The No-Kill Controversy: Manifest and Latent 5CHAPTER Sources of Tension

Arnold Arluke

Introduction raditionally, most animal shel- ments of the sheltering community. ter workers have denied that the In 1994 the Duffield Family Founda- Method Tkilling, or euthanasia, of animals tion created the Maddie’s Fund, I investigated the shelter communi- in their facilities was cruel, even when which sought to revolutionize the sta- ty’s response to the no-kill movement euthanized animals were adoptable, tus and well-being of companion ani- in two communities that have taken young, attractive, and healthy.1 Work- mals by championing the no-kill different approaches to the issue. ers have sustained a core professional movement. No longer possible to Though located on opposite coasts of identity of being humane, good-heart- ignore or discount as an outrageous the country, these metropolitan areas ed “animal people” who want the very idea, this movement has spurred are similar in size and wealth. The best for their charges, despite—or debate at the national level about the makeup and nature of their humane even because of—their euthanasia of proper role of euthanasia in shelter organizations, however, are quite dis- animals. Killing has been taken for practice. The resulting challenges similar. One community is home to granted, regarded as a “necessary have strained the ability of conven- many independent organizations that evil” having no alternative in their tional shelters and humane organiza- individually have received praise or eyes. tions to protect workers psychologi- criticism over the years; until recent- One reason shelter workers have cally from the charge that euthanasia ly they have been a widespread group been able to maintain this self image is a form of cruelty. Instead of pre- of equals sharing a common media is that, until the last decade, little if venting cruelty, which their mission market. Even animal control pro- any organized criticism has been lev- maintains, these organizations now grams have been large, countywide, eled at them. When criticism are seen as causing it. In response, the and sometimes-progressive players in occurred, it tended to be case-specif- no-kill movement has been attacked their own right. In the other commu- ic, focusing on which animals were by those who defend the practice of nity, two key players are so large that euthanized, how it was done, and euthanasia and open admission. they have dwarfed the role and signif- whether the shelter shared this infor- Although some argue that everyone icance of others; the two players have mation with the public. Although a in the debate shares a passionate con- been conservative, lagging somewhat few shelters offered an alternative to cern for the welfare of animals, a rift behind the nationwide trends in shel- the standard paradigm by restricting over this issue divides the shelter tering. These two communities have admission of unadoptable animals community. Ultimately, the best dealt very differently with the pet and billing themselves as “no-kill” interests of animals may not be best overpopulation issue. In one case the shelters, they did not represent a seri- addressed in a climate of controversy SPCA (society for the prevention of ous threat to the continuation of and criticism. To understand and per- cruelty to animals) has embraced the “open-admission” policies toward haps reduce this controversy, the ten- no-kill concept, while in the other it euthanasia.2 sions fueling the no-kill conflict need has not. There are differences in the However, criticism of euthanasia to be identified and the breadth of relationships between the SPCAs and has mounted steadily in frequency the gulf separating its two camps neighboring humane organizations, and fervor from within certain seg- assessed. as well; in the former community 67 these relationships are uneasy, while tation, location, and financial health, beneath the surface of everyday com- in the latter they are cordial. but it was impossible, and perhaps munication, perhaps appearing in In each community I conducted unnecessary, to study every nuance innuendos that stop short of saying participant observation at the SPCA and variation. The wide diversity what actually is on the minds and in shelter, the city animal control office, makes it very difficult to characterize the hearts of speakers. For those hop- and nearby (i.e., within sixty miles) the perspectives of these camps. ing to reconcile tense intergroup rela- smaller shelters that either competed Indeed, at one level, the only thing tions, it is crucial to identify and cor- with or complemented the work of that makes each camp identifiable as rect sources of latent tension. the SPCAs. “Sanctuaries” and rescue a group is the fact that one supports Attempts to reduce conflict often groups also were studied. Gatekeep- the role of and need for euthanasia, stop short, staying at the manifest ers in these settings introduced me to while the other does not. Even here, level of perceived differences or prob- respondents as a sociologist interest- though, the why, the how, and the cir- lems and offering solutions that can- ed in understanding how people cumstances of euthanasia vary con- not significantly reduce group ten- thought and felt about the no-kill siderably. For example, the players, sion because issues, images, and issue. I was allowed to observe almost policies, and realities of animal shel- implications below the surface re- every facet of shelter and sanctuary tering in any one community vary in main untouched. operation, including, but