A Socially Conscious Shelter’s fundamental goal is to achieve best outcomes for all animals.

Socially Conscious Sheltering

Understanding the Current Crisis in Animal Welfare*

“Animal welfare is changing at an unbelievable pace. Change creates opportunity—it allows for thoughtful, collaborative, and effective methods of ensuring all animals are respected. It also allows for zealots to promote their agendas as they manipulate well-meaning, compassionate people into promoting policies that result in suffering and death.

As a result, a crisis is happening in animal welfare. No veterinarian, no shelter professional, and no community member has the luxury of being unaware of the agenda that a well-funded faction is impressing on a passionate segment of the animal-loving population, on policymakers, and on our communities. We must be informed, and it is urgent that we educate colleagues, friends, family, policymakers, and neighbors. The penalty for failure is too great to be complacent.”

*The material quoted above (and this entire section of our website) is used with the permission of these leaders of the Socially Conscious Sheltering movement: Apryl Steele, DVM, President and CEO, Dumb Friends League; Jan McHugh-Smith, CAWA, President/CEO, Humane Society of Pikes Peak Region; Lisa Pedersen, CAWA, CEO, Humane Society of Boulder Valley.

It is difficult to understand the destructive movement that is becoming insidious in communities across the United States without first understanding what is at stake. It has taken decades to achieve the level of success that is happening in animal welfare—and in Colorado, especially, this intense work has led to statewide outcomes that were unimaginable only 30 years ago. This success has been made possible by thoughtful leadership, by people in our community, by veterinarians, by thousands of shelter workers and volunteers, by many rescue groups, and by collaboration. It is through “Socially Conscious Sheltering” that this has been achieved.

Socially conscious sheltering is a model that has developed organically. Its fundamental goal is to create best outcomes for all animals, which is achieved through:

  • Ensuring every unwanted or homeless animal has a safe place to go for shelter and food
  • Placing every healthy animal and not making euthanasia decisions based solely on time and space
  • Assessing the medical and behavioral needs of homeless pets and ensuring these needs are thoughtfully addressed
  • Preventing suffering and making appropriate euthanasia decisions
  • Aligning shelter policy with the paradigm of the community
  • Enhancing the human-animal bond through safe, thoughtful placement of animals
  • Ethically transferring animals so animal welfare challenges in the source community are addressed while the health of animals in the receiving community is protected

The lens through which the above are viewed is that of the “Five Freedoms” which were developed in the United Kingdom in 1965. These are:

  1. Freedom from hunger or thirst by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health
  2. Freedom from discomfort by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area
  3. Freedom from pain, injury, or disease by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment
  4. Freedom to express (most) normal behavior by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and company of the animal’s own kind
  5. Freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions and treatment that avoid mental suffering (this is very difficult to achieve in a sheltering environment but each shelter should work towards this goal)

The propaganda is compelling—stop “killing” animals in shelters. Place at least 90 percent of animals that come to shelters, or 95 percent, or 98 percent… This arbitrary number constantly changes. The no-kill messaging states “We know that shelters can get to 90% save rate virtually overnight. But that is not what no kill is. It is saving EVERY healthy and treatable pet.”

If a shelter is to manage to a single statistic, and not to the best interest of animals, it is true that every shelter could save 98 percent of the animals that come to them. At least animals in the shelter, the ones we can count, will be alive in a facility. However, there is a bigger picture that cannot be ignored.

Imagine a law that stated that 98 percent of all animals that enter your critical care unit must not be euthanized. This could be accomplished in one of two ways. First, you could accept only animals that have a great chance of surviving into your hospital. Dogs with GDV, cats hit by a car, those with endocrine crises, any animal with a guarded or poor prognosis would be turned away at your door. How is this humane?

Could you reach this arbitrary number of animals not being euthanized even if you accepted all animals that come through your door? Sure, but you just have to let them die naturally; and depending on the method used to calculate your “save rate,” natural death doesn’t count against your statistics.

By creating policy based on an arbitrary percentage of animals being “saved” the following unintended and unacceptable consequences happen:

