The Phony No Kill, Pets Must Be Saved Movement

     Are the organizations and movement behind "no kill" really saving and valuing the lives of pets?   Let us look at one large, major city in the United States where the movement is strong.

1. The city animal care and control facility has one of the lowest ratios of animal control officers to its population. This means most dogs and cats on the streets end up dead or wounded, especially in the high crime, resource poor large low income sections of the city. Few animal control officers means few animals are removed from the streets and that many calls to the city regarding stray and injured animals are responded to in an untimely manner. 

2. The city euthanasia rate may be lowered, but that is because dogs and cats are dying on the streets out of sight, out of mind. Is it humane to ignore the fundamental responsibility of removing dogs and cats from the streets, many of which are sick, wounded (hit by cars, wounded by people, etc.) diseased, or even dangerous, and to let many of these animals die on the streets? Fewer animals removed from the streets results in lower euthanasia rates, allowing success to be declared. Is that the kind of success that someone that truly cares about animals wants?

3. The very powerful, well funded, politically connected "no kill" animal organizations sweep through the city facility, removing many highly adoptable animals. These are animals that would be adopted if simply left in the city facility. Meanwhile, difficult to adopt animals are often left behind. The more animals the "no kill" organizations adopt out, the more potential lifetime donors these organizations accumulate. (It is an example of money going to money, in that a number of these organizations already are hugely funded and wealthy).

4. Difficult to adopt dogs and cats can be returned to the city facility, so that if the animals are euthanized, the "no kill" organizations can still claim to be no kill.

5. Thousands upon thousands of calls made to 911 (police) regarding dog fighting and animal cruelty receive a poor response, resulting in enormous suffering. When brought to the attention of a number of these organizations (along with animal organizations that claim to fight animal cruelty) it became clear that if they could not manipulate anti animal cruelty and dogfighting sentiment for their own gain, they were not interested.  

6. Pressure from the no kill movement to not euthanize has contributed to filthy, miserable, overcrowded conditions and animal hoarding across the country.
     Is it moral to focus on the fate of a very tiny number of dogs and cats to the exclusion of all the other animals, including dogs and cats? Is it ethical to have so much wealth and money flow to these organizations in light of the serious environmental problems and high levels of human and animal suffering that exist in this world?