Dangerous ‘No-Kill’ Shelter Policies Exposed! Learn How They Harm Animals

I have been saying for a very long time that many organizations that supposedly help and care for animals are part of the problem. These people call themselves experts in the care of animals and proclaim to love them and to know what’s best for them, but all they do is create the illusion of love for animals and under the disguise of helping and caring, covertly are part of cruelty to animals and they prolong their suffering. I lost complete faith in organizations like the Arizona Humane Society and many of the people who proclaim to love animals. I know they know where the people in trouble are that need help and assistance, but they put their blinds on and they just go rescue the animals when the people get in trouble and the law gets involved and the cameras are on, then they do what should have been done long ago to prevent cruelty and suffering, in this way, they look good in front of the public’s eyes and manipulate the public to donate money to their organizations, but really secretly don’t care about the animals or anyone else’s suffering. They don’t fool me anymore. 

I'm glad to see that are other people to see this also.

https://sylvieshene.blogspot.com/2011/01/arizona-humane-society-unconsciously.html

An article in The New Yorker by bestselling novelist Jonathan Franzen is lifting the veil on how “no-kill” policies at animal shelters—even those funded by taxpayer money—are causing cats and dogs to suffer. As Franzen explains in the article, many shelters prioritize “save rates” over spay rates. Shelters are focused on keeping animals out of their facilities and out of their statistics, even if it means that they suffer and die on the streets. Click here to learn more, and please share this important information with others who care about animals."

A long-serving animal-control officer described a system intensely pressured to keep animals moving through it. “No Kill sounds great,” the officer said. “But it’s a myth." 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/01/01/how-the-no-kill-movement-betrays-its-name

How ‘No-Kill’ Policies Are Harming Animals

As Franzen explains in the article, many shelters prioritize “save rates” over spay rates. Facilities are focused on keeping animals out of their euthanasia statistics even if it means that they suffer and die on the streets. But many shelters aren’t 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 warehouse dogs for weeks, months, or even years and turn away other animals. Many refuse to accept cats altogether, condemning them to abandonment 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.

These “slow-kill” policies leave the most vulnerable animals with nowhere to go, leading to abandoned dogs and cats not only reproducing and creating even more unwanted animals but also suffering and/or dying of starvation, traumatic injuries, disease, or abuse. Facilities with “no-kill” policies enjoy positive public relations—advertising “90% save rates” that are misleading at best and dishonest at worst—while open-admission shelters, which never turn away animals in need (and are therefore most in need of funding), are vilified.

“A long-serving animal-control officer, who asked not to be identified, described to me a system intensely pressured by No Kill to keep animals moving through it—dangerous dogs and frightened feral cats being placed with unsuspecting adopters, abusive or psychologically disturbed people being given animals without even a basic background check, because there aren’t enough good homes for all the animals. ‘No Kill sounds great,’ the officer said. ‘But it’s a myth.’”

—Jonathan Franzen

Shelters Should Keep Their Doors Open to All Animals in Need

Animal shelters are meant to serve as safe havens. There should be no waiting lists, no admission fees, and no excuses to keep animals out.

If your local shelter has harmful policies and turns away animals, please speak up and encourage humane, responsible “socially conscious sheltering.” The basic steps are simple: Document your experiences, gather support, and make your case. Your involvement could make a world of difference to the companion animals in your community who need you the most.

https://www.peta.org/blog/jonathan-franzen-no-kill-new-yorker/?utm_source=peta::e-mail&utm_medium=alert&utm_campaign=1223::acom::peta::e-mail::283730::dangerous-no-kill-shelter-policies-exposed::::no-kill-blog

 Shelters are under extreme pressure by laypeople who are opposed to euthanasia under virtually any circumstances and at any cost. They harass and vilify shelter workers who make the difficult but compassionate decision to euthanize some animals in order to keep their doors open to every animal in need.

