Oppose No Kill? Talk about punishing the public

How do you know when someone rejects the No Kill approach to animal sheltering? They talk about the following:

***Punishing the "irresponsible public" instead of looking for ways of making shelters into true safe havens (because the irresponsible public will ALWAYS be with us - we need safe havens NOW)***

***Strict enforcement of animal laws without talking about engaging the public in lifesaving, compassion and saving lives***

***Restrictive adoption criteria instead of reasonable, education- and conversation-based adoption processes***

***Saying No Kill shelters cause suffering by "never euthanizing" (which is not true) instead of talking about the crucial distinction that No Kill makes between euthanizing and killing. Euthanasia is a merciful release from irremediable suffering and must be done to stop suffering when that suffering cannot be relieved. Taking an animal's life when he is healthy should be called what it is -- Killing.

***Saying Spay/Neuter is the "ONLY" way instead of recognizing the many different programs / angles / process that progressive shelters can and are currently engaging in to save lives. Neuter and Spay is ONE way and one way ONLY. We need to hit the problem from ALL angles.

***Saying No Kill shelters hoard animals, rather then understanding that No Kill shelters actually create plans and pathways to get animals out of the shelter as soon as possible.***

Sometimes people make these arguments because it's what they've been told for many years. But when they hear about how No Kill **really** works, they understand and change their messaging.

Other people resist the No Kill approach. These are the people who are invested in the broken shelter system, have made it work for them, and want to keep it that way.

It's important to know the arguments that people make against No Kill so you can spot who is for the animals and who is for keeping things exactly the same as they've always been.
​
What is No Kill? No Kill is LOVE.

---