not limited terms of numbers, composition, Certainly, the American humane to, kennel cleaning, intake, adoption strength, and orientation of shelter community is no exception to this work, behavior training, and euthana- organizations. Arguments and per- pattern. Discussions about no-kill sia. Ultimately I carried out more ceptions of individuals on both sides have been more cathartic than ana- than 200 hours of observation and 75 are informed by and respond to the lytic, allowing people to vent their interviews that elicited the intervie- realities of their own communities. In confusion or anger and identify allies wees’ perspective on the no-kill issue some cases, these local realities lead and enemies. These discussions have and the animal overpopulation prob- members of the same camp, who stayed at the manifest level of inter- lem. In addition I attended the na- work in different contexts, to make group tension, involving issues of tional meetings of the major no-kill very different comments about the dirty work and dishonesty. and open-admission organizations, opposition. Knowing this may help examined press accounts and shelter readers understand contradictory Manifest Tensions publications relating to no-kill, and statements made by respondents on combed several Internet news groups the same side of this controversy. Dirty Work that discussed shelter issues. Details about each camp’s perspec- Some jobs important to the everyday tive were subject to respondents’ bias- Manifest and operation of society are avoided by es, distortions, and memory limita- people who choose not to engage in tions. Information obtained was Latent Tensions disrespected occupations. This dirty treated as an accurate reflection of Groups experience tension in two work is seen as distasteful or discred- what people thought and felt, ways. At a manifest or surface level, iting because it casts a moral pall whether or not it was objectively true, group members are aware of and over those who do it (Hughes 1964). since the perception of truth motivat- speak about superficial differences in Most people turn a blind eye to this ed and justified people’s behavior. attitudes or behaviors thought to work, preferring that others do it but From these data I constructed, rather cause various problems. These sur- viewing those who do so as modern than assessed, the perspectives of face tensions are acknowledged pub- untouchables—members of a caste both camps toward the no-kill issue. licly at group meetings, written about thought to be symbolically contami- Although this approach follows that in professional and popular publica- nated and best avoided or pitied of sociologists and social historians, tions, and debated and mulled over by because they are associated with who argue that collective behavior is those who experience them. Since unpopular, unpleasant, or unclean best understood by examining partic- these manifest tensions are thought tasks. ipants’ own understandings in rela- to be the root cause of problems, Many of the open-admissionists I tion to their social context, it may solutions are aimed at altering, neu- interviewed felt that no-kill shelters frustrate those who think I should be tralizing, or eliminating them. delegated euthanasia to them. They more critical. However a critical While important to understand and believed that they were judged to be approach would be neither faithful to manage, these manifest tensions are morally tainted because they killed my ethnographic method nor helpful symptomatic of deeper, rarely verbal- animals. They sensed they were in creating dialogue and common ized tensions. These latent tensions uncomfortably tolerated, at best, for ground. are sensed by group members but carrying out such an unpleasant task, I also tried to sample a wide variety rarely articulated in a conscious or and challenged, at worst, for continu- of shelter organizations by size, orien- deliberate manner. The tensions lurk ing to do it. As one respondent said,

68 The State of the Animals II: 2003 “Why am I now an enemy? It used death.” And a number of shelter rather a combination of black humor to be the humane societies versus directors have been called “butcher,” and informal understanding that they the pounds, who were the baddies. “Hitler,” and “concentration-camp were using kill as a linguistic short- Now we are the baddies.” Another runner” (Foster 2000; Gilyard 2001, hand to describe their acts. Other respondent concurred, saying, “It’s 6–7). Short of specific references to shelter workers deliberately used the no fun being the villains with the the Nazi Holocaust, some no-kill term kill, at least before the rise of the black hats.” As the “baddies,” open- advocates suggested genocide-like no-kill movement, as an interesting admission workers thought that actions by open-admissionists way to demonstrate their continuing no-kill advocates cast them as wrong- because they were conducting “mass lack of acceptance of euthanasia as a doers who were “looked down upon” slaughter of animals” or “legitimized solution. For them it served as a (Milani 1997), “discredited” (Bogue mass slaughter.” reminder that this was something 1998b) or “guilty. . . because they Slightly less provocative were they did not like to do and wanted to are murderers” (Caras 1997a) charges of criminal-like action toward eliminate the need for. Thus, while “. . . sadists, or monsters” (Caras animals. “To me it’s criminal if a dog some objected to the use of this term 1997b). Moreover some respondents with poor manners or who is a little because they were concerned