Thank you, SfS, for reading and for your succinct comment! Sometimes the issues really do come down to a need for more common sense—and a willingness to face uncomfortable truths. I appreciate your engagement and support for a more practical, honest approach in animal welfare.
This article misrepresents the No Kill movement by framing preventable tragedies as unique to it, when such incidents occur in all types of shelters — traditional, high-kill, and No Kill alike. The false premise is that these are No Kill-specific failures. They are not.
No Kill’s core principle is to save every healthy and treatable pet, including those with medical or behavioral needs that can be rehabilitated. It does not reject euthanasia, but defines it properly: the merciful end for animals who are truly suffering and beyond help. What it rejects is killing for space, convenience, or manageable conditions.
Behavioral prediction is an industry-wide challenge, not a No Kill flaw. Traditional shelters have long used discredited behavior tests to justify unnecessary killing. Blaming No Kill while ignoring this broader context is misleading.
It’s also irresponsible to single out “pit bulls” in one example, while referring to “dogs” elsewhere. That reinforces harmful stereotypes disproven by science and undermines fair treatment for all breeds.
The No Kill Equation offers a proven, ethical, and data-supported framework. When failures happen due to poor execution, the blame lies with management, not the philosophy.
If we're judging shelters by their worst outcomes, let’s look at those still killing healthy, treatable animals every day. No Kill is the only model that challenges the status quo and demands better.
Let’s avoid gross generalizations about the most successful reform of shelter practices ignited by the No Kill Movement. Let’s support science, reform, and the belief that every life counts.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Davyd. Animal Politics is a strong advocate for authentic no-kill—especially the upstream model that helped reduce shelter killing by 80% between 1990 and 2010 through robust spay/neuter, community outreach, and prevention. Our concern is with the downstream policies that later emerged from the Consortium, which deprioritized spay/neuter and coincided with a rise in severe and fatal attacks. That correlation may be coincidental, but it’s serious enough to warrant scrutiny.
We agree that no-kill, done right, is a vital and humane model. Our aim is to distinguish between that proven success—and the statistical shell game some policies have become. Thank you again for engaging in this important conversation.
I agree. No kill was not intended to be adopting out aggressive animals to families without warning. It is solely the disfunction of people like Kristen Hassen and others who operate animal shelters and rescues who are not qualified to do so who have manipulated this ethic for monetary gain and other personality disorders. I have been in shelters that are literally hoarding animals who call themselves "no kill" and I have been in animal shelters that refuse to take in desperate animals so theor data looks good. It's all a hot mess and until humans get a grip, it will continue.
Thanks for your comment, Julia. We’re actually in agreement on the heart of the issue. Animal Politics supports the original no-kill ethic—one grounded in prevention, transparency, and true compassion. Our concern is exactly what you describe: how downstream policies like managed intake and save-rate obsession have warped that vision, sometimes with tragic results.
This isn’t a critique of no-kill itself, but of how certain actors have redefined it to serve data and dollars instead of animals and communities. Thanks again for adding your voice to the conversation.
All I can say is that is unfortunately about time. I have been waiting for 20 years for a number of lawsuits to be filed which would litigate this no kill nonsense. Those of us who have worked in the real world know there are dogs who should not “find their forever homes “ and owners who should never be permitted to own dogs. It is an ongoing embarrassment that BF, HSUS, Maddie’s Fund and the like be held up to be anything more than money hungry scam operations.
The animal control and welfare community should be spaying and neutering themselves out of existence. Anything else is tant amount to placing our collective heads in the sand whilst the consortium laughs all the way to the bank.
Hi Allan, thank you for sharing your perspective and for your decades of dedication to animal welfare. I know many in the field share your frustration about policies that ignore real-world challenges and sidestep the hard truths. Your point about spay/neuter as the true path to lasting change is spot on. Here’s hoping this moment sparks the honest, evidence-based conversation our profession—and the animals—deserve.
As is well known, low-cost Spay/Neuter (and TNR) is in the 11 programs and services of the No Kill Equation. To discount what No Kill means while touting one of its most followed tenets is, at best, ignoring the basic message of the No Kill movement. see the equation here: https://nokilladvocacycenter.org/the-toolkit/no-kill-101
Once again, so clear. Ed has put it in words and in context:
Where upstream models work to solve the crisis through prevention, BFAS’ methods merely shift or delay it—frequently at the expense of animal welfare and public safety. Their redefinition of “no-kill” has influenced a broader shift in the movement—from systemic reform to statistical cosmetics.
