“Zero killing of any pets..is just not realistic..”
No-Kill shelters are allowed to euthanise up to 10% of animals if they are judged to be too old, too sick or too feral. I presume ‘too feral’ means or should mean not fully socialised but it can mean a lot more to shelter staff such as being ‘unfriendly’. This opt out clause of being ‘too feral’ is too easy to use. A cat only has to be anxious and defensively aggressive in a cage in a strange place to be assessed as too feral and be sent down the euthanasia route.
So no-kill is not 100% no-kill as Elisa discussed in her post. I guess most of us know it but not all the public do as the lady in the video found out to her cost and the cost of her cat.
The video below discusses this tricky issue. The presenter in the video explains how the animal shelter’s label of ‘No-Kill’ encouraged the woman in the video to let this particular shelter re-home a cat. The cat was killed prompting the suggestion that the no-kill label is misleading. The big issue is why does no-kill mean that up to 10% are euthanised. The lady in the video says that it is impractical to be 100% no-kill. Well then, let’s consider dropping the label…
A Get Gephardt investigation has uncovered that thousands of animals die every year at so-called "no kill" facilities.
Posted by Get Gephardt on Wednesday, February 20, 2019
If the label is misleading to the public generally, there is a good argument that the words ‘No-Kill’ should be dropped and replaced with something like ‘90% No-Kill’. Or they could claim ‘High No-Kill’ or ‘Very Low Kill Rate”. The last label is clumsy but it is at least accurate. Perhaps a better label might be “Low-Kill“.
There are laws governing the description of products in shops. A seller cannot promote a product or service by describing it inaccurately as it would be a misrepresentation. For instance, a seller can’t say that a washing machine is the cheapest to run if it is not the cheapest. Or that an insurance policy is the best value if it is not. It is black-and-white situation as the video presenter states. Why do animal shelters get away with fudging it? Why are they allowed to in effect state that they are 100% no-kill, as the label suggests, when they aren’t?
The inevitable conclusion is that the phrase “no-kill’ should be dropped and a better alternative employed. I’d suggest “Low-Kill” as it rhymes with no-kill which means it could, hopefully, be introduced fairly easily. OR, they should be 100% no-kill. That’s the choice.
This issue has been around for a very long time. It is surprising that it is being ‘investigated’ now.
[weaver_breadcrumbs class=’alt-class’ style=’inline-style’]
[weaver_show_posts cats=”” tags=”no-kill” author=”” author_id=”” single_post=”” post_type=” orderby=”date” sort=”ASC” number=”2″ show=”full” hide_title=”” hide_top_info=”” hide_bottom_info=”” show_featured_image=”” hide_featured_image=”” show_avatar=”” show_bio=”” excerpt_length=”” style=”” class=”” header=”” header_style=”” header_class=”” more_msg=”” left=0 right=0 clear=0]