about it felt that, with the growing popularity bit standoff-ish should be euthanized making them look or feel callous, oth- of the no-kill concept, the public had for behavior reasons,” noted one no- ers supported its use, saying that it joined this critical bandwagon to cas- kill advocate. Sometimes the “crimi- helped remind them that they were tigate them as bad people for eutha- nal” metaphor was created through taking lives—a symbolic way of keep- nizing animals. The result was that the use of such penal language as ing fresh the commitment to attack open admissionists, rather than the “execute.” For example, one no-kill the source of the problem. public, were blamed. trainer was trying to modify the Open admissionists resented the The casting of open admissionists behavior of a very aggressive dog who perception of them as killers because as “baddies” stemmed from the lan- bit two staff members, required muz- they felt it was unfair or hypocritical. guage used by no-kill advocates. Many zling for walks, and was kept in the In their opinion, by being forced to open-admissionists argued that the shelter for sixteen months. She said euthanize many animals, they were term no-kill was itself an “attack” on that the dog would have been “exe- made to shoulder all the moral, emo- them, implying a “put-down” of open cuted” had the dog been in an open- tional, and aesthetic heartaches that admissionists as killers (Bogue admission facility. This terminology went with the job. One editorial 1998a). “When they say, ‘no-kill,’ suggests that, if open-admission argued that the harm of no-kill is that what they really mean is, ‘you-kill,’” workers euthanized this difficult-to- It punishes shelters that are claimed one critic (Miller n.d.). adopt, potentially dangerous dog, doing their very best but are Indeed, there was concern that the their act would be morally equivalent stuck with the dirty work. It is terminology itself positioned open to putting a criminal to death. While demoralizing and disheartening admissionsts as “pro-kill” (Paris open-admission shelters spoke of for humane workers who would do 1997), since the term no-kill implies “euthanasia rooms” and “euthanasia almost anything to stop that its opposite. “Open admission shel- technicians,” no-kill staff claimed heartbreaking selection process. ters are not ‘kill’ shelters any more that their shelters did not have “exe- Humane workers who are brave than ‘pro-choicers’ are ‘pro-abor- cution chambers” and maintained enough to accept that dirty work tion,’” explained one open-admission that they did not “kill” as did their deserve better than that. (Caras advocate. Not surprisingly, some open-admission peers. 1997c, 17) open-admissionists have called for At the core of this provocative Instead open admissionists called abolishing the “no-kill” label and sub- imagery was the idea that open for what one interviewee described as stituting the term limited admission. admissionists were killers, an idea “...sharing the burden. As long as Even more provocative was lan- that reinforced the no-kill distinction there is euthanasia to be done, the guage that accused open-admission between killing and euthanizing. resentment on the part of us is that shelters of killing animals in ways Open admissionists patently rejected we shouldn’t be doing it all. Any shel- reminiscent of Nazi cruelties to this distinction, claiming that they ter in the same town should be shar- humans. One charge labeled the only euthanized. Of course, when ing the burden. That’s like saying we open-admission approach the “final working with peers, open-admission are all working on the same issue. We solution,” a term referring to the workers did speak of killing. Shelter are all going to take the good stuff Holocaust. Another charge was even workers sometimes used the term kill and the bad stuff.” more specific: referring to euthana- when speaking with colleagues but However, no-kill proponents argued sia by open-admissionists, a no-kill were careful to say “euthanize” when that if anyone was to blame it should conference panelist described it as speaking to the public. Use of this be open admissionists. In their opin- the “holocaust of family members language was not an implicit accep- ion blaming no-killers for delegating [i.e., shelter animals] being put to tance of the no-kill distinction, but dirty work sidetracked shelter work-

The No-Kill Controversy: Manifest And Latent Sources of Tension 69 ers from a more important matter. No-kill proponents pointed out that I didn’t appreciate sitting in a Open admissionists, they said, needed they too have been discredited or workshop and having an HSUS to see that they were guilty of com- demonized for not killing enough ani- employee speaking, saying to me, plicity in killing because they made it mals as opposed to killing too many. “It is the responsibility of all of us “easy” for the public to handle their This stigma was felt, according to in the shelter profession to eutha- animals like unwanted consumer many no-kill spokespersons, when nize animals.” That’s a value judg- goods disposed of without fore- they were ignored by open-admission ment. They are communicating thought. “They [open-admission shel- leaders. Several speakers at a no-kill that no-kill is bad and that we ters] are teaching the public they can conference lamented the lack of sup- should all be euthanizing animals. throw away their animals at the shel- port for no-kill at national animal wel- She was basically dissing no-kill. I ter, and the shelter will euthanize fare and animal rights