Animal Politics: In Defense of the No-Kill Ethic

White Paper: Why 'No-Kill' Is Non-Negotiable in the Fight for Compassion

The term "no-kill" can spark fierce debates and ignite passions like no other in the animal welfare community. The robust feedback I received from two recently published articles "The No-Kill Gold Standard" and "Harnessing the Power of the Per Capita Kill Rate" underscores a profound truth: "no-kill" is both a beacon of hope and a point of contention. As Niels Bohr aptly stated, “How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.”

Defining No-Kill as a Community Goal

To clarify my stance, 'no-kill' is defined as an aspirational goal to limit euthanasia to animals who are irremediably suffering or deemed too dangerous for release, while ensuring all healthy and treatable animals find safe placement. This goal transcends individual shelter agendas; it is a community goal. It is too easy for shelters to limit their intake and avoid dealing with the most vulnerable animals. This does not make a shelter 'no-kill.' A shelter is not ‘no-kill’ until the entire community is ‘no-kill’.

Misuse of the No-Kill Term

Regrettably, certain shelters and rescue groups have appropriated the term as a mere fundraising strategy while at the same time weaponizing it to unfairly vilify overcrowded and underfunded shelters for falling short of impractical expectations. Additionally, some individuals use "no-kill" as a means of gaining notoriety, inciting anger and hate rather than contributing to solutions. This misuse has caused those shelters most in need of community support to dismiss the term, along with its practical applications, as “divisive.” We must transcend these petty squabbles if we are to “have some hope of making progress.”

No-Kill as an Ethical Principle

To me, “no-kill” is more than a policy and statistical objective, it is a principle, an ethic, and once applied the practical consequences begin to fall into place. The principle is that animal shelters, as representatives of their community, should apply the same criteria for deciding an animal’s fate as would a loving pet guardian or conscientious veterinarian. That is, healthy and treatable animals are not killed because of space constraints or resource limitations.

Critique of Euthanasia

Killing animals for lack of space may be the quick, convenient and, at least from afar, the easy thing to do.  But I have never, in over 30 years in this field, heard anyone argue that it is the right thing to do. After all, the creatures who fill our shelters can hardly be faulted for bringing trouble upon themselves. People who seek to excuse euthanasia in shelters often say we have to be “realistic.” But such realism is best directed at the sources of the problem and at the failures of human responsibility.

Failures in Human Responsibility

There are the heart-breaking cruelty cases that bring so many animals into our shelters.  On top of that, there are the thousands of dogs and cats who are actually relinquished – turned in – even after years of living with a family – like old furniture donated to charity.  And there are the orphaned, neonate puppies and kittens. No one bothered to spay or neuter the parents, and so the offspring are born into the world homeless or unwanted. The general attitude is, “Let someone else deal with the problem,” and – thousands of times a year – someone else does with a lethal injection.

Social Responsibility and Prioritization

Along with such failures in personal responsibility is a breakdown in social responsibility.  On the budget sheets, saving animals can seem to a certain mindset as being a lowly or trivial concern.  That’s an easy position to take, as long as you don’t have to be there when the problem gets “solved”. If the people who brush off animal-welfare as “trivial” had to see the product of their priorities carried out – to witness for themselves how trusting the dogs are even when being led to their death, or how as they drift away they lick the hand or face of the person with the needle – I suspect they would see matters in a very different light, and would enthusiastically support lifesaving programs.

Positive Trends in Animal Welfare

I can see rays of light. There is a growing commitment in communities across the nation to help lost and homeless animals and to renounce euthanasia as a solution to pet overpopulation. Some regions of the country have achieved no-kill status, but maintaining this progress requires ongoing vigilance. What is now needed is a commitment from every animal shelter to embrace the "no-kill" ethic and take responsibility, instead of excusing the problem or hiding its consequences.

No matter how you do the math, there are still too many creatures who have love and devotion to offer, but never get their chance.  And calling the practice euthanasia (as some prefer), instead of killing (as others prefer), doesn’t make it any kinder.

The practice of killing animals has never been anyone’s idea of an ideal solution—let alone anyone’s idea of giving "shelter" to creatures in need. Up close, the willful elimination of healthy animals with good years left is a sight to move the hardest heart. It is time we, as a nation, make this commitment: No animal that comes through our shelters will be killed out of convenience or a lack of space. For every one of them, there is somewhere a kind and loving person or family, and it is our mission to bring them together.

Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments. He is available for consultations. His work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, Newsweek, Real Clear Policy, Sentient Media, and now on Animal Politics with Ed Boks.