The Language of Lifesaving and Culture Change

A variety of terminology has been used in an attempt to define a sheltering philosophy around elimination of unnecessary euthanasia.

In 2004, a group of national organizations came together for the first time to establish a framework called the Asilomar Accords in which communities were asked to evaluate what conditions a “reasonable and caring pet owner” would treat. This resulted in communities developing their own subjective lists of “healthy,” “treatable,” and “untreatable” conditions. Organizations and communities described themselves as “adoption guarantee” if euthanasia was limited to “untreatable” conditions.

Another approach was to establish a numeric goal around shelter lifesaving. For example, saving 90% of animals that enter an organization has been commonly cited to define a shelter as “no kill.” However, the practicality of this goal depends a lot on what kinds of animals are admitted. Organizations that take in primarily healthy animals with high adopter appeal may find it easier to meet or exceed the 90% bar than shelters that have a high intake of sick or difficult animals.

The use of humane euthanasia in the context of animal sheltering is an often confusing and controversial topic among the public and animal advocates. Although no shelter would describe itself this way, inflammatory terms like “kill shelter” have been used by individuals opposed to some shelter’s policies or as the opposite of a “no kill” shelter. Terminology used to describe organizational policies can become so polarizing that it explodes into public debates, criticism via social media, and cyber bullying so extreme as to include death threats over the euthanasia of individual animals.

Controversy over terminology reached a flash point in 2019 when a Colorado shelter was shut down by state inspectors for crowding and neglect shortly after the City Council passed an ordinance requiring the shelter to save at least 90% of the animals and awarded the sheltering contract to a small inexperienced organization. Some critics associated the failure with pursuit of a no kill philosophy, whereas others blamed incompetence of political and shelter leadership. The controversy ignited a debate about terminology and sheltering goals and the emergence of yet another term, “socially conscious sheltering.”

There is nothing inherently conflicting between these terms. High standards of lifesaving programs, welfare, community safety, and transparency are laudable goals of any sheltering system. Sometimes, moving beyond the false limits of language can reveal a vast common ground for effective collaboration around shared goals. Read on to explore the often heated discussion of the language of lifesaving and the tumultuous history of how animal shelters have adapted operations to meet public demand in the modern era.