conferences, immediately raised my hand to their problem for them, and they where companion animal issues were defend [no-kill shelters] but I was aren’t to blame because they took the “not well represented.” They felt that not called on. pet to the shelter.” open-admission authorities spurned No-killers saw charges of dirty work their well-intentioned advances for Dishonesty delegation as “garbage talk,” contend- support of no-kill conferences and A palpable distrust existed between ing that open-admission shelters need- other activities. One national spokes- open-admission and no-kill followers. ed to rethink their mission and identi- woman for the no-kill movement Members of each camp insisted that ty so they could become no-kill claimed that prominent open-admis- they were woefully misunderstood themselves. Open-admission shelters sion leaders and academics even and misrepresented by the opposi- should “get out of the killing busi- refused to return her telephone calls. tion, which, in turn, was seen as por- ness,” as one no-kill worker said, for This lack of recognition by main- traying itself dishonestly to profes- the sake of those working in such set- stream humane authorities was seen sional colleagues and the general tings. Carrying out euthanasia was as hypocritical, given their presumed public. thought to be an “endlessly demoraliz- concern for promoting the welfare of Open admissionists attacked the ing activity” that stopped workers animals. As one speaker at a no-kill honesty of no-kill shelters and from focusing on their “core purpose: conference pointed out, “The most spokespersons on a number of bringing an end to the killing of these fundamental right of animals is to be counts. First, they said, no-kill advo- 3 animals.” Having sympathy for their allowed to lead their own lives and cates lied about not killing shelter euthanizing peers, many no-kill em- not be killed, yet this right has not animals when the term was taken lit- ployees wanted them to have the been strongly embraced by open- erally. “I believe they are trained to lie opportunity to work in an environment admission animal welfare and rights and there is deception to the pub- where the killing of animals was rare groups.” This was seen as a deliberate lic. . . that animals are not eutha- and, when done, was for apparently repudiation of the no-kill perspective. nized,” said one worker. One critic extreme veterinary or behavioral prob- No-kill advocates also felt ignored, maintained that some no-killers euth- lems. “People are drawn to work here misunderstood, and criticized at the anized animals “surreptitiously, because it is less scary,” observed one national conferences of open-admis- behind closed doors,” so supporters no-kill worker. The scariness refers to sion organizations, because euthana- would not find out. To many respon- the loss, guilt, and grief experienced if sia proponents seemed unwilling to dents this “deception” was termino- workers kill animals with whom they enter into a “dialogue.” As one no-kill logical: “What is a shelter’s definition have established some relationship, advocate put it, of no-kill? At our shelter it is that we especially if these animals were poten- I don’t like being demonized. So do not kill for overcrowding or when a tially adoptable. Another worker many people there were very dog’s ‘time runs out,’ but we do euth- explained, “I don’t have to worry that I resentful of us. They know the anize for behavioral and health rea- am going to bond with an animal and wonderful things we do here and sons. Now to me that’s not no-kill. It then have to put him down, which is how wonderful we are. We were makes that terminology close to a lie. my perception of what happens in kill expecting people to be, like, What do the press and the public and shelters. So I feel lucky that those are “Wow, you are affiliated with that donors think it means? Probably they the kinds of emotions I don’t have to wonderful group,” and instead we take the words literally—‘We don’t deal with.” This thinking suggested were, like, getting slammed, kill dogs, ever’—well, they do!” On that no-kill workers were not ducking shielding ourselves from the rot- the grounds that the term was false if responsibility for delegating dirty work ten vegetables being thrown at us. taken literally, some critics proposed or refusing to share the burden. That feeling was very pervasive new terminology, calling no-kill shel- Instead, they wondered why open there [at national meeting]. ters rarely-kills or low kills. Another admissionists continued their tradi- Another no-kill worker felt “dissed” problem that has less to do with ter- tional approach to euthanasia, given at a national humane meeting, recall- its adverse emotional impact on them. ing,

