rescue is a pit of quicksand as far as moral and ethical issues go.

lol tracey..they all basically say it is acceptable to kill unhealthy and unadoptable animals!

we don't kill unhealthy or comparably unadoptable people..unhealthy and comparably unadoptable people can and do value their lives AND we legally don't have the right.

we kill those types of animals because it is convenient and we don't currently have any other viable solutions, not because we are only "easing the passing of a dying animal or ending terminl suffering" or because it is morally right either.

dogs like halo who would be unadoptable because she is old and leaks bloody urine in gallons everywhere and has an untreatable terminal disease would be by those definitions total dead toast with those guidelines..yet today she is happy and pain free and alive. if i euthanized her today..i would be killing her and stealing her rest of "i am currently really enjoying" life.

phoebe has bitten and harmed countless people and other animals...she lived with a trainer who tried to rehab her for 2 years..it didn't work. she is unadoptable and occasionally when the mood strikes, dangerous by anyone's standards but she likes being alive.

we kill by necessity or we kill by choice but make no mistake about it..we are killing when we actively end another living creatures life.

i am definitely NOT no kill by those murdering standards (thank god.) i ain't killing them because they have big inconvenient and maybe unsolvable problems..i only kill them when they actually no longer enjoy being alive (or just before.. like if i have no choice left but to forever stick them alone in cage to keep everyone safe.)

"i just wish that every time a shelter or rescue animal unfairly dies..that we the caregivers have the courage to shout out that we just had to kill someone because of lack of space, lack of funds, lack of available homes or because someone out there wrecked this animal so much that it is too expensive, it is too impractical, too unsafe, too utterly difficult to keep them or find them new homes.
let the public share in the knowledge that thoughtlessly or carelessly screwing around wanting animals and then getting rid of them can lead directly to unbearable suffering if literally true no kill rescues or new cruel owners or unbalanced hoaders get a hold of them and eventually after much suffering will lead to actual death.
i don’t believe in perpetuating the problem by letting the public remain happily safe and blind by believing in the current no kill myth. i think they need to see the truth and the reality behind that warm and fuzzy myth.
i have seen real and literal no kill at work and it is not pretty or nice…it is utterly and completely unkind and downright mean.
and the public does believe that no kill means no kill…they have no conception that animals die every day “no kill justified deaths” due to poor adoptability, old age, treatable illnesses, managable disabilities, and not all that dangerous or serious previous bite, aggression or behavioral problem histories…they die because no one wants them and there are not enough appropriate sanctuary spaces for them all."

Absolutely agree.

Again, clear definition of "No Kill" will help clear up some of the confusion. I think everyone should Google "Definition of No Kill" and see what comes up. I just did and checked the first 6 links that came up with my search and found the following. There are definitely differences... and confusion... and controversy, but based on the first 6 that came up, would you not consider SAINTS No Kill?:

The most widely accepted definition of a no-kill shelter is a place where all adoptable and treatable animals are saved and where only unadoptable or non-rehabilitatable animals are euthanized.

A no-kill shelter is most widely defined as an animal shelter where 90% of all animals received are not euthanized.[5] Ideally, No Kill would mean all "adoptable" and "treatable" animals are saved and only "unadoptable" or "non-rehabilitatable" animals are euthanized, but 90% is the threshold.

If you’ve heard the phrase “no kill” but you aren’t sure what it means, you’re not alone. As it relates to companion animals, the phrase has more than one meaning and this has led to some confusion and some disagreement between people who feel strongly about helping animals. Some people have come to equate the phrase as being very literal (meaning that no animals are ever destroyed) and they accuse people who support no kill concepts of advocating institutionalized hoarding. Nothing could be further from the truth. No kill is not a definition; it is a culture in which life-saving is the ultimate goal and in which the only animals destroyed are those which are truly suffering or those dogs which are so aggressive that they cannot be rehabilitated (even by experts) and which present a genuine danger to the public.

