A comment on another post prompt me to create yet another post to continue the misinformation I see daily about No Kill principles and the No Kill Movement.
The assertion was stated as a fact that: No Kill has had a "negative impact" on open-admission shelters. This is not based on any fact but rather on a mischaracterization of what No Kill truly represents. No Kill is not about shifting a "PR problem"—it is a lifesaving movement that provides humane, effective alternatives to the outdated practice of killing healthy and treatable animals.
No Kill Includes Open-Admission Shelters The idea that open-admission shelters cannot be No Kill is demonstrably false. Numerous municipal shelters across the U.S. have successfully implemented No Kill policies while remaining open-admission, meaning they accept all animals while still saving every healthy and treatable pet. As we were talking about Colorado in the post, The Humane Society of Fremont County has been doing this for a decade, and last year saved over 98% of all pets entering its care. HSFC is a Colorado OPEN ADMISSION No Kill shelter serving two counties and multiple localities. It is also underfunded.
No Kill Shelters and Rescues Relieve, Don’t Burden, Public Shelters Private rescues and non-municipal shelters play a crucial role in animal welfare, providing overflow capacity, fostering programs, and medical treatment that reduce euthanasia rates in municipal shelters. Without these groups, public shelters would indeed be overwhelmed, but No Kill is not the cause of that problem—lack of progressive policies and community engagement is. Imagine if the hundreds of non-municipal shelters in and rescues in Colorado disappeared overnight? We would have tens of thousands of homeless pets with no safe haven annually. To disparage hundreds of these Colorado PACFA licensed life saving organizations is insulting to them.
No Kill is Economically and Logistically Viable Municipalities that embrace No Kill see economic benefits, including increased community support, lower operational costs, and higher adoption revenues. Killing animals is expensive and inefficient, whereas implementing foster programs, rescue partnerships, and high-volume adoptions saves money and lives. These are just some of the 11 programs and services of the No Kill Equation.
Violence is Not a No Kill Principle The claim that No Kill supporters "threaten" shelter

employees is a blatant misrepresentation. No Kill is rooted in compassion and nonviolence, advocating for humane solutions through collaboration, transparency, and accountability. Holding shelters accountable for unnecessary killing is not an attack—it is a demand for ethical sheltering. I don’t know any legitimate organization that condones threats and it is literally the opposite of what No Kill promotes. The people that make these threats cannot be No Kill advocates by definition.
Misinformation Harms Progress The commenter correctly states that we should all operate from a baseline of shared facts. However, the assertion that No Kill has "intentionally" harmed shelters is misinformation. No Kill exists to save lives, improve conditions for shelter workers, and increase community involvement in lifesaving efforts. The real harm comes from resisting proven solutions while continuing the cycle of killing under the guise of "necessity."
If No Kill were truly detrimental to open-admission shelters, then we would not have thriving No Kill municipal shelters across the country proving otherwise.
Rather than dismissing No Kill as a problem, why not examine how communities that have implemented it successfully have transformed their shelters for the better? The facts are clear: No Kill works, and it benefits everyone—animals, shelters, and the public.
تعليقات