70 The State of the Animals II: 2003 minology, but still was regarded as a were too many similar looking ani- open-admission critique when she matter of dishonesty, has to do with mals together in a shelter, such as reported “incredible feelings of misrepresentation. Open-admission- tiger-striped kittens. Some critics guilt,” making it “hard to sleep at ists claimed that no-kill shelters mis- also charged that no-kill shelters used night,” because she felt “complicity” represented themselves by shifting a “changeable” classification, where- in adopting out dangerous animals to responsibility for killing to other shel- by a placeable animal could be reclas- clients from whom information was ters; this made the no-kill shelters sified as unplaceable if the animal was hidden about these problems and who accomplices to death, argued the not adopted, enabling the shelter to were blamed by staff when animals open-admissionists, although the claim a “huge” percentage of their were returned. shelters distanced themselves from it. “placeable” animals were adopted. Some critics claimed that, if not One such critic maintained, “. . . The Some felt that this classification deliberately dishonest, no-kill shel- reality of a ‘no-kill’ approach to shel- “game” was so capricious it made no- ters misrepresented themselves tering simply means ‘let someone kill “a joke.” All of these manipula- because they were unrealistic. One else kill’” (Savesky 1995a, 4). tions, some charged, enabled the “no- open-admissionist wrote, “The con- Second, open-admissionists said kill propagandists” through cept of the shelter where no animals no-killers were deceptive in claiming “deception” to produce statistics must die is a fantasy that seems too to adopt out all their animals, a tactic apparently documenting low rates for good to be true” (Caras 1997c, 16). some critics called a “smart market- euthanasia and high “save rates.” These “fantasies,” argued open ing strategy.” This point was under- Third, critics charged that no-kill admissionists, made donors and the scored by one critic who claimed that shelters misrepresented the cause of general public “feel good.” As one “their almost no-kill policy” resulted behavior problems in dogs, not admit- worker said: “The truth is that it is from only accepting “very adoptable ting that these difficulties were due impossible. They are encouraging an animals,” leaving the “burden” of to long-term confinement and/or the expectation that is unrealistic.” euthanizing turned-away animals to kind of training they received. For These expectations open-admission shelters. It was instance, “excuses” were made for . . . raise false hopes and wishes for alleged that no-kill shelters “take in the bad behavior of animals, as in the pet owners and our communities the ‘movie star’ dogs and cats, the case of a dog showing “guarding that animal abandonment is pretty ones they know they can place behavior” around food whose actions going to be prevented simply in new homes, and turn away the were “explained away” by pointing to because the killing of adoptable rest” (Caras 1997c, 17). The result of the lack of food the dog had experi- animals is going to be prohibited. such policies, open-admissionists enced. One worker spoke about “the The complexities of the problem said, was that most animals wound up betrayal the public would feel if they of killing so many animals in our at open-admission shelters. “They are were aware that the shelter they shelters is not simply due to the strays, ‘too old,’ unsocialized, injured, trusted has made them the subject of perception that an unwanted pet or diseased. They are considered an experiment in placing rehabilitat- is “better off alive on the streets unadoptable by no-kill shelters so ed biting dogs, an experiment with so than being killed at the pound.” they are brought to us” (Bogue many failures.” Critics maintained (Cubrda 1993) 1998b). One person compared this that the aggressiveness of shelter Critics argued that, in addition to self-serving policy to a school that dogs was not fully disclosed to raising false hopes, these fantasies led always has impressive SAT scores adopters. Upset by this problem, a people mistakenly to believe that because it accepts only bright stu- worker described a shelter that was euthanasia was unnecessary at their dents in the first place. No-kill shel- being sued for adopting out a Rot- local humane society, a strategy that ters were seen as excessively “picky,” tweiler who was known to have killed siphoned funds away from open- rejecting some animals with extreme- one dog, only to have him knock admission shelters. ly minor problems that could be used down his new owner and kill her pet No-kill advocates maintained that as excuses for turning them away. dog. The same worker also claimed their aims were distorted, bemoaning Expanding on this point, one respon- that this shelter concealed from the “warfare” and frequent “bashing” dent said, “If an animal has the tiniest potential adopters that another dog by open-admission spokespersons patch of flea allergy, dermatitis, which had bitten seven volunteers. In that resulted in “credibility hits” is curable, they say no if they want to. response, she resigned from her orga- against them. One no-kill staff mem- Bad teeth, they say no if they want to. nization, noting: “They adopted out ber spoke of her frustration with peo- Any animal they can say no to, they any and all dogs, no matter their his- ple who misconstrued the meaning of are going to say no. They don’t take tory and, worst of all, did not tell no-kill as a preference for animals to many that need treatment.” One adopting families if the dog had bit- be kept alive in unpleasant or respondent said that even “color” ten previously.” Another no-kill work- unhealthy circumstances. She noted, could be used as a reason to classify er, uncomfortable with her own shel- “I don’t know if there is any sane per- an animal as “unadoptable,” if there ter’s policy, gave credence to this son who would agree that a ware-