How do we reach the general public with this clear message of looking upstream to prevent rather than focusing on some happy adoptions and urgent appeals to clean up all the messes? The prevention message is obviously not getting through as well as the current winning twin messages of 'Here's our success story with this dog' and 'Oh, here is a horrid situation, help us clean up this mess: send us your donations!! Now! ' And it works.
Hi Elaine, thank you for your thoughtful comment and for really capturing the heart of the issue. You’re absolutely right—the prevention message is a much tougher “sell” than the feel-good stories or urgent pleas we see so often. It’s a challenge to shift the public conversation from quick fixes to long-term solutions, but voices like yours—and ongoing dialogue—are what keep the upstream message alive.
I appreciate your support and your commitment to real reform. Together, we can keep pushing for a movement that values prevention as much as rescue.
I’ve noticed in the news that when a pit bull attacks someone, the breed is named, but if the dog is another breed, it isn’t specified. Have you noticed that as well? And why do you think that is?
Hi Barb, yes, I have seen that trend, and I've chalked it up to a media bias. However, as Merritt points out, long-term data collection also shows that pit bulls are involved in a disproportionately high number of serious attacks. So their prevalence in media reports can probably be attributed to some small measure to media bias reflecting real-world trends.
Exactly right, Eve. This is true in shelters across the U.S. And rather that address the problem upstream via targeted spay/neuter programs, the national organizations focus on mass transporting these animals from one community to another.
This is categorically not true. Beth & I here at ANIMALS 24-7 have been logging fatal & disfiguring dog attacks in the U.S. & Canada since 1982, in the U.K. since 1993, and in South Africa since 2004, a total of well over 15,000, including 205 identified breeds & breed combinations. Only 1,165 dogs involved are "unidentified," mostly because the attacks were not witnessed. 9,413 attacks (69%) were by pit bulls.
People looking at the Best Friends Animal Society policy recommendations & effects, along with those of the rest of the "consortium," tend to focus on the kill-vs.-no-kill question, which is not the real issue. The real issues are liability and criminal responsibility. Though these cases continue to be litigated almost every day, there is by now no shortage of court decisions establishing individual & institutional liability for rehoming dogs who go on to kill or maim people. Animal shelters are now paying out multi-millions of dollars per year in settlement of such claims, & insurance companies are paying out multi-millions more. However, so far the buck is stopping there, instead of with Best Friends and the other corporate entities whose policy recommendations & propagandistic fundraising promotions to the public are ultimately responsible for this ongoing situation. There is a legal instrument available that could hold Best Friends et al accountable: a class action lawsuit filed under the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations act, by plaintiffs including not only individual victims, but also insurers and public insurees. "Public insurees" means taxpayer-funded animal control agencies that have had to make huge payouts to victims because they accepted bad advice from Best Friends et al, allegedly fraudulently representing themselves as competent, responsible authorities on matters involving public health & safety. This would obviously be a huge legal undertaking, but not as big as, for instance, suing the asbestos & nuclear industries, which has been done successfully. The outcome of such a lawsuit, if successful (and it certainly should be) would be the legal dissolution of Best Friends et al, the redistribution of assets to victims of fraudulently rehomed dangerous dogs, and possible reincorporation of some of the dissolved organizations under new leadership via Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Short of that, Best Friends et al are making money hand over fist, & nobody making tons of money changes a business model except under legal duress.
Thanks, Merritt & Beth! I agree, these are issues that deserve far more public scrutiny. As settlements and legal actions continue to mount, it’s clear the field needs more than just reactive litigation. Perhaps it’s time for an independent, national review board to set and enforce best practices for rehoming high-risk dogs, or for insurers and municipalities to demand greater transparency and accountability from organizations shaping shelter policy. Elevating the conversation beyond “no-kill” rhetoric to real-world safety standards could help protect both communities and the integrity of animal welfare itself.