Maddie's Fund and most in the no-kill movement define a no-kill shelter, a no-kill city, a no-kill community or a no-kill nation as a place where all healthy and treatable animals are saved and where only unhealthy & untreatable animals are euthanized. Maddie's Fund uses the definitions in the Asilomar Accords to define these terms.

In broad terms, no kill means an organization will find homes for all adoptable and treatable animals and euthanize only unadoptable animals or creatures too sick to be restored to health. The devil's in the details.

Nathan’s definition of “No Kill” is a 90% live release rate in municipal shelters. That means that 90% of the animals that arrive there, leave there alive whether through adoption, rescue and sanctuary transfer or trap-neuter return programs.

i do agree with you on many points..i just think we are barking up the wrong tree. homeless animals wrecked or not but who do still value their lives will continued to be killed because there is not enough space for them all. this is not any shelters or rescues fault..it is the result of irresponsible greed or ignorance in breeding more and more AND irresponsible or fickle minded or utterly ignorant owners who bail at any inconveniences, challanges or difficulties.

these are the folks who need to be wholeheartedly curtailed from having anything to do with animals by strict licencing, regulations and laws.

homeless animals being killed in shelters is directly and completely every single joe public's personal and political problem and responsibilty.

i just wish that every time a shelter or rescue animal unfairly dies..that we the caregivers have the courage to shout out that we just had to kill someone because of lack of space, lack of funds, lack of available homes or because someone out there wrecked this animal so much that it is too expensive, it is too impractical, too unsafe, too utterly difficult to keep them or find them new homes.
let the public share in the knowledge that thoughtlessly or carelessly screwing around wanting animals and then getting rid of them can lead directly to unbearable suffering if literally true no kill rescues or new cruel owners or unbalanced hoaders get a hold of them and eventually after much suffering will lead to actual death.
i don't believe in perpetuating the problem by letting the public remain happily safe and blind by believing in the current no kill myth. i think they need to see the truth and the reality behind that warm and fuzzy myth.
i have seen real and literal no kill at work and it is not pretty or nice...it is utterly and completely unkind and downright mean.
and the public does believe that no kill means no kill...they have no conception that animals die every day "no kill justified deaths" due to poor adoptability, old age, treatable illnesses, managable disabilities, and not all that dangerous or serious previous bite, aggression or behavioral problem histories...they die because no one wants them and there are not enough appropriate sanctuary spaces for them all.

and saints is not 'NO KILL"..i have and will put down an animal if i cannot provide them with a reasonably happy life. this includes animals who may be healthy but cannot safely live in this communal environment..i absolutely refuse to isolate and cage any animal for life.
i killed clyde and i LOVED that dog and he LOVED me...if it was just me and him, he would still be alive.

Not brave... glutton for punishment maybe ;)

From what I know of you and SAINTS, you are No Kill in my understanding of the term.

And I fully agree that some have perverted the term "No Kill" while others hide behind it and wave its flag but dont actually do the work required.

What troubles me most is the idea that some believe "No Kill" is impossible, and then use that belief to justify the continued killing of healthy, adoptable animals. The challenge in front of all of us as members of society is to determine what is "No Kill". Then we must decide if we even want it. And if we want it, we have to work to achieve it. And that work involves real work... volunteering / donating / adopting / lobbying / supporting / educating / uniting and so much more.

I believe that No Kill* is absolutely possible. I do have faith in humanity (most days ;) that if we want something bad enough that we can indeed achieve it. I am not suggesting it will happen tomorrow or in our lifetime but I do believe we can get there if we choose to do so. But again, we have to know where we want to be in order to get there. If we dont want it or believe it to be impossible, then we are done before we even begin.

and varying folks have varying definitions of aggression or of medical issues that will or will not be treated, or disabilities that can or can not be lived with.
in my beliefs…euthanizing a dog because he bites someone is not a humane act..euthanizing a senior because she is incontinent is not a humane act, euthanizing a puppy because he is a hemophiliac is not a humane act..yet no kill advocates do “euthanize” for some of these same reasons. these same animals come to saints and we don’t euthanize because to us they are not suffering, they are just difficult to live with. i am not saying that sometimes ending these lives is NOT necessary..sometimes it is..but not because we are being humane..it is because we simply can’t or won’t deal with them.

