The Public Gets No Kill—and the Shelter Industry Still Doesn’t - or do they?

Continuing to Clarify What No Kill Means to those that should know

A recent article circulating in animal welfare circles yet again reflects a common misunderstanding about the No Kill movement—one that continues to confuse the public and misinform policy discussions.

And I question it is a misunderstanding, I believe it is a ruse to muddy the No Kill movement that has changed animal welfare dramatically and for good.

The piece implies that No Kill is simply defined by achieving a 90% live release rate, and tries to merge the philosophy with the marketing efforts of one large national organization. These inaccuracies deserve clarification, not only because they misrepresent the effective and widely popular grassroots No Kill movement, but because they risk undermining genuine lifesaving reform.

The article in question wrongly equates "No Kill" with achieving a 90% live release rate. This oversimplification undermines the core ethical foundation of the No Kill philosophy. No Kill does not mean "save 90%"—it means saving every healthy and treatable animal, and only euthanizing those who are truly irremediably suffering, as defined by veterinary standards. The 90% figure is simply a low-end benchmark indicating progress—not the goal itself.

Furthermore, it is important to note that Best Friends Animal Society is not synonymous with the No Kill movement. While Best Friends has amplified the message with its considerable marketing reach, the movement itself predates and extends beyond them. Many dedicated No Kill advocates, shelter reformers, rescuers, and community members work independently of—and sometimes critically of—Best Friends' strategies. No Kill is a philosophy and a set of practices, not a brand.

Lastly, the suggestion that No Kill is unpopular or extreme is unfounded. The Public gets No Kill, and supports it. In fact, the vast majority of the public supports the core tenet of No Kill: that healthy and treatable pets should not be killed simply because they are homeless. These articles that circulate within a professional echo chamber may fail to reflect this, but public polling and community-driven reforms nationwide prove otherwise. This is not a radical idea—it is a compassionate, evidence-based, and increasingly mainstream standard for humane sheltering.