The No-Kill Controversy: Manifest And Latent Sources of Tension 71 house kind of life. . .is better than get only the worst here; everybody the unexpressed, complicated, and death. I don’t think anybody is argu- thinks we take only the best dogs recalcitrant issues that underlie man- ing that, except for an extremely here. It’s hard for me to find a family ifest tensions. small subset of people who are not in dog in our shelter because we are tak- the mainstream of the no-kill move- ing the ones no one else takes.” In ment.” No-kill advocates also dis- fact, in one no-kill shelter, there was Vested Interests agreed with those who criticized the strong internal pressure on intake Much like the abortion debate, the concept of no-kill because it failed to workers to accept as many dogs as persistence of which stems from the be literally true, admitting that a few possible from the nearby animal con- vested interests of pro-life and pro- animals, albeit a tiny number when trol office, regardless of their bad or choice proponents, the no-kill contro- compared to open-admission shel- “spooky” behavior or poor condition; versy is stubborn and resistant to easy ters, were euthanized. Some even otherwise the dogs were likely to be compromise. No-kill and open-admis- refused to label their shelters as no- euthanized. In one instance, after an sion followers cling to and defend kill or minimized use of this term intake worker refused an aggressive, their vested interests, including their because their euthanasia rates were six-month-old dog offered to her shel- collective identities, occupational not zero. ter, several coworkers chided her and lifestyles, and world views. These vest- For their part no-kill shelters called her a murderer. Challenging ed interests underlie any debate argued that open-admission organiza- back, some no-kill shelters felt that about the merits of different policies tions “kill healthy animals” (Foro their save rates might be even better for controlling and managing pet 1997, 16) and misrepresent the real were it not for having difficult and overpopulation or dealing “humane- meaning of euthanasia. Seeking to unadoptable animals dumped on ly” with its victims. undermine the semantic justification them by animal control organiza- Members of each camp in my for killing so many animals, one no- tions. A respondent explained, research had a vested interest in pro- kill spokesperson wrote: “The term We could inflate our save rate tecting their humane identities. For euthanasia, as used by these practi- even more if we had a bar that no-kill followers this identity provided tioners [open admission and animal resembled anything like another some cachet because it empowered control staff] in the destruction of shelter[’s], where they see the them. They saw themselves as “redis- healthy animals, softens the reality hint of a curl of a lip and that ani- covering” who they were, as opposed and lessens its impact on the public. mal is euthanized and it never to open-admission workers whom Sadly, to mislabel killing as euthana- goes to their staff as an adoptable they felt “have forgotten our mission sia for controlling animal overpopula- animal, where we would not even and are lost in the overwhelming job tion does not allow society to deal flinch at that. So I would say our of euthanasia,” according to one shel- with the tragedy or to accept respon- numbers are possibly even better ter worker whose organization was sibility for making this happen” (17). in so far as we are taking some switching from open admission to no- “True,” “authentic,” or “dictionary- serious-behavior animals—dogs kill. In the opinion of no-killer follow- defined” (17) euthanasia was spoken that bite you, dogs that are ers, open-admission work was simply about to separate “killing” from aggressive. not the work of a “’humane’ society.” other instances where extreme, Their new identity also was empower- untreatable, chronic suffering man- Latent Tensions ing because it had an outlaw quality; dated euthanizing animals. No-kill Identifying manifest tensions helps to this made it an attractive and power- advocates also reclaimed the concept detail the no-kill controversy but does ful label for no-kill workers who felt of euthanasia by asserting that little to diffuse it. Most proposals to alienated, misunderstood, and humane death be done only for the allay the conflict come from the open- excluded from the humane powers sake of suffering animals rather than admission camp, which has called for that be. Believing that they were dis- for owners who had their own agenda no-kill advocates to modify their empowered framed their camp’s for requesting euthanasia, suggesting provocative language. However, those stance as “anti-establishment” rela- that open admissionists wrongly concerned about inflammatory tive to open admissionists (Foro, blurred this distinction. Not surpris- speech in the no-kill controversy have n.d.a). Poorly endowed, small shelters ingly open-admission advocates tuned into only a small part of the especially were drawn to the identity rejected this distinction, claiming bigger picture that informs this con- tag of no-kill because it symbolically that it was mere “semantics.” troversy. Provocative language is a represented their perceived power- No-kill proponents also refuted the symptom and not a cause of the prob- lessness in an animal community charge that they were “picky” to lem; its social and psychological roots dominated by a few large and power- ensure high adoption rates. They are concealed and complex. To ful national organizations. The charge claimed to take many animals that explain the persistence and fervor of made by some that the San Francisco were far from the “cream of the the strife, it is necessary to analyze SPCA (SF SPCA) had “sold out” to crop,” as one worker pointed out. “We The HSUS (which is viewed as pro