  • Animals in need are turned away from the shelter. These are pets that are suffering from disease and injury. These are animals that are dangerous to our community, that are aggressive and threaten the safety of people and pets as well as diminish the human-animal bond. These are animals that go somewhere else to die, often without a kind word and the “good death” of euthanasia. The no-kill movement has stated that these turned-away animals will be taken care of by people in the community who will just “do the right thing.” This may be true—but the suffering that ensues if it is not true is too great a risk for a compassionate community.
  • Animals could languish in a cage until they die. The Five Freedoms cannot be accomplished when an extremely anxious animal is kept in a cage for years because no one will adopt him. One can visit shelters that are “no-kill” and watch these animals constantly circling in their cages, attacking walls, and self-mutilating.
  • Statistics could be manipulated (or falsified) to make the public believe the percentage is being achieved when it is not. The Pet Animals Care Facilities Act (PACFA) collects and publishes statistics from rescues and shelters in Colorado. A quick perusal of one “no-kill” shelter in Southern Colorado has indicators that statistical manipulation may be occurring. For example, for several years the number of animals in the shelter at the end of a calendar year is significantly different than the number at the beginning of the next calendar year.
  • This type of policy also promotes the acquisition of “highly adoptable” animals from other communities. If the local community relinquishes 100 dogs to the community shelter, and 15 of those dogs have serious health or behavior challenges resulting in euthanasia, then that shelter has an 85 percent live release rate. However, if that shelter imports 100 healthy puppies from another state, and they are all placed, the total live release rate increases to 92.5 percent. This practice is ethical unless the shelter won’t accept all animals from their own community. Managing local admissions while importing “highly adoptable” animals from other communities fills local homes with imported animals while the local animals are either denied admission to the shelter altogether or left with fewer potential homes.
  • Dangerous dogs are placed in the community. This issue represents the largest divide between the no-kill movement and Socially Conscious Sheltering. No-kill promotes that if anyone is willing to take a dog, regardless of the risk to the community, it is the shelter or rescue’s obligation to release that dog to that person or group. What if the dog has a history of killing another dog or cat? What if the dog has severely mauled a child? What if the dog lunges and attempts uninhibited bites towards people? None of that matters with many No Kill groups—if there is someone who wants to take the dog then it must be released to them. Socially conscious sheltering disagrees with this. It is the responsibility of socially conscious sheltering to protect our communities and to promote the inherent value of animals in our society. Is this black and white? No. Every organization must determine the level of risk they are willing to accept. This level differs between organizations; it changes over time, must be thoughtful, and should be transparent. Making these decisions is very difficult. Animal welfare professionals who are tasked with making these decisions regularly receive death threats and are bullied on social media by no-kill groups. This is unacceptable.
  • Shelters can no longer accept lost or homeless animals from the community. If a shelter has 100 kennels and the average dog stays in the shelter 10 days, then each year 3,650 dogs can be housed and given a second chance. If 10 percent of the dogs that come to the shelter are so behaviorally or medically challenged that they are not being adopted, these kennels will fill with these suffering animals very quickly. Within six months, virtually every housing space in every shelter would be filled with animals that are suffering, just waiting to die. Homeless pets from the community will not have the opportunity to heal or become behaviorally sound because they won’t have access to the shelter’s veterinary and behavior teams.
  • Owned pets that are at their end of life will not have euthanasia services available when they cannot afford this service by a veterinarian. It is heartbreaking to imagine the thousands of animals that are brought to shelters by caring owners, animals that are dying, having to suffer because shelters are being criticized for their euthanasia numbers. No-kill Colorado has created messaging that incorporates owner-requested euthanasia in the negative outcome story of the shelter.

This is where the manipulation is most obvious. No-kill groups are telling their supporters that they are only promoting that all healthy and treatable animals be placed, that they believe in euthanasia of animals with irremediable pain, and that in very rare situations extreme behavior is a reason for euthanasia. These groups get passionate community members to actively promote the no-kill agenda. They rally public contempt for animal welfare organizations that don’t subscribe to their platform. But they don’t tell these groups these important truths:

  • As a state, Colorado has a live release rate hovering around 90 percent for all cats and dogs. This is result of years of socially conscious sheltering, and not a result of illogical no-kill policies.
  • Healthy, behaviorally sound, adoptable animals are not being euthanized in Colorado shelters. Period.
  • Legislation that is being promoted as “animal protection acts” actually make it impossible for shelters to euthanize suffering animals. While the model ordinance No Kill Colorado is promoting has a provision enabling a veterinarian to document when an animal is irremediably suffering so that it can legally be euthanized, the ordinance contradicts itself, also stating that no animal can be euthanized for any reason if there is an open cage in the shelter. As far-fetched as this seems, this legislation actually passed in Pueblo, Colorado with an enactment date of January 1, 2019. At the city council meeting where this was debated, it was incredibly sad to hear so many citizens, people who care deeply about animals, testify that this bill applied only to healthy animals and they believe that all healthy animals should be placed. All healthy animals are placed in Colorado, and this bill was not specific to healthy animals. These people had clearly been misled, and what they were inadvertently fighting for will cause more animals to suffer and to die.
  • Pets who cannot enter a shelter because it is full will die. Pets that are attacked by dangerous dogs that are allowed to enter the community will die. Cats left outside in extreme weather because the shelter is full may die. Homeless animals with critical medical needs will not make their way into the shelter and some will die. The animals that are warehoused in shelters because no one will adopt them will suffer and eventually die. It is hard to imagine that kind people in support of the no-kill movement understand this reality.
  • Collaboration will die. In many Colorado communities, shelters work together for best outcomes for all animals. For example, a municipal shelter confiscated 30 cats from a hoarding situation, and it was clear that many of these cats were so behaviorally altered from living in this situation that they could not adapt to a home or a working cat placement. The municipal shelter had no behavior resources, and was faced with euthanizing all of these cats. They called a private shelter that has a behavior team, explained the situation, and all involved understood that many of these cats had a grave prognosis but some could possibly respond to behavior modification. If the private shelter was managing to an arbitrary percentage, those cats would have been denied admittance and all of them would have been euthanized. However, when this scenario happened last year “the best outcome for all animals” was the motivation used and these cats were accepted. More than 75 percent of the cats responded to behavior therapy and were successfully placed. Those that could not live a life free of major distress were euthanized. In this situation, 22 more cats would have died if the no-kill philosophy had directed this decision.

Educated, thoughtful animal advocates must find the courage to educate clients, policy makers, colleagues, and the public on the truth about the no-kill movement. We can fear retribution for speaking against the no-kill agenda, but we cannot let that fear paralyze us from action. We must protect the animals, the very animals that unsuspecting no-kill advocates believe they are protecting. We must work together to create best outcomes for all animals, promote safe communities, and nurture the human-animal bond. Please join us in being brave.

Note: The authors’ use of “conscious” in this context is thoughtful and deliberate, to emphasize the concept of conscious as it relates to the awareness of right and wrong.