Shelter Animals, Including Dogs, Cats, Need Your Help – Animals In Crisis Nationwide, Particularly Due To Kill/No-Kill Shelter Dilemma
Dogs and cats allowed to roam free on the streets across the nation are a serious problem. This issue is compounded by well-meaning advocates for all shelters to become “no-kill” shelters, however this leads to another issue: overcrowding. The overcrowding in shelters is so bad that most of the shelters that avoid euthanizing dogs or cats refuse to accept animals because they don’t have enough space to house any more of them.
This is particularly applicable to cats, who are even more often refused because they are considered “feral,” as if roaming the streets and being exposed to the elements is a beneficial thing.
Cats being allowed to roam outside, including those who do have homes and are not refused by shelters, is an extreme hazard to all wildlife, however, birds in particular are greatly endangered by cats roaming around the neighborhood. Unlike dogs, who generally do not hunt small animals and other wildlife, cats, even when they are well-fed, will hunt animals such as birds for “fun.”
This has caused the death from cat predation of over 2.4 BILLION birds EACH YEAR! Not only that, but they have contributed to the EXTINCTION of over 63 species of birds, mammals, and reptiles. This is insanity, and these shelters are causing many more cats to live on the streets, hunting birds and other animals, even to the point of extinction.
This is not even considering the suffering endured by the dogs and cats that are housed in limited-admission shelters. They often live in crates in hallways and unsafe areas since there are more animals to adopt than there are potential adopters.
This is true in New York City, and in other areas. The pandemic did improve the situation for a brief moment, while more people than ever wanted to adopt a dog or cat, but the improvements have been reversed, and the situation is even more dire than it was before the pandemic happened. This is partly because many of those who adopted companions during the pandemic surrendered them to shelters when it ended.
Read on for Questions and Answers with PETA’s Vice President Colleen O’Brien, as well as a story related by an open-admission shelter in another state, where she puts the issue in a humane and compassionate perspective. The story is in a different font than the questions and answers, so that it can be easily found.
Q-Is predation on small animals (not birds) also a problem among outside dog populations? This would refer to dogs that are on the street – in many places it’s against the law for dogs who have homes to be unleashed outside, but I’m not sure if this would affect the issue.
A-Leash laws vary by locality, but typically no, predation on wildlife is a cat-specific issue as cats are being left outside, as the New Yorker article explains; they are a non-native predator, and they hunt regardless of whether or not they have a food source, so they have caused tremendous damage to wildlife.
Q-I had one additional question about euthanizing the dogs and cats: When an animal is in intractable pain, are there other methods that are tried first, such as pain-killers or other narcotics, before they are put down? Or are those unsafe to use on dogs and cats? You had mentioned that one of the reasons for the euthanizing of the animals was due to painful injuries that they sustain outside.
A-Yes, absolutely – open-admission shelters will treat the animals brought to them for myriad injuries and illnesses. Those animals, however, would most likely not be accepted by shelters with no-kill policies. But open-admission shelters will also euthanize animals that cannot be saved, like those whose bodies are riddled with cancer and those with horrific injuries that cannot be treated. Again, these animals would most likely be turned away by no-kill shelters to suffer and die badly on the streets.
1- Can you provide links to the studies mentioned about cancer risk in males and females, as well as any studies regarding the reduction in likelihood of leukemia and AIDS?
See this from the American Veterinary Medical Association: Spaying and neutering | American Veterinary Medical Association (avma.org):
“Spaying female dogs and cats can prevent uterine infection and reduce the risk of breast cancer. Neutering males can eliminate their risk of testicular cancer and reduce their risk of developing enlarged prostate glands (known as benign prostatic hyperplasia).”
According to Brown University, altered [spayed or neutered] animals “have a much lower incidence of contracting contagious diseases.” Unaltered animals often contract diseases through fighting. Here is an AVMA article stating, “A lower rate of agonistic [combative] interactions was observed in the neutered groups than in the unneutered groups. Sexually intact male cats participated in more agonistic male-male encounters than did neutered male cats. Of 199 such encounters in the feeding groups, only 1 occurred between 2 neutered males.” This National Institutes of Health (NIH) abstract says, “neutered females showed reduced aggressiveness as well as reduced cortisol levels compared to the intact females.”
2- Would it be a policy recommendation of your organization that all shelters that refuse animals must spay or neuter them before turning them away? Perhaps the existing law needs amendment to facilitate this, making it a requirement to process all animals. I know the laws in NY have recently been changed regarding shelters. I found a summary here, but I’m not sure how current it is: https://nycadmincode.readthedocs.io/t17/c08/
First, shelters—especially those funded by taxpayer dollars—should not refuse to accept animals, period. Shelters should be safe havens for animals, and should never turn anyone away for all of the reasons I mentioned earlier (see below) .
