Traditionally, most animal shel- ter workers have denied that the killing, or euthanasia, of animals in their facilities was cruel, even when euthanized animals were adoptable, young, attractive, and healthy.1 Work- ers have sustained a core professional identity of being humane, good-heart- ed “animal people” who want the very best for their charges, despite—or even because of—their euthanasia of animals. Killing has been taken for granted, regarded as a “necessary evil” having no alternative in their eyes.
One reason shelter workers have been able to maintain this self image is that, until the last decade, little if any organized criticism has been lev- eled at them. When criticism occurred, it tended to be case-specif- ic, focusing on which animals were euthanized, how it was done, and whether the shelter shared this infor- mation with the public. Although a few shelters offered an alternative to the standard paradigm by restricting admission of unadoptable animals and billing themselves as “no-kill” shelters, they did not represent a seri- ous threat to the continuation of “open-admission” policies toward euthanasia.2
However, criticism of euthanasia has mounted steadily in frequency and fervor from within certain seg-
ments of the sheltering community. In 1994 the Duffield Family Founda- tion created the Maddie’s Fund, which sought to revolutionize the sta- tus and well-being of companion ani- mals by championing the no-kill movement. No longer possible to ignore or discount as an outrageous idea, this movement has spurred debate at the national level about the proper role of euthanasia in shelter practice. The resulting challenges have strained the ability of conven- tional shelters and humane organiza- tions to protect workers psychologi- cally from the charge that euthanasia is a form of cruelty. Instead of pre- venting cruelty, which their mission maintains, these organizations now are seen as causing it. In response, the no-kill movement has been attacked by those who defend the practice of euthanasia and open admission.
Although some argue that everyone in the debate shares a passionate con- cern for the welfare of animals, a rift over this issue divides the shelter community. Ultimately, the best interests of animals may not be best addressed in a climate of controversy and criticism. To understand and per- haps reduce this controversy, the ten- sions fueling the no-kill conflict need to be identified and the breadth of the gulf separating its two camps assessed.
Method
I investigated the shelter communi- ty’s response to the no-kill movement in two communities that have taken different approaches to the issue. Though located on opposite coasts of the country, these metropolitan areas are similar in size and wealth. The makeup and nature of their humane organizations, however, are quite dis- similar. One community is home to many independent organizations that individually have received praise or criticism over the years; until recent- ly they have been a widespread group of equals sharing a common media market. Even animal control pro- grams have been large, countywide, and sometimes-progressive players in their own right. In the other commu- nity, two key players are so large that they have dwarfed the role and signif- icance of others; the two players have been conservative, lagging somewhat behind the nationwide trends in shel- tering. These two communities have dealt very differently with the pet overpopulation issue. In one case the SPCA (society for the prevention of cruelty to animals) has embraced the no-kill concept, while in the other it has not. There are differences in the relationships between the SPCAs and neighboring humane organizations, as well; in the former community
RSS Feed