Let’s face it, most people shouldn’t own pets, especially powerful dogs. I bet most large-dog bite incidents involve dogs that are under-socialized, left in a yard, and have no training. I have a pitsky and I’m no dog expert, but I ensure he gets plenty of exercise, socialization, and I am ALWAYS careful around children and strangers. Not because he’s aggressive, but because he’s 80lbs of power. But can we also discuss small dogs? I have been bitten by a small dog while I was simply walking by. A friend of mine was bitten in the face by a small dog and had to have his nose stitched. There are several aggressive small dogs in my building and luckily my dog is calm. But it seems like owners of small dogs think the behavior is cute or do not invest in training. My 80lb dog has been nipped in the face many times by small dogs. If he responded, they would likely blame me. Again, most people probably shouldn’t have pets.
Anyway, I cannot understand why anyone would believe we need anything but a massive spay and neuter campaign and enforcement of licensing, microchips, etc. I believe breeders should be required to microchip their dogs and pay a heavy fine if any of their dogs end up in shelters. As for rescues, yeah lots of bad players out there too.
Thank you for sharing your thoughtful perspective, Jacqueline. You raise some excellent points—responsible ownership, training, and socialization are critical no matter the size or breed of the dog. I agree that a strong focus on spay/neuter, licensing, and accountability for breeders and rescues is essential if we want to see real change. It’s encouraging to hear from owners like you who take their responsibilities seriously. Thanks again for adding your voice to this important conversation!
As you stated this was not the original intention of the no kill movement and sometimes gives the movement a bad name. However I think upstream and downstream policies can be employed to help shelters keep live release in check. I also think shelters need to employ qualified dog and cat behavioral experts to help make the hard decisions. Some animals are just not safe to adopt into the public and someone needs to step up and be the “safety” person. Also, why can’t live release be fluid each month based on intake? The 10% leeway was set for a reason.
Hi Eve, thank you for this thoughtful comment! I completely agree: the original spirit of the no-kill movement was rooted in compassion and responsibility. Your point about employing qualified behaviorists and allowing more flexibility in live release targets is also important. When we prioritize safety and transparency alongside lifesaving, we move closer to the ethical balance the movement was meant to embody. Grateful to have your voice in this conversation.
Conclusions based upon data, not ideology - I cannot understand how anyone would dispute that without providing the results of their own credible research. Thank you, Ed (and Merritt and Beth), for your positions on this issue - especially in light of all the pressure and opposition from some of our peers.
Thank you, Annoula. Your support means a lot—especially coming from someone who understands how hard it can be to speak plainly when ideology clouds the conversation. We’re committed to following the data wherever it leads, and it’s encouraging to stand with others who value truth over trend.
Thank you, Elise! I really appreciate your kind words and encouragement. It’s true—these issues often fly under the radar, even though they affect so many people and animals across the country. I’m grateful for readers like you who are helping to spread awareness and keep the conversation going.
The death of Mr. Phillips is tragic. I worked in the legal field for decades and once dealt with a wrongful death case in which a WWII veteran was attacked and killed by two dogs when he went to check his mail. It was gruesome to say the least. The dog owners were convicted of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. Our firm handed the wrongful death suit brought by the widow. I suspect Ms. Phillips’ attorneys will have a very difficult time showing a direct correlation between the death of her husband and BFAS. Time will tell; litigation can be unpredictable. The City of Detroit is a completely different story related to liability. As for the other individuals killed or injured in LA and Texas to which you refer, I am left to wonder what the laws are in those areas related to dangerous dogs. In the Florida case, I wonder what conversation was had with the owner and why he sought to surrender his dogs (did he know they were dangerous?) and what local laws say about the obligation of the shelter to take any owned animal.