When shelters adopt out animals, they should only do so after spaying or neutering them, or if that’s tricky for medical reasons, have a legally binding contract signed and rigorously follow up until the procedure is done. Indeed, you are right that there should be spay/neuter ordinances put into place and enforced. But shelters have a responsibility to not add to the overpopulation crisis by never adopting out animals that are unaltered (not spayed or neutered) – if they do, they are simply a revolving door for homeless animals.
The following areas have successfully implemented spay and neuter ordinances, reducing euthanasia rates in the long run: New Hampshire (euthanasia rate fell from 50% to 33% in just 5 years); Claremore, Oklahoma (the number of strays taken in goes down every year); and multiple cities and counties across California (In Santa Cruz County two years after the law went into effect, intake numbers and euthanasia rates were down; In Lake County, euthanasia rates dropped from 75% of adoptable dogs and 85% of adoptable cats to only 20% of adoptable dogs and 25% of adoptable cats just four years later). And after requiring that pit bulls be sterilized, San Francisco, Springfield, Missouri; and Ypsilanti, Michigan have all reported success and a reduced need for euthanasia.
2a-Perhaps you can clarify how these issues relate to New York, as well as to the rest of the nation. Are there states that have worse policies than others?
The situation is dire, and shelters are in “crisis” in New York and cities across the country. Here are just some stories about New York’s shelters being full, warehousing animals, and turning animals away:
- Unhappy Animals Languish in Overcrowded Shelters – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
- Animal Care Centers of NYC makes desperate plea for more dog adoptions with shelters over capacity – ABC7 New York (abc7ny.com)
- NY animal shelters ask for help to ease overcrowding | PIX11
- Animal shelters in NYC, New York, New Jersey reach crisis point with pets abandoned or surrendered – ABC7 New York (abc7ny.com)
- How New York’s Animal Shelters Reached a Breaking Point – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
- Animal Care Centers of New York City closed to dog surrenders due to critical capacity, shelters remain open – ABC7 New York (abc7ny.com)
- NYC animal shelters facing overwhelming increase of animal intake (nypost.com)
- Animal shelters in New York are at maximum capacity | WAMC
- Overcrowded NYC animal shelters need more cat adoptions | PIX11
- Efforts continue to prevent pet abandonment in N.Y. (spectrumlocalnews.com)
- Animal Care Centers of NYC no longer taking in dogs due to overcrowding (fox5ny.com)
- NYC’s animal shelters filled to capacity (fox5ny.com)
- America’s animal shelters are overcrowded with pets from families facing economic and housing woes (krgv.com)
- Adoption fees on paws: Overloaded animal shelters waive adoption fees for new pets – Brooklyn Paper
- Animal Care Centers in New York Reach Capacity, Closed for Dog Surrenders (dogtime.com)
- ‘Heartbreaking’: Shelters across Western New York dealing with too many animals, not enough adoptions (buffalonews.com)
- Animal Care Centers of NYC closed to dog surrenders from overcrowding (pix11.com)
Here is some related info about other shelters across the country. Note that this is only a sampling of issues:
- Austin, Texas declared itself “no-kill” in 2011, and it is now home to the country’s largest “no-kill” shelter, Austin Animal Center (AAC). There, crates jammed with animals line shelter halls and spill outside into the blistering Texas summer heat, with allegations that dogs go “unfed, without water, and left to lay in their own waste in a small crate for anywhere from 24 to 48 hours.” In September, a TikTok video went viral showing an AAC volunteer begging for help with animals who were being warehoused en masse in crates. The video was released just days before the shelter announced that due to overcrowding, it would no longer accept dogs and cats and turn away those brought to the shelter, a move the shelter has taken numerous times over the years.
- Los Angeles claimed “no-kill” status in 2017, and dogs in LA city shelters have spent weeks or even months inside kennels—often going several weeks without a walk. One volunteer shared videos that appeared to show feces-encrusted beds, dogs shaking in their kennels, and moldy water bowls. Dogs at shelters have also been confined to crates in conference rooms, lobbies, and hallways.
- Driven by “no-kill” policies, Cincinnati has taken to housing excess dogs in pop-up and temporary crates. In Multnomah County, Oregon, volunteers have reported that some dogs go years without ever going outside, and their only human contact is getting sedated for veterinary procedures. The Humane Society of Hamilton County in Indiana admits that dogs are “declining in their kennels” and “giving up” amid its capacity crisis. Humane Society President and CEO Rebecca Stevens was quoted as saying in a press release, “Dog adoptions have slowed tremendously, pushing several of our deserving dogs to their emotional breaking points,” and “…just because we never give up on the animals in our care doesn’t mean they don’t give up. And there are dozens teetering on the edge right now.” And in Atlanta, shelters have been described as “overrun” with animals,” some of whom have languished there for over a year, and LifeLine, which runs the Fulton County Shelter repeatedly failed inspections by the Department of Agriculture last year, despite numerous violations issued regarding humane care and space requirements.
