there is much ado of the changes of social thoughts of "a no kill companion pets" facilities popping up all over the country. Is this a reality, and how does it work? Is it even possible to never kill a dog or cat that is dumped off, strayed, or other? Personally, i would love to be totally "NO KILL" rescue, its a dream i would love to see come to reality. but....I have had animals euthanized in a a humane manner by a veterinary. there has been aggressive dogs that had mental or trauma so severe there would always be questions of safety to children or adopters, or animals so severly injured that the suffering of recover was too much for them. What are the standards of a "no kill" facility? If these words are used so loosely, and yet we have to euthanize, is it even proper to use such a combination of words for a rescue, in ideas, thoughts or practices? I would like to know exactly what the definition of "no kill" means, and how it works, and what others do for such an idea? the difficulty of keeping an animal alive "no matter" what? When i began my rescuing of dogs, i wanted so deeply to adopt the philosophy of "no kill" of any of these domesticated companion animals. I once took in a 15 year old beagle mix, named ginger, she had arthritis, and serious abesseses of the teeth and gums, to the point that the infection was seeping out from the inside to the outside of her eyes. she was in grave pain. but then I battled between humane and survival of this animal. we took her to the veterinary, we worked with the teeth, we gave her meds for the arthritis and we did offer as much help and costs to provide some kind of health and relief. this little girl died anyways, a year later, from infections that had ran through the blood from the abessed teeth conditions. what would have been better for her? to have euthanized her at the time of her suffering, or to do as we did? How far do we take the "no kill" idea, or practices for these sweet animals, how much of it is consider humane, and how much of it is considered unnecessary suffering for them? author kindle

Kindle, you've brought a very good topic to the table....and one that has been highly debated over the years.  Ever since the inception of the "NO-KILL movement of San Fransico in 1994.

No-Kill is not one  solution....it is many....

Vikki Shore, director of No-Kill NOW! said, "I hear it over and over again. 'Doesn't a no kill shelter have to kill when all the cages are full?' This is the question most often asked.

"The objective of no-kill is to prevent filling animal pounds to capacity.  How this is accomplished encompasses everything that the no-kill movement is about.

"We can stop looking for that easy one-step solution to overpopulation. We've already had a quick-fix for the last 150 years. It has been killing.  Today our society is ready for a more sophisticated and humane response.

"No-kill requires a collaboration between

the public

rescues

pound administrators

veterinarians

charitable foundations

government officials

and the business community.

"No-kill is not one solution.  It is many. More

http://www.nokillnow.com/

Also check out this website

http://www.nokillsolutions.com/home.htm

Also see:

 The California Legislature Defines No-Kill Terms  ■
California Law, SB 1785 Statutes of 1998, also known as
"The Hayden Law" has defined no-kill terms. See full text.

http://www.nokillnow.com/definition_nokill.htm

No animal should suffer.  I work for no kill and the only way an animal would be pts is if the animal was in pain.  I do not agree with keeping an animal alive if they are suffering day in and day out, just as I do human beings, no one should suffer period.

Spay and Neuter and rescuing not breeding are the two major problems.  If we could nip these two in the bud then we are on the right track. 

This website that anita offered seems to have a same frame of thinking as i do, or definition of "no Kill".

now here is my concerns, i have met other no kill idealists in practice and find that they take it too extremes and old age animals with conditions and suffering are kept alive. personally, after the ginger dog experience, i find this more cruel then caring. but then is it that we too may not want to put our elderly parents to rest if they have arthritis. how much is morally right, and how much is causing more suffering then need. where is the line drawn for such concepts and practices for any rescuer, or facility? how are we going to bring this to a happy medium between those that rationlize this area for animals and thier value to living life with us in this world? AT THE WEBSITE THIS IS THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, AND IT MAKES SINCE, EVEN THE BEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY.

A "no-kill" fervor is spreading across the United States like wildfire.  It is advocated by our neighbors in Canada and Mexico and has found supporters in nearly every continent on the globe. What does it mean? Can shelters really save ALL animals?  What about the sick or vicious?

The term raises many questions and an eager public, weary of all the killing, wants answers. 

The most widely accepted definition of a no-kill shelter is a place where all adoptable and treatable animals are saved and where only unadoptable or non-rehabilitatable animals are euthanized.
See Best Friends Animal Society.

But having spent three years as a volunteer for a feverent no kill shelter, I have to say that there are cases where it is in the animals best interest to ease their passing.  Case in point was a wonderful and beautiful FeLeuk Positive kitty named Angel.  As is often the case with feline leukemia she developed an ever growing tumor in the chest cavity that was crowding her lungs essentially suffocating her little by little.  Despite knowing the outcome of her case, the shelter director insisted that Angel be allowed to live out her nautral life.  Her final day was heartbreaking and still brings tears to my eyes to remember how she suffered.  If I'd had the euthanasia solution available, I wouldn't have hesitated to end what she was going through.  Instead I stayed with her and gave all the comfort I could until she slipped away.  That was the last time I was and ever will be in that shelter.  From what I've seen simply is this.....a nautral death is often times slow and painful with a great deal of suffering before the end comes.  It seems more cruel to NOT give a peaceful passing to the terminally ill.