You write that the drive for No Kill can create systemic pressures on local shelters. I agree with this, but perhaps not in the same way. That pressure can be positive. It was positive in Huntsville, Alabama, where our advocacy group encouraged the city to change the culture to shift from funding a shelter where most animals did not survive the shelter experience to one in which almost all the animals are saved. Animals who are suffering or irremediably ill are euthanized, of course. Dogs who present a genuine public safety risk (as opposed to demonstrating fear-based behaviors caused by the shelter environment itself) are euthanized to preserve public safety as should be the goal of any municipality. The new shelter director will likely never use the phrase No Kill (based on his experience with those words being weaponized in his past) but we care less about the words and more about the actions. That pressure can be negative and can lead to unethical behavior including warehousing, neglect and deceptive record keeping. I’m not sure how to overcome that other than for people who live in areas where a shelter claims to be No Kill to not take that claim at face value and use tools available to them to determine what is happening using their money and in their name. For all the bad actors out there, who have co-opted the phrase No Kill (much like the word “adoptable” was co-opted many years ago), I still see the movement – in its true form – as a tremendous success. The No Kill movement has taken us from a time when 16 to 17 million animals died in shelters each year to a time when that number is less than a million. The phrase No Kill is used by elected officials, public officials, shelters, rescue groups, nonprofit organizations, the public and even presidential candidates in years past. One of the successes of the movement is not just the decline in the deaths of healthy and treatable animals, but the fact that the public served by shelters has greater awareness of how their tax dollars are used – and that they care about whether animals live and die.
The live release issue is one I encounter daily, and it is where I do fault BFAS for the focus on the 90% percentage that was a typical byproduct of saving all healthy and treatable animals almost 2 decades ago and using a limited data set. The people who made that reference have since called it their “Frankenstein’s monster” as it has been used not to create a culture of lifesaving, but to focus solely on that number as if it is the goal. It never was and is not now. In my circles, the focus on that percentage has led to what some call a “killing budget” in which animals’ lives are forfeit after that arbitrary goal is reached. I have seen shelter data reports in which those animals deemed “unadoptable” are not counted at all so the shelter can say 90% of animals were saved. For shame. I have expressed my frustration to my contacts who work for BFAS about his continued focus on 90% because it has done harm. While BFAS has used it to make millions. Will BFAS stop using that number? Of course not. It’s a marketing tactic.
You wrote that targeted, mandatory spay/neuter programs remain the only proven method to address chronic overbreeding and abandonment. I’m not sure if you are referring to the spay/neuter of animals adopted from shelters and rescue groups or mandatory spay neuter of owned animals. If it is the latter, I oppose that for a host of reasons about which I blogged a while back on my Paws4Change website. There was an effort to promote MSN in Huntsville a couple years back which we were able to thwart, thankfully, once the people promoting it understood the unintended consequences. Even in places that have MSN, there are always exceptions for breeders and people who do not want their pet sterilized, which is their right. Trying to force someone to have their owned animal sterilized is a 4th Amendment taking. That leaves people who are least able to afford SN. If we are prepared to use resources (including money) to punish those people, we do better to use that same money to just help them.
We can agree that the focus on prevention is key which is why I promote the No Kill Equation and always have as a means of reducing intake, shortening length of stay, moving those animals who do enter the shelter out faster and still focusing on public safety. There were some who used the pandemic as a reason to try to shift the burden of keeping animals alive onto the public when what they should have done was double down on those Equation programs that help people by preventing animal births, getting animals home in the field through relationships with the public being served, keeping pets in existing homes, helping people re-home pets themselves and encouraging people to have plans for their pets in the event of their death, hospitalization, incarceration or some life-crisis.
When it comes to pit bull type dogs, my hope is that people will educate themselves using Bronwen Dickey’s book, “Pit Bull: The Battle Over an American Icon.” Although the National Canine Research Council (specifically Karen Delise) no longer tracks dog bite fatality data as in years past, I trust that research because it was based on actual records and not media reports.
I have read too many articles to count in the last year focused on the conduct of BFAS and the organizations with which it is aligned. I had a lengthy conversation with Cathy Bissell of The Bissell Pet Foundation related to one of her blogs and have tried my best to engage with people who are totally against the concept of No Kill based on what I view as lack of information. I fail more often than not. For those who say that BFAS is the recognized leader of the No Kill movement, I say that those who speak the loudest do not always lead well. For me, the leaders in the movement are people in the trenches like Nathan and Jennifer Winograd in California, Davyd Smith and Doug Rae in Colorado, Misty Valenta in Texas, Whitney Boylston and Steve Shank in Florida, Alan Rosenberg in New Jersey and John Fischer in Alabama who are true to the principles upon which the movement was founded: keeping healthy and treatable animals alive while helping the public they serve and keeping people safe. Animal problems are people problems.
You're describing a loss of common sense.