- Numerous other limited-admission shelters have been described as at “crisis” level, including those in Cincinnati, Detroit, and Indianapolis.
- Among the many limited-admission shelters that turn animals away when they inevitably reach “capacity” are KC Pet Project in Kansas City, Missouri, which has asked people to stop bringing in lost and stray animals and the San José Animal Care and Services Center in California, which has limited the number of animals it takes in; Oregon shelters in Jackson and Multnomah counties have rejected most animals surrendered by their owners. In Los Angeles County, shelters started refusing to accept cats, leading witnesses to report seeing residents abandoning cats—who had likely never been outdoors—on the streets.
3- It would seem from what you sent that cats are more likely to be turned away from shelters, and are less adoptable overall. Is this the case?
Most shelters with no-kill policies turn away cats, most commonly cats whom they deem “feral” or “outdoor” cats. This is not because they are unadoptable or are unworthy of homes—many of these cats are strays or were abandoned by people to fend for themselves outside (which is criminal), and they should be afforded the chance to be adopted. Typically, shelters that turn away cats don’t even check to see if they are “adoptable” – they just don’t accept them. And they also turn them away without checking to see if they are altered, meaning many cats wind up on the streets,breed, and add to the overpopulation crisis.
Some shelters do this because they are under intense pressure from misguided people who demand “no-kill” practices at any cost (not even knowing what that means). Turning cats away is one way to make a shelter’s euthanasia statistics look appealing—but it doesn’t help cats or prevent them from suffering and dying. Instead, it virtually guarantees that they’ll endure early, violent, and painful deaths on the streets.
4- How would you suggest that California deal with their self created coyote problem? What would be their first step going forward? Should they remove the cat feeding stations entirely?
Shelters in CA should take in cats and not turn them away. TNR programs should only be permitted under strict guidelines such as outlined here. Without such guidelines and oversight, abandoned cats die badly on the streets (including, being eaten by coyotes, who then are considered a nuisance and cruelly killed). If the feeding stations for cats were removed, coyotes wouldn’t be lured in by them. Trash should be cleaned up in public spaces, food sources should be removed, and residents should be reminded to keep cats indoors, for their sake as well as that of the wildlife outdoor cats kill. And, of course, we all need to recognize that coyotes are urban wildlife who are simply trying to eek out an existence; they are native to the area and we all need to live and let live.
The way to combat the dog and cat overpopulation and to protect dogs and cats is for shelters to remember the meaning of the word “shelter” and keep their doors open to all animals in need (this is not what shelters with “no-kill” policies do – more on that below)—and for communities and individuals to focus on prevention, meaning spay/neuter requirements and bans on breeding and selling animals in pet stores.
The single most important thing that everyone can do to save cats and dogs from suffering and death due to their overpopulation is to spay and neuter them. Communities spend millions of taxpayer dollars each year coping with problems that a failure to spay and neuter causes. The one-time cost of spaying or neutering is far lower than the expense involved in rounding up strays, feeding and housing abandoned animals, and euthanizing those for whom adoption is not an option. And sterilized animals live longer, happier lives. Spaying eliminates the stress and discomfort that females endure during heat periods, eliminates the risk of uterine cancer, and greatly reduces the risk of mammary cancer. Neutering makes males far less likely to roam or fight, prevents testicular cancer, and reduces the risk of prostate cancer. Altered animals are less likely to contract deadly, contagious diseases, such as feline AIDS and feline leukemia, that are spread through bodily fluids.
Although the idea of “no-kill” policies at shelters—with their purported “high save rates”—appeal to kind people, these policies are leading to more animals suffering and dying. From Los Angeles to Austin to New York and pretty much everywhere now, shelters with “no-kill” policies have taken to not only turning away animals most in need, but also storing animals (dogs, mostly) in crates in hallways, conference rooms, spare offices, and even outside in the sweltering heat. In reality, animals are not at all “saved” by these policies; they suffer as a result, and even die, badly. With nowhere to go, they fall into the wrong hands or are abandoned on the streets, where they struggle, suffer, and succumb to starvation, trauma, and disease—and if animals refused entry are intact (not spayed or neutered), the cycle continues as they reproduce and make more homeless animals. These policies can more aptly be described as slow-kill. Here are just a few examples from all over the country of horrific deaths and injuries that befell animals who were first turned away by shelters with no-kill policies.
See this story from this past October, about how Animal Care Centers of NYC announced it had run out of space and was “closed for dog surrenders.” And in August, dogs were reportedly, “being kept in makeshift kennels in offices, and stacks of cat cages line the halls.”
