There are pros and cons to both 'kill' and 'no-kill' shelters. If one has to make a choice, it's important to make a well informed one.
Watching funny animal videos and gushing at passerby pawsters could be part of our everyday life, not many go the extra mile and adopt one from an animal shelter. When deciding to open up their homes to a furry friend, many prefer getting a puppy/kitten from a breeder as opposed to giving a second chance to the poor souls eagerly waiting for their hoomans in these shelters. Even when it comes to volunteering, private shelters are the more popular choice for many due to these being no-kill shelters, as opposed to notorious kill shelters. Given this trend, a Twitter user recently set the record straight on the so-called kill shelters, explaining why they deserve just as much love and support.
Twitter user @Theonewhomustn4 took to the microblogging platform last week to explain the difference between kill and no-kill shelters and why the distinction between the two is often grossly misunderstood. "The difference between a 'kill' and 'no-kill' shelter is so misunderstood and prompts me to write a 7 tweet rant on why you need to know the difference and give equal support to both," she began.
"Municipal shelters are more often tagged as 'kill shelters' because they are contractually obligated to serve the community they reside in. If Cleveland City Kennel, Lorain County Kennel, and others alike get a call for an animal they HAVE to bring it in regardless of their current volume of dogs. So if they are full they must bring it in regardless. Contrasting, private shelters (more often 'no-kill' shelters) have the ability to pick and choose when and what to accept into their shelter. They do not have to exceed their max amount of animals," @Theonewhomustn4 explained.
"So going back, people often boast that they'd never support a 'kill shelter,' never volunteer for one, never adopt from one, never even visit one. And essentially, that's the problem. Since they are contractually obligated to take in every animal in their municipality and they get no adoptions, inadequate staff, no support from the community, no adoptions animals are senselessly euthanized because of the stigma that they are creating themselves. If we all showered municipal shelters with the same love 'no-kill' private shelters got, euthanasia wouldn't even be considered because kennels would open because the community supports them and adopts/fosters/etc," she continued.
"'Kill Shelters' aren't full of monsters who hate animals, they're typically staffed with volunteers that work so hard to save every single animal with little to no support from their community. thanks for coming to my TedTalk, support your local shelters. All of em. This thread is excluding situations where animals have no other option but euthanasia, for example overly aggressive animals or incurably sick animals. No shelter is exempt from those heartbreaking cases," @Theonewhomustn4 concluded.
There are pros and cons to both kill and no-kill shelters. While euthanasia is never considered an option at the latter, the downside is that animals considered too ill or too old aren't accepted into such shelters. By choosing to do so, they are leaving a difficult-yet-necessary task to someone else, i.e. kill shelters. This subsequently adds fuel to the stigma surrounding traditional shelters which are essentially given a bad rep for just being realistic. Therefore, next time you are faced with the decision of having to choose between the two, it would be wise to visit both and make a well-informed choice.