hey angie, i have to agree with you too, as with the ginger dog we tried to make comfortable, was tearful and sorrowful for us and her too, in the long run, and with the same experience in this, i can not say at all puppy passions is strict NO KILL SHELTER. i am finding i have to balance what is cruel and long term suffering and what is not, and make sad decisions of euthanizing some of the animals we rescue for less time suffering the way they do. over all, i do care and nurse many an animal to health that will not have suffering long term and can recover and be well in the length of days it has. Lola is one of our dogs that we have had to decide life, or death for...not because she was suffering as much as too what the quality of life would be for her in the long run. Lola came to us pregnant already, she suffered from thyroid and heartworm conditions, did not do well with the birthing processes and had 4 beautiful babies she birthed, and lost 2 of those from immmune disorders due to her own physical conditions and pregancy situations. then she surragated as it was critical to save 9 other pups at a few days old from destructions, and me knowing that this girl was already worn down had to take the chance of saving 9 more babies too and needing a mother surragate to survive them. through all this we almost lost our lola. i turned to others in care2 for funds to help lola and over 100 people came forth to assist with the veterinary expenses. which was inclusive of dietary regimes to build lola back up after the pups, treat heartworm and get thyroid testings/evaluations and treatments. We were extremely concerned of her life, ability to recover normally again and even possibly to regain a health condition with all she went through already. blessed be for lola, she is doing wonderful today and is health and well, and happy. but we were awfully concerned and much time and energy was taken to deal with lola for months during this medication and recovery processes with her. it was considered to go ahead and euthanize lola at the end of her puppy caring days, the chances of her recovery was 50/50 that she would survive one more aspect in treating her health problems, especially the heartworm in combination of the slow thyroid issues that she had endured for so long and not able to attend too due to puppy rearing for 3 months of her coming to us. we decided to take our chances with her all the same, as the veterinary stated she was not in pain or suffering with anything, other then she was sluggish and not feeling all that great either. that hte 50/50 chance for her to make it was worth all the efforts, in her case, we were rewarded, but this is not always the situation with some of these dogs and thier serious conditions. at times i have to make decisions for the quality of life an animal will have, even if not painful, and it saddens me, and then i get to wondering if they could have survived it and been ok too. its very emotional and stressful for me either way to make these final decisions. i would have been heartbroken if lola did not have the good outcome, and then worried myself for not euthanizing her in the beginning for her need to be at peace. i now have balance of determinations (not that euthanizing or not euthanizing decisions is easy, or less emotional for me, even with the balance, its always a stress to make that decision, no matter what). but ... i will take a chance, even a 50/50 chance that is undetermined the outcome on any animal that will not suffer the long run of it, in life itself, or the long run of things for that animal. if there will be suffering in the long term of any conditions, no matter what treatment or care we offer, we decide euthanizing instead. i had a litter of 6 pups, not long ago that had serious mange issues. So severe that some of the pups had the mange so wide spread they were being blinded and the mange seeping in the face, gums and eyes tissues. some of the pups had no facial manges or was limited to the disease spreading to that extreme on thier bodies. we attempted to treat all six pups for this manage at the veterinary. the facial/tissue damages of 3 of the pups, did not seem to make a quick improvement and the pups suffered with burning and discomforts terribly after 1st treatments. i am sure the pups would have survived the entire 3-4 treatments for this mange, but then it takes weeks and months sometimes with these treatments, i just could not let myself see these babies suffering with guranteed blindness, pain, and slow slow curing them. i may have been wrong, but i chose to euthanize these 3 pups of 6, because i consider thier young lives suffering through cures/dippings and being blind anyways, and possibly other tissue damages and health or infection issues that would be continued conditions to fight with to save them. the less critical manged pups are doing great, have loving owners and teenagers today, happy and no characteristics in personality that there had been in discomforts/pain in thier young lives. i still wonder of the other 3 and how they would be today??? but at the time, i felt it right about the euthanizing them at that moment. the things we rescuer's suffer through in caring, sometimes is not easy, is gray areas, are always unsure what is really the right or wrong decisions in some of our cases. sigh. hugs kindle

what is the opinion of majority towards the geriactic and elderly dogs? what is considered humane to continue life, and what would be considered a need to be humane in euthanizing. another thing, is how hard is it to place an elder dog in a home and have others care for the medical concerns of that animal? for us at pprt - i find that older dogs are near impossible to place. i do well with animals 6 years and under, but when they start to get up there after 7 years, or 10 years, seems the expense and caring is the burden we handle here, and not very adoptable. was wondering the opinions and other rescuer's situations in this same area concerning the elderly animals? hugs kindle

One of the biggest things I've had to deal with in rescue is temperment issues. When is a dog too vicious, or too mentally unstable to continue a rescue attempt? Living in Arkansas we have many dogs who have lived their lives on a chain and never socialized or been taught to be mean in order to protect property. Some can be saved with time and effort and lots of love, but some never come back from that. When is it time to say enough and move on to another dog? Any thoughts on that?

As far as elder dogs, I've kept more than one for a long period of time until someone came along who was willing to take the chance. I think as rescuers we have to come to terms with the idea that we can't save them all, no matter how much it breaks the heart. When you have an older dog who has little or no chance of being adopted, you also have to consider how many other dogs die because of the space the older dog takes up. I think you have to consider the animals health and quality of life. If you believe they can be happy and content, by all means give them the chance. However, when you have an older dog wracked with pain from arthritis, heart failure, or other things that make even a possibility of adoption out of the question you have to be logical about it. If you have the room and are willing to accept that this dog won't adopt out that is your choice, but sometimes no matter how many tears we shed the hard choice is the only right one. That's just how I feel.