Whereas “no-kill” policies are designed to keep animals out of shelters because they are so focused on statistics, open-admission shelters don’t turn anyone away. They take in all comers, including animals turned in by their owners and those who are elderly, sick, feral, suffering, dying, aggressive, or otherwise unadoptable, and do so without waiting lists, appointments, or exorbitant admission fees. I know you care about animals and mean no harm, but instead of calling these shelters “kill shelters,” I hope you will opt instead for the term “open-admission shelters,” which is inclusive of the work of such animal shelters and respects the dedicated staff who show up every day to care for every neglected and discarded animal who comes through their door. Euthanasia is just one service that open-admission shelters provide, and it weighs heavily on the compassionate people who perform it, but it is the most humane option for those animals who are too far gone or unadoptable. Referring to these shelters as “kill shelters” vilifies them, as this shelter director describes, and dismisses the difficult, vital, and heartbreaking work that they do.
Many shelters with no-kill policies have stopped taking in some or even all cats (especially those they deem “feral”), leaving cats to fend for themselves on the streets, almost always meeting an agonizing and/or a violent end from untreated illness or injury, parasites infestations, dangerous weather, lack of food, and more—cats are “the most-likely domestic animal to be found hit by cars, attacked by dogs or wild predators.” See this story from August about how New York’s Animal Care Centers said it was “closed for cat intake,” meaning it was refusing to accept cats brought to the facility. Here is just a sampling of some of the horrible fates that have recently befallen stray, feral, and free-roaming cats (it includes quite a few cases from New York). Countless others have died frightened and alone under porches or behind dumpsters.
Cats are also recognized as one of the most destructive invasive species in the world. A new study reveals that cats allowed to roam outdoors terrorize, maim and kill more than 2,000 species of animals. Domestic cats kill 2.4 billion birds every year and have already contributed to the extinction of 63 species of birds, mammals, and reptiles. For cats, it’s instinctive; even well-fed cats hunt (for entertainment), and studies show that “outdoor” cats bring home less than a fourth of the animals they kill. What’s more, cat feeding sites lure coyotes and other perceived “nuisance” animals into areas that they would otherwise avoid, leading to human-animal conflicts. In Los Angeles, for example, coyotes seek out cat feeding stations as an “abundant” food source, and cats comprise up to 20 percent of coyotes’ diet. As stated in the recent New Yorker article, “outdoor-cat feeding stations are notorious attractors of coyotes, which come to eat the cat food, stay to eat the cats, and thereby become dangerously habituated to contact with humans.” Now because of this, cities like Torrence, CA, have implemented year-round coyote trapping and killing programs. For these reasons, researchers have recommended limiting the “outdoor cat” phenomenon, rather than trying to eradicate “problem” coyotes.
Q-Can you please provide statistics for some of those euthanasia-capable shelters, as far as what percentage of the animals they receive that they do euthanize.
A-Every shelter keeps its own statistics to which we do not have access. Some states do require reporting, but New York is not one of them. You would have to call each shelter and ask them for their statistics.
Please know it’s not a matter of semantics. “Kill shelter” is a derogatory term coined by advocates of no-kill policies to vilify open-admission shelters. It would be like calling pro-choice advocates, “pro-death.”
I think this might be really interesting and helpful for you – it’s a report that an open-admission shelter worker sent us about how it feels for her shelter to be called a “kill shelter,” and she also gives examples of the kinds of illnesses and injuries they treat in animals who are turned in to them before putting them up for adoption:
Written by Alex Mays, founder of Muddy Paws, Full Hearts.
It’s 4:30 in the morning, and I know if I don’t write this now, I won’t be able to shut my eyes. I know that I need to write this while my heart still has a dull ache and the lump still resides in my throat.
I just finished what seemed like a night shift that would never end at the shelter. Yet, instead of laying my head to rest, all I can focus on is the frustration that is taking over my body.
After the shelter closes and the non-vampire employees go home for the evening, I begin my nightly reviews of animals in our care. I like to start up front with the adoptable animals, and work my way to the back of the shelter where our sick animals stay. As I went down my list and mapped out upcoming treatment plans for some of our post-op cats, something outside one of the large windows facing the intake doors caught my eye. Since the shelter was closed for the night, that meant that patrons only had the option to put the animal they found or were relinquishing into our overnight kennels. These particular kennels are tiny metal rooms built into the wall for people to put their animal inside and shut the door. The heavy door locks immediately, only to be opened again in the morning when the first day shift staff members arrive.
I found myself cemented to the ground, frozen in place, as I watched a woman walk her dog from her car towards the kennels. I usually give people the benefit of the doubt when I see them put animals in the kennels. Most of the time, they are good samaritans bringing in a lost animal they found. Other times, they are regulars that trap feral cats to be spayed or neutered. This time was different. She held the dogs leash close to her side, with what I could tell was a fancy harness keeping the pup secure. As they approached the kennel, the dog was confused and began jumping on its owner; clearly wondering what was going on.
