Debunking the Myths: No Kill is Not a Marketing Gimmick—It’s a Proven Solution
The No Kill movement is often misunderstood and misrepresented by those who are either misinformed or resistant to change. A recent critique online attempts to dismiss No Kill as nothing more than a "brilliant marketing campaign" and claims that "there is no such thing as No Kill, and there never will be." This is not only false but harmful, as it discourages progress that has already been made in hundreds of communities across the U.S.
Let's break down these misconceptions and clarify what No Kill actually is.
No Kill is Not a Myth—It’s a Reality
One of the most persistent falsehoods about No Kill is the claim that it is an impossible standard. In reality, shelters across the country have achieved a 90% or higher live release rate, sometimes up to 99%. These progressive dynamic shelters have ended the killing of healthy and treatable animals in their community.
It can’t be impossible if it exists.
This is not an arbitrary benchmark but is based on data showing that LESS THAN 10% of shelter intakes are irremediably suffering or pose genuine public safety threats. 90% is not the end of the goal, it is a minimum benchmark for annual save rate. It should ALWAYS be higher.
Communities of all sizes, demographics, and economic conditions—including large metropolitan areas with high intake rates, politically red and blue, north and south, poor and affluent—have implemented No Kill programs successfully. This directly disproves the notion that No Kill is unachievable or that it is only suited for "small shelters".
Open-Admission Shelters Can Be No Kill
The argument that No Kill shelters are "limited admission" or practice "managed intake" as a way to pass off unwanted animals to other shelters is patently false. Many No Kill shelters are open admission, meaning they take in all animals brought to them, and they still maintain high save rates. Canon City’s Humane Society of Fremont Count has been open admission and No Kill for a decade.
Again, it can’t be impossible if it exists.
The key difference between a No Kill shelter and a traditional shelter is not intake policies but how they manage their population. Instead of defaulting to killing healthy and treatable homeless pets, No Kill shelters use the common sense programs and services of the No Kill Equation.
The belief that shelters must choose between being open-admission or No Kill is simply false.
No Kill is Not Just a Slogan—It’s a Comprehensive Strategy
Critics argue that No Kill is just a catchy phrase used to manipulate emotions. This argument is ironic, given that traditional sheltering has long relied on emotionally charged language to justify killing (e.g., using "euthanasia" to describe killing healthy, adoptable animals).
The No Kill Equation is not about slogans—it’s about evidence-based strategies that have been tested and proven successful in communities across the country. The only thing standing in the way of more shelters achieving No Kill status is a refusal to implement these programs. See No Kill 101.
The 90% Benchmark is not an ultimate goal, it is a low watermark
A common misconception about No Kill is that the 90% live release rate is an arbitrary or misleading number. Critics argue that it has no clear origin, but in reality, the 90% figure has a well-documented history and was never meant to be a rigid rule or a final goal.
The Origin of 90% as a Benchmark
The reference to 90% originated nearly two decades ago from Nathan and Jennifer Winograd, pioneers of the No Kill movement. At the time, there were no established national metrics to define shelter success. The Winograds, having achieved a live release rate exceeding 95% in Tompkins County, New York, observed that other successful No Kill shelters were consistently saving about 92% of animals. To create a simple, understandable reference point, they rounded down to 90%—not as a hard rule but as an estimate of what shelters could expect when saving all healthy and treatable animals.
It was never intended to imply that animals beyond that 90% threshold were expendable. In fact, many progressive shelters now save 95-99% of their animals, demonstrating that even this benchmark is not the ceiling of what’s possible.
Unfortunately, the 90% benchmark has been distorted by various organizations, leading the Winograds to refer to it as their "Frankenstein’s Monster."
.
Beyond 90%: Aiming Higher
The focus should not be on a number but on a philosophy: No healthy or treatable animal should be killed. Advances in veterinary medicine and progressive sheltering strategies have allowed some municipal shelters to reach live release rates of 99%. Some of the leading models of success today include shelters in Lake County, Florida; Williamson County, Texas; and Fremont County, Colorado.
No Kill Shelters Do Not "Pass the Buck"
One of the most common misrepresentations is that No Kill shelters turn away difficult cases, leaving open-admission shelters to do the "dirty work." In reality, No Kill shelters take full responsibility for the animals they receive by providing rehabilitation and alternative placement options.
In contrast, traditional kill shelters often do "pass the buck"—but in a different way. Instead of working to save lives, they often blame the public, the myth of pet overpopulation, or lack of resources, despite evidence proving that these are not the real issues.
No Kill is not about pushing responsibility onto others—it’s about changing shelter practices to prioritize lifesaving solutions.
The Real Divide: Those Who Kill vs. Those Who Save
The writer of the critique laments the "divide" in the animal welfare industry. However, this divide exists for a simple reason: one side chooses to kill animals when lifesaving alternatives exist, while the other refuses to accept that as an option.
Critics often portray No Kill advocates as "radicals" who don't understand sheltering. But in reality, No Kill is led by common sense by people who have transformed shelters by implementing data-driven solutions. No Kill is not about attacking shelter workers—it's about holding leadership accountable for outdated, ineffective, and unnecessary killing.
Conclusion: No Kill Works, and It’s Here to Stay
No Kill is not a marketing ploy, nor is it an impossible dream. It is a proven, ethical, and economically viable approach to animal sheltering. Communities that embrace No Kill are saving more lives, spending taxpayer dollars more efficiently, and gaining overwhelming public support.
The real question is not whether No Kill is possible. It is. The question we should be asking: Why would anyone defend the killing of healthy and treatable animals when humane, effective alternatives exist?
Instead of attacking the language of No Kill, critics should focus on what truly matters—saving the lives of every healthy and treatable pet. Because at the end of the day, we can do better, and we must do better.
Comments