemy is apathy combined with irresponsible attitudes and behaviors.
My first week in this field, I was a wide-eyed recent college graduate who was going to put a stop to all this euthanasia. I quickly discovered that it wasn’t so simple and made it my life’s work to get there. And now, more than 17 years later, I can see the progress we have made. Our efforts have paid off in huge dividends. When I first got into the field, my tiny shelter received nearly 14,000 animals each year. Healthy puppies were euthanized simply for lack of space. Today I work in a facility that is easily five times larger, yet the numbers are significantly lower. In this community, we never have to euthanize healthy puppies.
There are parts of our country where that level of success has yet to be attained. Yet, shelters in those areas have made measurable progress and continue fighting the good fight. When we feel that we have things under control in our individual communities, we must look beyond our own service areas. If my shelter is able to place all its adoptable puppies but a neighboring county has not yet gotten there, we may have won the battle, but there’s still a war to be fought. “No Kill” is not a new concept. Putting an end to the surplus of animals is a goal that has driven all of us for years.
 |
| © Patricia Raine |
I applaud the efforts of all of my colleagues in the field of animal protection, whether they work in limited-admission shelters or in traditional, open-admission facilities. However, if we have any hope of changing the culture and inspiring pet owners to remain true to the lifelong commitments they make to their pets, it is critical that we not mislead them into a false sense of security—and that can be an unfortunate effect of terms like “no kill.” What’s more, the implication that open-admission shelters choose to euthanize animals and are therefore part of the problem rather than part of the solution is simply not accurate. Let’s put an end to the finger-pointing quest for the fabled kill-happy shelter worker and acknowledge our collective good work. I find it a waste of time to “defend” the movement for simply doing the work placed upon our shoulders by society. I will, instead, keep working hard and looking forward to the real victory party!
Jim Tedford is the president of the Humane Society at Lollypop Farm in Rochester, New York.
