What is a No Kill Shelter – Adoptable and Unadoptable Dogs

What is a no-kill shelter? That’s a tough question to answer, as there is no universal legislation that all shelters or rescue organizations must follow, nor is there any way of monitoring their actions. Based in San Francisco, the non-profit organization Maddie’s Fund defines ‘no-kill’ as “saving both the adoptable (healthy) and treatable dogs and cats, with euthanasia reserved only for non-rehabilitatable animals.” However, the terms ‘adoptable’ and ‘unadoptable’ leave a lot of grey area that shelters can manipulate, as they are subjective and dependent on the interpretation and implementation of the shelter’s mandate.

Over the last two decades, the label ‘no-kill’ for animal shelters and SPCAs has become the ideal. It brings in donations, gives the shelter a gentler image, and shifts media attention away from the number of animals euthanized each year to the numbers of ‘adoptable’ and ‘unadoptable’ animals. As an evolved and modern society, we should be solving the problem of the number of animals destroyed each year—but unfortunately, we’re not.

The Ambiguity of ‘No-Kill’ and Shelter Practices

In 1998, the California Legislature rewrote the laws regarding the definition of ‘no-kill.’ ‘Adoptable’ animals are defined as “only those animals eight weeks of age or older that, at or subsequent to the time the animal is impounded or otherwise taken into possession, have manifested no sign of a behavioral or temperamental defect that could pose a health or safety risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and have manifested no sign of disease, injury, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the animal or that is likely to adversely affect the animal’s health in the future” (see 1834.4.(a) of Hayden Law).
‘Unadoptable’ or ‘non-rehabilitatable’ animals are defined as “animals that are neither adoptable nor treatable” (see 1834.4.(a) of Hayden Law).

‘Treatable’ and ‘rehabilitatable’ become the terms that are easily manipulated or difficult to interpret. The 1998 California legislation describes it as such: “A treatable animal shall include any animal that is not adoptable but that could become adoptable with reasonable efforts” (see Hayden Law 1834.4.(b)).

How and why an animal is deemed ‘unadoptable’ is largely up to the individual shelter and its staff. San Diego County Animal Control is a no-kill shelter. However, in 2004, they claimed that out of the 17,421 animals euthanized at the shelter, only 15 were healthy, and 8,089 were ‘non-rehabilitatable.’ In other words, 46.4% of animals killed were deemed ‘unadoptable.’ Relate that to a dog park, and nearly half the dogs there at any given time would not pass either a temperament test or a health check by San Diego Animal Control standards. Doesn’t that sound a bit high—and a whole lot suspicious?

The problem of the number of animals unnecessarily killed each year is not something the shelters can solve alone. It is a nationwide issue, and the ‘no-kill’ mandate has shifted the responsibility away from the people. There is now a belief that the pet ‘over-population’ problem is solved because shelters no longer need to destroy healthy pets due to space limitations. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Instead of addressing the root of the problem, shelters can now label animals as ‘unadoptable’ due to temperament or health concerns, but in the end, they are still destroyed.

Temperament testing is a controversial and highly subjective topic. The ‘Assess-a-Pet’ system, developed by Sue Sternberg and used by shelters across the U.S., involves prodding a dog with a rubber hand while it’s eating or chewing on a bone or toy in the stressful environment of the shelter. The test lasts 15 minutes or until the dog growls or bites the fake hand. By her own admission, seven out of ten dogs fail the test, are labeled ‘unadoptable,’ and are destroyed because of it—without negatively affecting the shelter’s ‘no-kill’ status. (Her methods are currently under scrutiny and, hopefully, will be discarded by shelters nationwide.)

What is considered a legitimate concern for public safety is another grey area. For example, the FDA states that ringworm is a public safety concern, yet it is completely treatable, although time-consuming. Under California ‘no-kill’ law, an animal suffering from ringworm could be destroyed, and the shelter would retain its media-friendly label.

The spay and neuter programs are working—there are approximately one-third fewer animals destroyed today than there were ten years ago. Our society is making progress in reducing the number of unwanted pets. But what is the next step? If 46.4% of animals in San Diego County were legitimately deemed ‘unadoptable,’ the next step is to educate potential pet owners on how to socialize and train their animals to be acceptable members of society.

This starts with the breeder. Whether breeding top-winning show animals or family pets, breeders should ensure that potential owners understand that an animal is a lifelong commitment, not disposable. Training is a necessity, and matching animals to owners who are capable of handling them can make a substantial impact on surrendered pets. Most dogs that end up in shelters are large breeds and mixes, often surrendered by people who didn’t understand the idiosyncrasies of the pup they took home. Perhaps they didn’t realize how big the dog would get or how unmanageable a large adult dog can be if left untrained or matched with an owner who’s ill-prepared. For example, first-time owners should never be matched with the most dominant or nervous pup in the litter. A good breeder screens potential owners and, if they feel the home is suitable, matches the pup to the knowledge and abilities of the family or individual.

Many shelters that embrace the ‘no-kill’ mandate place newly surrendered animals in foster homes to rehabilitate the pets, so adopting them out won’t pose a risk to public safety and the dog won’t be surrendered again a week later.

The saddest part is that many people who surrender an animal due to behavioral issues will simply buy another pup because the first one was considered a ‘reject,’ continuing the cycle.

Education is the only answer, yet it is the hardest solution. Shelter workers face an uphill battle, one that will only get more difficult with the growing popularity of ‘pocket’ dogs carried by the Hollywood crowd. Small dogs are easily adopted, but many of these dogs have had little to no training and are poorly socialized, making foster care and rehabilitation essential.

So, what is a ‘no-kill’ shelter? It is another step in the fight for animal rights and universal awareness of humankind’s role as guardians for our most faithful companions—the family pet.