I was a couple hundred feet away on the other side of a wall, and the fear and utter helplessness that dog was feeling was almost palpable. The woman quickly tried to push her companion into the kennel, and ended up having to kneel all the way down and use her whole body as the dog fought back to escape this dark and cold new place. The struggle was sickening to watch, yet I couldn’t pull myself to look away. Around the same time she threw the rest of the leash in and shut the door in one swift movement, I unclenched my jaw and started to breath normally again. As I shook my head and began to walk away to continue on my night, I knew in my gut that I wasn’t going to be able to shake this one off too easily, but I wasn’t sure exactly why.
I spend days on end taking care of abandoned animals, so why was it that I couldn’t get the visual of the dog out of my head? With a full night ahead, I knew it was something I would have to push to the back of my mind until the next day.
I try to check on the night kennels every hour or so throughout the evening. As the overnight technician, I can only remove the animals from their night kennels if it is medically necessary, otherwise they patiently wait until the first employees arrive in the morning to intake them. I proceeded to walk through the intake lobby, my least favorite part of the shelter at night, and into the room where the kennels are. It was early on in the night, so I had only expected to see the dog I witnessed being put in. To my surprise, a pair of large, dilated pupils stared back at me through the cage door in the very first kennel I checked. I chuckled knowing that from the looks of the “airplane ears”, that that big ol’ tom cat was going to be a fun one for the morning crew. I went on to check the other nine kennels. I was shocked to find that every other kennel was also filled, with only one left remaining. It was only 8:11pm. Everyone was stable, so that meant I wouldn’t be removing anyone from their kennels. They would all sit frightened and alone in this terrifying new place.
I grabbed a handful of treats, stuck them through the kennel doors of the dogs, and after making sure everyone had water, carried on with my night. Between the anger I felt earlier on, mixed with the lump in my throat after seeing nine lonely eyes staring back at me through the cage doors, I couldn’t help but question, again, why these things were bothering me so much more than usual.
Then, it hit me. I knew why it bothered me so much. It didn’t upset me because I felt bad for the animals, as I knew damn well that my shelter was the best thing to happen to these creatures who were given up on. It didn’t infuriate me because I hated the ones who put them in those night kennels, because I have no idea what their situation was.
The real issue imbedded deep in my soul were the voices from almost any conversation I have with someone I meet. It is almost always the same scenario: I ask them what they do, they tell me, they ask me what I do, I tell them. Now, you would think the quick response after telling someone that I am a Veterinary Technician for a non-profit organization would be positive, but no. The usual response is something along the lines of, “Oh, wow, that’s a kill shelter, right?” From there, I usually respond with my normal spiel that has definitely grown with more knowledge and passion throughout the years.
Just so we are all on the same page, as I’m sure many reading this may have been previously uninformed, my spiel is as follows…
“Yes, we are an open admittance shelter.” (This is where I usually get a very confused face.)
“That means we take in any animal brought to us; we don’t turn anyone away. So, your ‘no kill’ shelters can say no to the old, broken, and bleeding, whereas we take everyone. For example, a dog who was hit by a car might be turned away at another shelter because the costs of care would be too high. We take that same dog in, and proceed to do everything in our power for that animal’s health and happiness.
“Sometimes, the animals brought into us, the ones no one else would take, would have an extremely poor quality of life if adopted out. In my personal opinion, the most humane thing is to help them ease their pain, and comfortably lead them into their next chapter.”
This may not be my word-for-word saying depending on the day and how many glasses of wine I’ve had, but you get the gist.
With the realization of where my conflicting feelings were stemming from, I couldn’t stop the frustration from building. I began to think of all my most recent shifts, and how I wish that when people asked me that ever so lovely question, they could see what really went on in this kill shelter they seemed to know so much about.
When you leave your nine-year-old Chow mix because you are moving and can’t afford to bring him with, don’t worry, we got you covered. We brushed out his severe matting and gave him a bath that he hadn’t had in years. His rotting out teeth, fear not, he had full mouth dental extractions and is no longer in pain. When he was curled up in the back corner of the kennel scared to death, no sweat, our behavior team spent hours working with him to build his confidence and comfort him in this new and unfamiliar place.
When the puppy you got off craigslist breaks with parvo and you can’t afford treatment so you relinquish it to us, we will spend day in and day out providing the care that would costs hundreds of dollars at a clinic.
When your twelve-year-old cats, that you adopted from us when they were kittens, no longer suit your lifestyle, we will welcome them with open arms. In fact, we will do you one better. We will have our specialist spend time with them to ensure that they are bonded, and only adopt them out together.
Is it harder to adopt out two older cats together? Absolutely. Don’t worry, our customer care team will go above and beyond to ensure that they are promoted like crazy to get them the best home possible.
When you leave your shih tzu in the night kennel with a note that says, “She won’t stop peeing everywhere,” we will quickly take some radiographs to show that it’s probably due to the strawberry-sized bladder stones she has. Oh, and yes, we will take those out, too.
