When shelter work is not all fun and games:

There is real danger in the “no kill” shelter movement/ideology. This week, I have personally observed how horribly it can go wrong.

I believe it comes from a place of caring. Save every animal. It seems so straight forward. But it’s never that simple. The “no kill” movement requires a 90% live release rate. That is, 90% of animals taken in, must go out. They generally allow for euthanasia for serious medical cases. Everything is more complicated when arbitrary numbers and quotas are involved.

Last year, the residents Pueblo Colorado voted for a law requiring that the city/county municipal shelter follow “no kill” doctrine. A local no kill rescue significantly underbid the open admission organization that ran the shelter. (Open admission shelters take anything and everything that come to the doors. The “alternative” to "no kill.")

As this was happening, I was worried about how the shelter would be run, as my shelter has always had a good relationship with the former contract-holders. I worried that the rescue did not know what they were getting into and that the “no kill” legislation wouldn’t work for a municipal shelter.

Turns out that my worry was well-founded. PACFA, the regulatory body for shelters, recently released a report about the conditions of the shelter in Pueblo. It was deplorable. No fewer than 14 animals died in their facility since they opened their doors on January 2^nd. Numerous animals were not receiving proper medical care, to include a dog that was hit by a car. Animals were housed in kennels too small for their size.

Basically, the “no kill” shelter was allowing animals to suffer and die. This does not seem like compassion to me. This smacks of ego. Or, at best, sheer incompetence.  

Today I woke up at 3am and drove a large vehicle to Pueblo to get some animals out and to medical care at our facility in Denver. Even then, we got some push-back from other “no kill” organizations. They wanted to “save” the remaining animals from us. Interestingly enough, they left the animals in the worst conditions or with the least likely adoptable outcome. I am confused about that logic. We will treat them to the best of our rather extensive ability. We will work with any behavior issues that are present or may arise. Most of all, we will approach them with compassion and treat them humanely whatever their outcome may be. 

We don’t like to harp on it because it really is just an arbitrary number, but the Dumb Friends League meets the requirements set by the “no kill’ movement in Colorado. We have a live release rate above 90%.

I'm left astounded at the mental gymnastics involved to think that anything is better than going to a shelter that performs euthanasia even if it involves inhumane conditions.

I’m also tired.