Thank you, SfS, for reading and for your succinct comment! Sometimes the issues really do come down to a need for more common sense—and a willingness to face uncomfortable truths. I appreciate your engagement and support for a more practical, honest approach in animal welfare.
This article misrepresents the No Kill movement by framing preventable tragedies as unique to it, when such incidents occur in all types of shelters — traditional, high-kill, and No Kill alike. The false premise is that these are No Kill-specific failures. They are not.
No Kill’s core principle is to save every healthy and treatable pet, including those with medical or behavioral needs that can be rehabilitated. It does not reject euthanasia, but defines it properly: the merciful end for animals who are truly suffering and beyond help. What it rejects is killing for space, convenience, or manageable conditions.
Behavioral prediction is an industry-wide challenge, not a No Kill flaw. Traditional shelters have long used discredited behavior tests to justify unnecessary killing. Blaming No Kill while ignoring this broader context is misleading.
It’s also irresponsible to single out “pit bulls” in one example, while referring to “dogs” elsewhere. That reinforces harmful stereotypes disproven by science and undermines fair treatment for all breeds.
The No Kill Equation offers a proven, ethical, and data-supported framework. When failures happen due to poor execution, the blame lies with management, not the philosophy.
If we're judging shelters by their worst outcomes, let’s look at those still killing healthy, treatable animals every day. No Kill is the only model that challenges the status quo and demands better.
Let’s avoid gross generalizations about the most successful reform of shelter practices ignited by the No Kill Movement. Let’s support science, reform, and the belief that every life counts.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Davyd. Animal Politics is a strong advocate for authentic no-kill—especially the upstream model that helped reduce shelter killing by 80% between 1990 and 2010 through robust spay/neuter, community outreach, and prevention. Our concern is with the downstream policies that later emerged from the Consortium, which deprioritized spay/neuter and coincided with a rise in severe and fatal attacks. That correlation may be coincidental, but it’s serious enough to warrant scrutiny.
We agree that no-kill, done right, is a vital and humane model. Our aim is to distinguish between that proven success—and the statistical shell game some policies have become. Thank you again for engaging in this important conversation.
I agree. No kill was not intended to be adopting out aggressive animals to families without warning. It is solely the disfunction of people like Kristen Hassen and others who operate animal shelters and rescues who are not qualified to do so who have manipulated this ethic for monetary gain and other personality disorders. I have been in shelters that are literally hoarding animals who call themselves "no kill" and I have been in animal shelters that refuse to take in desperate animals so theor data looks good. It's all a hot mess and until humans get a grip, it will continue.
Thanks for your comment, Julia. We’re actually in agreement on the heart of the issue. Animal Politics supports the original no-kill ethic—one grounded in prevention, transparency, and true compassion. Our concern is exactly what you describe: how downstream policies like managed intake and save-rate obsession have warped that vision, sometimes with tragic results.
This isn’t a critique of no-kill itself, but of how certain actors have redefined it to serve data and dollars instead of animals and communities. Thanks again for adding your voice to the conversation.
All I can say is that is unfortunately about time. I have been waiting for 20 years for a number of lawsuits to be filed which would litigate this no kill nonsense. Those of us who have worked in the real world know there are dogs who should not “find their forever homes “ and owners who should never be permitted to own dogs. It is an ongoing embarrassment that BF, HSUS, Maddie’s Fund and the like be held up to be anything more than money hungry scam operations.
The animal control and welfare community should be spaying and neutering themselves out of existence. Anything else is tant amount to placing our collective heads in the sand whilst the consortium laughs all the way to the bank.
Allan Drusys DVM, MVPHMgt
Hi Allan, thank you for sharing your perspective and for your decades of dedication to animal welfare. I know many in the field share your frustration about policies that ignore real-world challenges and sidestep the hard truths. Your point about spay/neuter as the true path to lasting change is spot on. Here’s hoping this moment sparks the honest, evidence-based conversation our profession—and the animals—deserve.
Appreciate your engagement and candor.
As is well known, low-cost Spay/Neuter (and TNR) is in the 11 programs and services of the No Kill Equation. To discount what No Kill means while touting one of its most followed tenets is, at best, ignoring the basic message of the No Kill movement. see the equation here: https://nokilladvocacycenter.org/the-toolkit/no-kill-101
Once again, so clear. Ed has put it in words and in context:
Where upstream models work to solve the crisis through prevention, BFAS’ methods merely shift or delay it—frequently at the expense of animal welfare and public safety. Their redefinition of “no-kill” has influenced a broader shift in the movement—from systemic reform to statistical cosmetics.