Most of all, what I wish more than anything, is the view they have of the ones that have to perform euthanasia. Instead of picturing these scowl-faced villains wearing black aprons waving a blue syringe around like it’s a trophy, maybe picture what really goes on.
Picture the technician emotionally drained and exhausted, but forcing a smile to make the animal you brought in to be euthanized more comfortable with a friendly face. Picture that same technician laying in bed at night, not being able to sleep because they are questioning every decision they made throughout their day. Or, if it’s easier, they could even picture me. Picture me, just the other day, laying on the floor with a deceased, four week old puppy in my lap. Picture me running down the hallway with its failing body in my arms, racing the clock to help it peacefully go to sleep instead of having to die alone and in pain. Picture me having to look into its eyes telling it that it will all be alright, as I guide it on its journey until it falls asleep in my arms. Picture me unable to move, heartbroken by having to be the person to make that decision, but conflicted with the knowledge that I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Yes, I am aware that I am so unbelievably fortunate to work somewhere with the funding to go to extreme measures for the four legged creatures. I am also aware that many underfunded shelters do not have this luxury, and have to make decisions that no one else can or will. All I ask is please, when you throw the words around and criticize the overworked employees that stay at those underfunded shelters to help as many as they can, try picturing the human behind your imaginary black apron.
After hours of continuing on with my night reviews with the internal turmoil going on inside me, I took the last hour to tie any loose ends I had left. With that, I went back and gave extra blankets to the tiny ones shivering on the cold cement ground. I went back through the lost and found kennels and handed treats to the attention seekers that had been longing for me to come say hi all night. I went back to the kennel with the “dangerous animal” sign on it, and I sat outside its cage turned away comfortably as I slowly passed treats through the cage door to show that not all people were scary.
When it was finally time to leave, I sat in my car and took a deep breath. With my exhale I envisioned the new future ahead for all those scared souls I saw in the night kennel. Because as I said before, them being put in those kennels may just be the best thing to happen in their lives.
Some additional questions about animal shelters and adoption policies were also answered by PETA. The local animal shelters in Staten Island did not respond to our requests for information about their adoption policies, or about the number of animals euthanized in these shelters.
Question: I am wondering if you can tell me about the adoption process, and if it is different at the closed-admission vs open-admission shelters. I was with family members over the holidays who were discussing some of their experiences at closed-admission shelters.
According to the family member, and another person with whom I was acquainted, they both had strange adoption processes, and were ultimately rejected as adopters, when they would have been well-suited.
The acquaintance, who lived in New Jersey, had failed the required home inspection because they were just finishing moving in to the new home, and there was still some unpacking to be completed.
The relative, who lives on Staten Island, was rejected because she already had a small dog (a chihuahua mix), and the kitten they wanted to adopt was not allowed to be adopted into a home with a dog. The family was actually trying to get a new cat because their previous cat had just passed before the holiday. So, the dog was well-acquainted with being around cats.
In addition, the kittens had been just born to a local feral cat, in the backyard of a neighbor who was trained in the local charity’s TNR (Trap, Neuter, Release) program, and they insisted on bringing the kittens to the local PetSmart, where my relative went to try to adopt them.
What I wanted to know is: Are these common experiences? Is the usual procedure for adoption more complicated for non-profit run shelters, and is the procedure different for open-admission shelters, or are they about the same?
In particular, are home inspections always required, or is this specific to the limited-admission shelters? I have also read about other people having this same experience online, particularly after the pandemic, when the demand for dogs and cats exceeded the local supply. I cannot find the article that I read, but supposedly they were importing dogs and cats from China, as the supply was so low here in the US. The pandemic-related boom in adoptions was talked about in the Washington Post article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/12/25/dog-cat-animal-shelter-adoption/
I also found this interesting article about the same controversy we have been discussing (no-kill and kill shelters):https://lifelineanimal.org/the-no-kill-controversy/
Answer:
Animal shelters vary greatly—by size, purpose, capacity, and their treatment of the animals in their charge. PETA supports adoption policies that include pre-adoption home interviews and follow-up programs. It’s in the best interest of the animals, to make sure they will have a safe home, will not be kept outside, or be otherwise mistreated. It’s important for shelters to try to ensure that potential adopters will have the time, patience, and means to care for a companion animal for the duration of his/her life.
Shelters with no-kill policies, however, often relax or do away with appropriate screening measures and fees, regardless of what happens to vulnerable animals. Adopting out animals without adoption fees or for discounted rates devalues the animals and encourages spur-of-the-moment adoptions by people who have not considered whether or not they are ready to invest the substantial amount of money and care that animals need.