BINGO

Euthanasia (from the Greek: ????????? meaning "good death": ??, eu (well or good) + ???????, thanatos (death)) refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.

There are different euthanasia laws in each country. The British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering".[1] In the Netherlands, euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient".[2]

Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries and U.S. states. Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries. Involuntary euthanasia is usually considered murder.[3


as animals cannot consent or volunteer to be euthanized it becomes a human judgement call. certainly "euthanizing" a perfectly healthy and hale animal for aggression is questionable. when we impose the death penalty on violently aggressive humans..we do not sugar coat it and call it a humane act..we call it what it is...a death sentence to the individual.

and varying folks have varying definitions of aggression or of medical issues that will or will not be treated, or disabilities that can or can not be lived with.
in my beliefs...euthanizing a dog because he bites someone is not a humane act..euthanizing a senior because she is incontinent is not a humane act, euthanizing a puppy because he is a hemophiliac is not a humane act..yet no kill advocates do "euthanize" for some of these same reasons. these same animals come to saints and we don't euthanize because to us they are not suffering, they are just difficult to live with. i am not saying that sometimes ending these lives is NOT necessary..sometimes it is..but not because we are being humane..it is because we simply can't or won't deal with them.

i have "euthanized" for non end of life issues but i don't think of those times as euthanizing..i think of them as consciously ending someones life.

this is a really interesting discussion...thx for being willing to bravely engage!!

"if we fix the folks who breed them and the folks who walk out on them..maybe then we can all be closer to “no kill.”

Absolutely agree with this statement Carol. I tend to lean towards your way of thinking. I won't say anymore as the whole topic makes my blood boil and I can't see straight/reasonably.

No Kill does not mean No Euthanasia. Semantics to some, but a very important distinction still.

However, those of us who are truly No Kill (see definition above as opposed to those who allow animals to suffer just to say they havent "killed" them) dont get to gaze upon others from our ivory towers either. We still contribute to the killing of animals via our inability to take in every single animal we are asked about due to space limitations. We still share in the responsibility for their deaths.

The road to No Kill (again... not No Euthanasia) is complex and will require a lot of work from every facet of society. However, IMO, one of the first steps down that road must be a belief that the journey itself is possible.

in my mind that is low kill or limited kill...no kill to me means exactly what it says...we do not not kill for any reason...it doesn't mean we only kill sometimes depending on whatever. just because someone has a reason to kill does not mean they can still say they are no kill.

some of the animals i have here are from very vocal "no kill" rescues, but every single one was going to be euth'd because they were in that foggy, grey area of ok to kill for "whatever" (insert aggression, ongoing health issues, incontinence, other disabilities, ie basially poor adoptibilty prospects and "we are not set up to keep him or her forever"..)

no kill is only possible if we are willing to consign thousands of unadoptable or unwanted animals to living in shelters forever.
if we are going to do that, the shelters better be damn good and pretty damn big and up to the challenge of housing many animals for their lifetimes.

it costs almost $200,000 a year to run a place like saints for the unadoptables and we are only capable of helping due to space and finances 200 animals a year.

we would need 5 places just like us to help even 1000 unadoptable, problem riddled animals per year and there are many more than that 1000 out there.

it is just not logistically realistic. not unless we can get folks to A. quit breeding and B. not only keep but take good care of their animals for their entire lives...messed up or not.

the issue is not whether the shelters and rescues are or should be no kill or not..the issue is that there are so many animals floating around that need rescues or shelters...more than any or all of us can currently handle.

if we fix the folks who breed them and the folks who walk out on them..maybe then we can all be closer to "no kill."

"No Kill", as I choose to understand it, means that no animal who's suffering* can be alleviated to the point of good quality of life, loses their life.

*physical, mental or emotional suffering, or those that are truly dangerous.

To me, this definition of "No Kill" absolutely IS possible and we all must fight to strive for it. If we dont believe in even its possibility, what hope is there?

Very well said... And so true.

Amen!