72 The State of the Animals II: 2003 open admission in its orientation) by by a legal system which protected admissionists focused on the issue of increasing the number of animals it murderers and left victims unprotect- easing the suffering of animals and euthanized from almost none to a ed (Doyle 1982).4 In the end this providing options to owners who no few, speaks to the current importance cachet was strong enough to make it longer could or wanted to care for of boundaries in conferring identity virtually impossible to stop using their pets. However this symbolism in the humane community. some language, including the very paled in comparison with the no-kill Other features of the no-kill identi- term no-kill. Its advocates were un- movement’s moral concern for what ty that offered some cachet came likely to curtail use of this self- were seen as innocent, helpless, and from its evangelical quality, calling moniker because it so powerfully desirable animals, a stance similar to for people to see the “right” way to organized their identity. the pro-life movement’s symbolic con- approach this problem and convert to Open admissionists have discov- struction of the fetus (Doyle 1982; this “movement,” leaving behind ered little if any cachet in their Sheeran 1987). In American society their former, ill-conceived approach. humane identity, at least compared anti-death icons trump almost any Several respondents commented on with no-killers. For the most part, other image except that of freedom, the “religious fervor” of no-kill fol- they have refined their former identi- and this appears true in the present lowers; one said that there was a ty in a reactive and defensive manner case. Moreover, although some open “kind of saintliness” about the move- by digging in their psychological admissionists wish to develop their ment. There even were rare attempts heels and reaffirming their long- own label conveying a new identity to include elements of Buddhism and standing image as the standard bear- rivaling “no kill,” this would perpetu- vegetarianism as part of the “no-kill ers for humane treatment of animals. ate the tension rather than remedy it. philosophy” (Foro, n.d.b). Ironically their “new” identity has Workers also had vested interests in Perhaps the most cachet came from made them appear to be victims fac- protecting lifestyles, whether person- unintentional piggybacking on the ing a more powerful enemy. For exam- al or occupational, associated with pro-life movement. Large and suc- ple some open admissionists spoke as either the open-admission or no-kill cessful social movements provide an though they were on the “wrong side approach. They sought to defend assembly of symbols and ideological of the street” because the “dirty what was familiar to them at work, trappings—a cultural resource—that work” of killing was delegated to while questioning others who threat- other groups can use to fashion their them. They felt powerless to stop this ened this routine. For instance, at one own thinking and model their own flow of animals and the undesirable level, the open-admission approach to actions, or from which they can draw task of euthanizing so many. Some euthanasia was easier for established emotional power and symbolic staff in open-admission shelters and bureaucracies that had worked this coherency. While there was little evi- animal control offices, especially in way for years and had developed suit- dence that no-killers subscribed to cities that had strong and financially able defenses to cope with it. Main- pro-life beliefs, there were many par- stable no-kill programs, lamented stream open-admission shelters have allels between the ideologies of these having poorer facilities and less pub- had the resources to garner large- two groups that empowered the no- lic attention. This difference was scale support for euthanasia as the kill movement and emotionally noted in a major magazine article best way to deal with pet overpopula- charged the identity of its followers. about animal shelters, which referred tion, and they have grown comfort- Just as the pro-life movement cam- to one city’s animal control office as a able with their established methods paigns to save the “helpless unborn” “tenement” and its no-kill operation of doing so. One respondent claimed, who should not be “killed,” the no-kill as a “palace” (Hess 1998). We are all vulnerable to the possi- movement questions the moral, as Open-admissionists also failed to bility that euthanasia just makes well as the practical, basis for killing piggyback their identity on a cultural my day go a little bit easier. If you unwanted or undesirable shelter ani- resource that could give it momen- suddenly ended euthanasia for mals. The “killing” of shelter animals tum, coherency, and cachet. In con- reasons of space, you’ve got a big signaled a moral assault on the fabric trast, pro-choice advocates linked problem, don’t you? You are going of human-animal relationships that their cause to the feminist move- to have 20 or 80 percent more was unimaginable to no-killers, much ment’s protection of the rights of population than before. Solve as abortion was to pro-lifers (Gins- women. Support from animal rights that problem. If there is euthana- burg 1986; Kaufmann 1999). Many groups, such as People for the Ethical sia, it does make things a little bit no-kill proponents saw the open Treatment of Animals (PETA), did not easy, doesn’t it, to have your shel- admissionists’ version of euthanasia provide this cachet. One reason is ter running very smoothly and as murder committed by selfish own- that no-kill groups also claimed to be efficiently? ers and unimaginative shelter work- protecting the rights of animals by No-kill workers also developed orga- ers willing to accept the status quo, in opposing traditional euthanasia poli- nizational routines that made their the same way that pro-life advocates cy, making the rights issue somewhat work easier for them. Those most out- defined abortion as a crime approved of a wash. It was true that open spoken in their criticism of euthanasia