How do we reach the general public with this clear message of looking upstream to prevent rather than focusing on some happy adoptions and urgent appeals to clean up all the messes? The prevention message is obviously not getting through as well as the current winning twin messages of 'Here's our success story with this dog' and 'Oh, here is a horrid situation, help us clean up this mess: send us your donations!! Now! ' And it works.
Hi Elaine, thank you for your thoughtful comment and for really capturing the heart of the issue. You’re absolutely right—the prevention message is a much tougher “sell” than the feel-good stories or urgent pleas we see so often. It’s a challenge to shift the public conversation from quick fixes to long-term solutions, but voices like yours—and ongoing dialogue—are what keep the upstream message alive.
I appreciate your support and your commitment to real reform. Together, we can keep pushing for a movement that values prevention as much as rescue.
I’ve noticed in the news that when a pit bull attacks someone, the breed is named, but if the dog is another breed, it isn’t specified. Have you noticed that as well? And why do you think that is?
Hi Barb, yes, I have seen that trend, and I've chalked it up to a media bias. However, as Merritt points out, long-term data collection also shows that pit bulls are involved in a disproportionately high number of serious attacks. So their prevalence in media reports can probably be attributed to some small measure to media bias reflecting real-world trends.
Could that be because there are just a disproportionate number of pit bulls in the adopted population?
Exactly right, Eve. This is true in shelters across the U.S. And rather that address the problem upstream via targeted spay/neuter programs, the national organizations focus on mass transporting these animals from one community to another.
This is categorically not true. Beth & I here at ANIMALS 24-7 have been logging fatal & disfiguring dog attacks in the U.S. & Canada since 1982, in the U.K. since 1993, and in South Africa since 2004, a total of well over 15,000, including 205 identified breeds & breed combinations. Only 1,165 dogs involved are "unidentified," mostly because the attacks were not witnessed. 9,413 attacks (69%) were by pit bulls.
People looking at the Best Friends Animal Society policy recommendations & effects, along with those of the rest of the "consortium," tend to focus on the kill-vs.-no-kill question, which is not the real issue. The real issues are liability and criminal responsibility. Though these cases continue to be litigated almost every day, there is by now no shortage of court decisions establishing individual & institutional liability for rehoming dogs who go on to kill or maim people. Animal shelters are now paying out multi-millions of dollars per year in settlement of such claims, & insurance companies are paying out multi-millions more. However, so far the buck is stopping there, instead of with Best Friends and the other corporate entities whose policy recommendations & propagandistic fundraising promotions to the public are ultimately responsible for this ongoing situation. There is a legal instrument available that could hold Best Friends et al accountable: a class action lawsuit filed under the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations act, by plaintiffs including not only individual victims, but also insurers and public insurees. "Public insurees" means taxpayer-funded animal control agencies that have had to make huge payouts to victims because they accepted bad advice from Best Friends et al, allegedly fraudulently representing themselves as competent, responsible authorities on matters involving public health & safety. This would obviously be a huge legal undertaking, but not as big as, for instance, suing the asbestos & nuclear industries, which has been done successfully. The outcome of such a lawsuit, if successful (and it certainly should be) would be the legal dissolution of Best Friends et al, the redistribution of assets to victims of fraudulently rehomed dangerous dogs, and possible reincorporation of some of the dissolved organizations under new leadership via Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Short of that, Best Friends et al are making money hand over fist, & nobody making tons of money changes a business model except under legal duress.
Thanks, Merritt & Beth! I agree, these are issues that deserve far more public scrutiny. As settlements and legal actions continue to mount, it’s clear the field needs more than just reactive litigation. Perhaps it’s time for an independent, national review board to set and enforce best practices for rehoming high-risk dogs, or for insurers and municipalities to demand greater transparency and accountability from organizations shaping shelter policy. Elevating the conversation beyond “no-kill” rhetoric to real-world safety standards could help protect both communities and the integrity of animal welfare itself.