LifeLine Animal Project, the organizatin that you noted in your email, has been in the news for horrific conditions at its facilities. Here are some examples:
1/4/24: LifeLine Animal Project’s new Fulton County shelter is already reaching capacity (atlantanewsfirst.com) – Adoption fees for senior dogs have been eliminated and other adoption fees reduced.
9/14/23: Overcrowding crisis at DeKalb County Animal Shelter hits boiling point – WSB-TV Channel 2 – Atlanta (wsbtv.com) – Georgia’s Department of Agriculture investigated a complaint connected to the number of animals being warehoused at the shelter. The CEO has urged people NOT to bring animals to the shelter.
8/3/23: 12 dogs die after A/C unit fails during Atlanta animal shelter’s road trip – WSB-TV Channel 2 – Atlanta (wsbtv.com) – A dozen dogs died of reported heat exhaustion in a trailer being run by LifeLine employees. Another 23 dogs had to be rescued.
Regarding the pandemic, it’s true that there was a surge in adoptions when many people found themselves spending more time at home. However, once people started going back to work, there were myriad reports of people trying to “get rid of” the “pandemic puppies” they bought or adopted in 2020—as PETA warned would happen (and tried our best to prevent).
Here are some stories about animals being returned to shelters after the pandemic:
2/20/2023—PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/animal-shelters-struggle-as-many-pets-adopted-during-pandemic-are-returned
10/17/2022—The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/oct/17/pets-returned-inflation-guinea-pigs
1/7/2022—The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/01/07/covid-dogs-return-to-work/
7/9/2021—The Dallas Morning News: https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2021/07/09/too-many-pets-are-going-back-to-shelters-as-people-go-back-to-work/
5/11/2021—USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/05/11/pandemic-pups-being-returned-months-after-their-adoption/5038295001/
5/11/2021—NY Post: https://nypost.com/2021/05/11/pets-adopted-during-the-pandemic-are-being-returned-at-record-numbers/
5/10/2021—Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/pets-adopted-pandemic-returned-record-numbers-report
5/9/2021—Inside Edition: https://www.insideedition.com/some-people-are-abandoning-pets-adopted-during-the-pandemic-as-states-reopen-and-people-go-back-to
Here is some more information on this important topic:
If you have a moment, you may be interested in this new article by writer Jonathan Franzen, which just came out in The New Yorker and is lifting the veil on how “no-kill” policies at animal shelters—even public shelters that are funded by taxpayer dollars—are causing cats and dogs to suffer.
As Franzen explains, many shelters are prioritizing “save rates” over “spay rates”—they’re focused on keeping animals out of their euthanasia statistics even if it means animals die badly out on the streets, but many of them are not doing nearly enough—if anything—to prevent animals from being born into a world already bursting at the seams with unwanted ones, and ending up homeless in the first place. Some facilities are warehousing animals (namely, dogs), and turning others away, with many refusing to accept cats altogether, instead condemning cats to be abandoned on the streets as “community” cats—a particularly egregious policy, given a new study revealing that cats allowed to roam outdoors terrorize, maim and kill more than 2,000 species of animals.
And while these slow-kill policies leave the most vulnerable animals with nowhere to go, leading to abandoned dogs and cats not just reproducing and creating even more unwanted animals, but also suffering and/or dying of starvation, trauma, disease, or abuse on the streets, facilities with “no-kill” policies enjoy positive PR by advertising a misleading at best and dishonest at worst “90% save rate”—and the open-admission shelters that never refuse admission to animals in need (and are therefore most in need of funding) are vilified.
The solution here is for shelters to remember the meaning of the word “shelter” and keep their doors open to all animals in need—and for communities and individuals to focus on prevention, meaning spay/neuter requirements and bans on breeding and selling animals in pet stores, as Los Angeles, with its notoriously troubled shelter system, is now preparing to do.
Q-Can you provide us with some more details about this and the related issues with the kill shelters?
Specifically, what are your suggestions for kill and no kill shelters? Is it PETA’s proposal that all shelters should be kill shelters, and should also spay and neuter all the cats and dogs they care for? Are there dangers to these procedures as well (spaying and neutering)?
A- The way to combat the dog and cat overpopulation and to protect dogs and cats is for shelters to remember the meaning of the word “shelter” and keep their doors open to all animals in need (this is not what shelters with “no-kill” policies do – more on that below)—and for communities and individuals to focus on prevention, meaning spay/neuter requirements, and bans on breeding and selling animals in pet stores.
The single most important thing that everyone can do to save cats and dogs from suffering and death due to their overpopulation is to spay and neuter them. Communities spend millions of taxpayer dollars each year coping with problems that a failure to spay and neuter causes.
The one-time cost of spaying or neutering is far lower than the expense involved in rounding up strays, feeding and housing abandoned animals, and euthanizing those for whom adoption is not an option. And sterilized animals live longer, happier lives. Spaying eliminates the stress and discomfort that females endure during heat periods, eliminates the risk of uterine cancer, and greatly reduces the risk of mammary cancer.