In response, an alarming number of shelters—in some cases, even taxpayer-funded ones—are choosing to operate like exclusive clubs or boutiques instead of refuges for animals in need. When shelters make it difficult for people to surrender animals, closing their doors and refusing to help, they leave animals with nowhere to turn. Many are abandoned on the streets, where they starve and die in agony of untreated diseases or injuries. Others remain in the hands of people who don’t want them and who may mistreat, neglect, or even kill them.

https://www.peta.org/features/shelter-refusing-animals/?en_txn7=blog::jonathan-%20franzen

Lisa Lange is a senior vice-president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Last year, when I recorded a short video for peta, urging people to keep their cats indoors, I’d been surprised to learn that the group opposes both No Kill policies and trap-neuter-return. “We’re opposed to outdoor cats, period,” Lange told me, at her home in Pasadena. “T.N.R. isn’t ‘better than nothing’—it’s worse than nothing. It doesn’t reduce the number of homeless cats, but it does normalize the idea that cats should be outdoors, and it turns a blind eye to their suffering. We see it every day in the diseased faces and broken bodies of feral cats. There is a fate worse than death.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/01/01/how-the-no-kill-movement-betrays-its-name

Critics of Best Friends are unimpressed with its stories (“It’s a lot easier to raise money on Save Them All than Spay Them All,” Lisa Lange, of peta, said), but neither of the Battistas struck me as venal or phony. I got the impression, instead, of true belief—militantly pure in Judah, more nuanced in Francis. Although their politics are generally liberal, and although No Kill doesn’t preclude some euthanasia, the imperative to “save them all” is reminiscent of the anti-abortion movement’s faith-based insistence on saving every unborn life, regardless of the circumstances. In its simplicity, the imperative also recalls the nostrums of progressives: “Open the borders,” “Defund the police.” The allure of simple prescriptions derives from an aversion to hard choices, and to the truth of human carelessness and cruelty. Everyone wants to tell their children a happy story: If we take a homeless cat to a shelter, it’s sure to find a loving home.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/01/01/how-the-no-kill-movement-betrays-its-name

These words by Alice Miller on abortion come to mind: 
"In disbelief, one asks oneself:  Is it possible that the people behind such actions really are so clueless?  Do they not know that no less than one hundred percent of all seriously abused children are unwanted?  Do they not know what that can lead to?  Do they not know that mistreatment is a parent’s way of taking revenge on the children they never wanted?  Shouldn’t the authorities do everything in their power, in the light of this information, to see to it that the only children who are born are wanted, planned for, and loved?  If they did, then we could put an end to the creation and continuation of evil in our world.  To force the role of a mother on a woman who does not wish to be a mother is an offense not just against her, but against the whole human community, because the child she brings into the world is likely to take criminal revenge for its birth, as do the many (mis)leaders threatening our lives.  All wars we ever had were the deeds of once unwanted, heinously mistreated children.  It is the right to lived life that we must protect wherever and whenever it is threatened. And it should never be sacrificed to an abstract idea.

 

Not everyone is capable of thinking in real, concrete terms.  Many seek refuge in religious beliefs.  In their weakness, they place their trust in “relics,” awaiting salvation at the hands of one stronger than themselves.  Anyone who claims to be a strong and knowledgeable authority for such people, and to be acting on their behalf, has the duty to be conscious of the appropriate facts.  If they aren’t, if they ignore or neglect that duty, claiming instead that their palpable lack of information and their abstract conceptions of “life” are sanctioned by God and practiced in the name of humanity, they are acting against life, by misusing the weakness and trust of the faithful and dangerously confusing them.  The injunction against abortion goes even further:  Consciously or unconsciously, it represents support for cruelty against children and active complicity in the creation of unwanted existences, existences that can easily become a liability for the community at large.

 

When I see the passion with which Catholic priests - men childless by choice - fight against abortion, I can’t help asking what it is that motivates them.  Is it a desire to prove that unlived life, as perhaps their own destinies suggest, is more important and more valuable than lived life?  Was that, perhaps, how the parents of those passionately committed to stopping abortion thought, though they expressed it in different ways?  Or is it a case of seeing to it that others share the same fate as oneself?  Both are possible.  Both are dangerous, when people are driven to blind and destructive actions by the dead hand of their own repression.

 

It is, in fact, not surprising to find that those who are both victims and apologist for the use of violence and severity against children are often those who most passionately proclaim their love of the unborn child, i.e., the kernel of life.  Abortion can, indeed, be seen as the most powerful symbol of the psychic annihilation and mutilation practiced since time immemorial on children.  But to combat this evil merely at the symbolic level deflects us from the reality we should not evade for a moment longer:  the reality of the abused and humiliated child, which, as a result of its disavowed and unresolved injuries, will insidiously become, either openly or aided by hypocrisy, a danger to society.

 

It is above all the children already born that have a right to life - a right to coexistence with adults in a world in which, with or without the help of the church, violence against children has been unequivocally outlawed.  Until such legislation exists, talk of “the right to life” remains not only a mockery of humanity but a contribution to its destruction." 
https://sylvieshene.blogspot.com/2011/01/protecting-life-after-birth.html