Let’s face it, most people shouldn’t own pets, especially powerful dogs. I bet most large-dog bite incidents involve dogs that are under-socialized, left in a yard, and have no training. I have a pitsky and I’m no dog expert, but I ensure he gets plenty of exercise, socialization, and I am ALWAYS careful around children and strangers. Not because he’s aggressive, but because he’s 80lbs of power. But can we also discuss small dogs? I have been bitten by a small dog while I was simply walking by. A friend of mine was bitten in the face by a small dog and had to have his nose stitched. There are several aggressive small dogs in my building and luckily my dog is calm. But it seems like owners of small dogs think the behavior is cute or do not invest in training. My 80lb dog has been nipped in the face many times by small dogs. If he responded, they would likely blame me. Again, most people probably shouldn’t have pets.
Anyway, I cannot understand why anyone would believe we need anything but a massive spay and neuter campaign and enforcement of licensing, microchips, etc. I believe breeders should be required to microchip their dogs and pay a heavy fine if any of their dogs end up in shelters. As for rescues, yeah lots of bad players out there too.
Thank you for sharing your thoughtful perspective, Jacqueline. You raise some excellent points—responsible ownership, training, and socialization are critical no matter the size or breed of the dog. I agree that a strong focus on spay/neuter, licensing, and accountability for breeders and rescues is essential if we want to see real change. It’s encouraging to hear from owners like you who take their responsibilities seriously. Thanks again for adding your voice to this important conversation!
As you stated this was not the original intention of the no kill movement and sometimes gives the movement a bad name. However I think upstream and downstream policies can be employed to help shelters keep live release in check. I also think shelters need to employ qualified dog and cat behavioral experts to help make the hard decisions. Some animals are just not safe to adopt into the public and someone needs to step up and be the “safety” person. Also, why can’t live release be fluid each month based on intake? The 10% leeway was set for a reason.
Hi Eve, thank you for this thoughtful comment! I completely agree: the original spirit of the no-kill movement was rooted in compassion and responsibility. Your point about employing qualified behaviorists and allowing more flexibility in live release targets is also important. When we prioritize safety and transparency alongside lifesaving, we move closer to the ethical balance the movement was meant to embody. Grateful to have your voice in this conversation.
Conclusions based upon data, not ideology - I cannot understand how anyone would dispute that without providing the results of their own credible research. Thank you, Ed (and Merritt and Beth), for your positions on this issue - especially in light of all the pressure and opposition from some of our peers.
Thank you, Annoula. Your support means a lot—especially coming from someone who understands how hard it can be to speak plainly when ideology clouds the conversation. We’re committed to following the data wherever it leads, and it’s encouraging to stand with others who value truth over trend.
This is such important information to have and to publish. I think most people have no idea this is going on yet affects so many. Thank you for this.
Thank you, Elise! I really appreciate your kind words and encouragement. It’s true—these issues often fly under the radar, even though they affect so many people and animals across the country. I’m grateful for readers like you who are helping to spread awareness and keep the conversation going.
The death of Mr. Phillips is tragic. I worked in the legal field for decades and once dealt with a wrongful death case in which a WWII veteran was attacked and killed by two dogs when he went to check his mail. It was gruesome to say the least. The dog owners were convicted of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. Our firm handed the wrongful death suit brought by the widow. I suspect Ms. Phillips’ attorneys will have a very difficult time showing a direct correlation between the death of her husband and BFAS. Time will tell; litigation can be unpredictable. The City of Detroit is a completely different story related to liability. As for the other individuals killed or injured in LA and Texas to which you refer, I am left to wonder what the laws are in those areas related to dangerous dogs. In the Florida case, I wonder what conversation was had with the owner and why he sought to surrender his dogs (did he know they were dangerous?) and what local laws say about the obligation of the shelter to take any owned animal.