Neutering makes males far less likely to roam or fight, prevents testicular cancer, and reduces the risk of prostate cancer. Altered animals are less likely to contract deadly, contagious diseases, such as feline AIDS and feline leukemia, that are spread through bodily fluids.
Although the idea of “no-kill” policies at shelters—with their purported “high save rates”—appeal to kind people, these policies are leading to more animals suffering and dying.
From Los Angeles to Austin to New York and pretty much everywhere now, shelters with “no-kill” policies have taken to not only turning away animals most in need, but also storing animals (dogs, mostly) in crates in hallways, conference rooms, spare offices, and even outside in the sweltering heat. In reality, animals are not at all “saved” by these policies; they suffer as a result, and they even die, badly.
With nowhere to go, they fall into the wrong hands or are abandoned on the streets, where they struggle, suffer, and succumb to starvation, trauma, and disease—and if animals refused entry are intact (not spayed or neutered), the cycle continues as they reproduce and make more homeless animals.
These policies can more aptly be described as slow-kill. Here are just a few examples from all over the country of horrific deaths and injuries that befell animals who were first turned away by shelters with no-kill policies.
See this story from this past October, about how Animal Care Centers of NYC announced it had run out of space and was “closed for dog surrenders.” And in August, dogs were reportedly, “being kept in makeshift kennels in offices, and stacks of cat cages line the halls.”
Whereas “no-kill” policies are designed to keep animals out of shelters because they are so focused on statistics, open-admission shelters don’t turn anyone away. They take in all comers, including animals turned in by their owners, and those who are elderly, sick, feral, suffering, dying, aggressive, or otherwise unadoptable, and do so without waiting lists, appointments, or exorbitant admission fees.
I know you care about animals and mean no harm, but instead of calling these shelters “kill shelters,” I hope you will opt instead for the term “open-admission shelters,” which is inclusive of the work of such animal shelters and respects the dedicated staff who show up every day to care for every neglected and discarded animal who comes through their door.
Euthanasia is just one service that open-admission shelters provide, and it weighs heavily on the compassionate people who perform it, but it is the most humane option for those animals who are too far gone or unadoptable. Referring to these shelters as “kill shelters” vilifies them, as this shelter director describes, and dismisses the difficult, vital, and heartbreaking work that they do.
Many shelters with no-kill policies have stopped taking in some or even all cats (especially those they deem “feral”), leaving cats to fend for themselves on the streets, almost always meeting an agonizing and/or a violent end from untreated illness or injury, parasite infestations, dangerous weather, lack of food, and more—cats are “the most-likely domestic animal to be found hit by cars, attacked by dogs or wild predators.” See this story from August about how New York’s Animal Care Centers said it was “closed for cat intake,” meaning it was refusing to accept cats brought to the facility.
Here is just a sampling of some of the horrible fates that have recently befallen stray, feral, and free-roaming cats (it includes quite a few cases from New York). Countless others have died frightened and alone under porches or behind dumpsters.
Cats are also recognized as one of the most destructive invasive species in the world. A new study reveals that cats allowed to roam outdoors terrorize, maim, and kill more than 2,000 species of animals.
Domestic cats kill 2.4 billion birds every year and have already contributed to the extinction of 63 species of birds, mammals, and reptiles. For cats, it’s instinctive; even well-fed cats hunt (for entertainment), and studies show that “outdoor” cats bring home less than a fourth of the animals they kill.
What’s more, cat feeding sites lure coyotes and other perceived “nuisance” animals into areas that they would otherwise avoid, leading to human-animal conflicts. In Los Angeles, for example, coyotes seek out cat feeding stations as an “abundant” food source, and cats comprise up to 20 percent of coyotes’ diet.
As stated in the recent New Yorker article, “outdoor-cat feeding stations are notorious attractors of coyotes, which come to eat the cat food, stay to eat the cats, and thereby become dangerously habituated to contact with humans.”
Now because of this, cities like Torrence, CA, have implemented year-round coyote trapping and killing programs. For these reasons, researchers have recommended limiting the “outdoor cat” phenomenon, rather than trying to eradicate “problem” coyotes.
Banner Image: Lonely puppy in a shelter cage. Image Credit – PETA
As a licensed veterinary technician who worked in a shelter for 18 years, I thank you for highlighting the truth about open-admission shelters. People who work in them are the unsung heroes, whose hearts break every day to do what is right, kind, and compassionate for *all* animals.
Thank you for explaining why “no-kill” means “no help” for many animals. Open-admission shelters provide refuge for all animals, including those who are old, sick, aggressive, and dying. They are true shelters and deserve support. People who care can help by lobbying for laws requiring people to spay or neuter, and banning sales of dogs and cats by breeders and pet stores. Becoming “no birth” is the only humane way to become “no-kill.”