You write that the drive for No Kill can create systemic pressures on local shelters. I agree with this, but perhaps not in the same way. That pressure can be positive. It was positive in Huntsville, Alabama, where our advocacy group encouraged the city to change the culture to shift from funding a shelter where most animals did not survive the shelter experience to one in which almost all the animals are saved. Animals who are suffering or irremediably ill are euthanized, of course. Dogs who present a genuine public safety risk (as opposed to demonstrating fear-based behaviors caused by the shelter environment itself) are euthanized to preserve public safety as should be the goal of any municipality. The new shelter director will likely never use the phrase No Kill (based on his experience with those words being weaponized in his past) but we care less about the words and more about the actions. That pressure can be negative and can lead to unethical behavior including warehousing, neglect and deceptive record keeping. I’m not sure how to overcome that other than for people who live in areas where a shelter claims to be No Kill to not take that claim at face value and use tools available to them to determine what is happening using their money and in their name. For all the bad actors out there, who have co-opted the phrase No Kill (much like the word “adoptable” was co-opted many years ago), I still see the movement – in its true form – as a tremendous success. The No Kill movement has taken us from a time when 16 to 17 million animals died in shelters each year to a time when that number is less than a million. The phrase No Kill is used by elected officials, public officials, shelters, rescue groups, nonprofit organizations, the public and even presidential candidates in years past. One of the successes of the movement is not just the decline in the deaths of healthy and treatable animals, but the fact that the public served by shelters has greater awareness of how their tax dollars are used – and that they care about whether animals live and die.
The live release issue is one I encounter daily, and it is where I do fault BFAS for the focus on the 90% percentage that was a typical byproduct of saving all healthy and treatable animals almost 2 decades ago and using a limited data set. The people who made that reference have since called it their “Frankenstein’s monster” as it has been used not to create a culture of lifesaving, but to focus solely on that number as if it is the goal. It never was and is not now. In my circles, the focus on that percentage has led to what some call a “killing budget” in which animals’ lives are forfeit after that arbitrary goal is reached. I have seen shelter data reports in which those animals deemed “unadoptable” are not counted at all so the shelter can say 90% of animals were saved. For shame. I have expressed my frustration to my contacts who work for BFAS about his continued focus on 90% because it has done harm. While BFAS has used it to make millions. Will BFAS stop using that number? Of course not. It’s a marketing tactic.
You wrote that targeted, mandatory spay/neuter programs remain the only proven method to address chronic overbreeding and abandonment. I’m not sure if you are referring to the spay/neuter of animals adopted from shelters and rescue groups or mandatory spay neuter of owned animals. If it is the latter, I oppose that for a host of reasons about which I blogged a while back on my Paws4Change website. There was an effort to promote MSN in Huntsville a couple years back which we were able to thwart, thankfully, once the people promoting it understood the unintended consequences. Even in places that have MSN, there are always exceptions for breeders and people who do not want their pet sterilized, which is their right. Trying to force someone to have their owned animal sterilized is a 4th Amendment taking. That leaves people who are least able to afford SN. If we are prepared to use resources (including money) to punish those people, we do better to use that same money to just help them.
We can agree that the focus on prevention is key which is why I promote the No Kill Equation and always have as a means of reducing intake, shortening length of stay, moving those animals who do enter the shelter out faster and still focusing on public safety. There were some who used the pandemic as a reason to try to shift the burden of keeping animals alive onto the public when what they should have done was double down on those Equation programs that help people by preventing animal births, getting animals home in the field through relationships with the public being served, keeping pets in existing homes, helping people re-home pets themselves and encouraging people to have plans for their pets in the event of their death, hospitalization, incarceration or some life-crisis.
When it comes to pit bull type dogs, my hope is that people will educate themselves using Bronwen Dickey’s book, “Pit Bull: The Battle Over an American Icon.” Although the National Canine Research Council (specifically Karen Delise) no longer tracks dog bite fatality data as in years past, I trust that research because it was based on actual records and not media reports.
I have read too many articles to count in the last year focused on the conduct of BFAS and the organizations with which it is aligned. I had a lengthy conversation with Cathy Bissell of The Bissell Pet Foundation related to one of her blogs and have tried my best to engage with people who are totally against the concept of No Kill based on what I view as lack of information. I fail more often than not. For those who say that BFAS is the recognized leader of the No Kill movement, I say that those who speak the loudest do not always lead well. For me, the leaders in the movement are people in the trenches like Nathan and Jennifer Winograd in California, Davyd Smith and Doug Rae in Colorado, Misty Valenta in Texas, Whitney Boylston and Steve Shank in Florida, Alan Rosenberg in New Jersey and John Fischer in Alabama who are true to the principles upon which the movement was founded: keeping healthy and treatable animals alive while helping the public they serve and keeping people safe. Animal problems are people problems.