The No-Kill Controversy: Manifest And Latent Sources of Tension 73 took the moral high ground by dis- not solve this problem but merely approach seem impractical or even tancing themselves from it while on shifted the responsibility for euthana- outlandish. the job. In their shelters they regard- sia to another shelter or agency. No- ed euthanasia as a clinical, veterinary kill advocates, however, saw the fun- act performed elsewhere by techni- damental problem as a person Attacking the Problem cians in animal control agencies, or an problem—one of changing the nature Differing approaches to dealing with infrequent, highly ritualized and emo- of shelter work so that workers could animal overpopulation resulted in a tionally upsetting treatment of a have a professional identity unconta- second latent tension. No-kill workers “good friend” done by in-house veteri- minated by the contradictions posed “fought the good fight” for each ani- narians. They provided a language and by conducting frequent euthanasia, mal who came their way, expending as set of rationalizations to ensure that especially if it involved animals much time, labor, and money as nec- such rare, in-house killings would be thought to be adoptable. Evidence of essary to ensure that he or she was seen as impossible to avoid, without this changing emphasis from animals cared for, loved, and, they hoped, any ambiguity about the wisdom of to people came from the public justi- adopted. Workers could feel as doing them. These steps made them fications of shelters that have aban- though they championed individual comfortable and secure while on the doned their prior open-admission/ animals. As one respondent said, “We job. Like their open-admission coun- euthanasia policies for no-kill ap- dare to think that every individual life terparts, they came to see their par- proaches. When a major SPCA did so, does matter. . . that that individual’s ticular organizational way of life as the the New York Times headline pro- life actually matters.” This focus on best one for animals and themselves. claimed: “ASPCA Plans to Give Up the welfare and fate of individual ani- Finally, these accustomed ways of Job Killing New York Strays.” The text mals, combined with the knowledge working endured because workers explained that that euthanasia was very unlikely, accepted the presumptions that Killing stray dogs and cats has allowed these workers to indulge propped up, defended, and explained obscured its mission—and its their “rescue instinct” and their need them. Usually the presumptions were image....The society has backed to have emotionally deep and com- expressed by people as “truths” that away from killing, which it calls plex relationships with shelter ani- were rarely questioned and often animal control. “Philosophically, mals, even though they knew that thought to be self-evident. It was pre- it’s a nightmare to kill 30,000 to many animals would be adopted. dictable that the workers could not 40,000 animals a year....That’s The major force behind fighting the see the tenuousness of such “truths,” not our mission.”. . . Being per- good fight was the unabashed desire since ideologies make those who pro- ceived as an animal killer of no-killers to rescue or save animals, fess them shortsighted as to the has. . . saddled it with an image far believing that it almost always was implications of their beliefs. The different from the one it wants— worth trying to find homes for all ani- beliefs function as “reality” anchors that of an animal care and adop- mals, even if others classified them as for people and, as such, are clutched tion agency. (Hicks 1993, B14) unadoptable. As one respondent said, tenaciously. Respondents in my These divergent views were bol- There are a lot of self-proclaimed research supported these anchors by stered by the isolation of workers experts who will tell you that this use of key terms, such as shelter, from the realities of shelters unlike or that dog is unadoptable, don’t euthanasia, adoptable animal, and their own. Most workers in each camp even bother trying. And we don’t humane, whose meanings were am- had little if any firsthand experience accept that. You can get terrifical- biguous and therefore modifiable to with the opposing group. As in the ly good outcomes....It’s a ques- be consistent with each camp’s abortion controversy, where pro-life tion of when can you and when truths. The terms became a linguistic participants had little or no direct can’t you. The jury is out on our code to define a camp’s position rela- exposure to abortion (Luker 1984), animals until we have exhausted tive to other groups. most workers in no-kill facilities had all reasonable attempts. For example, while both open- scant exposure to euthanasia. Not No-kill trainers believed they could admission and no-kill advocates having direct contact can exaggerate rehabilitate most problem animals, abhorred euthanasia, they had differ- the emotional difficulty of doing including those exhibiting aggressive- ent takes on killing because they had something, making it seem even ness. One trainer compared this chal- different conceptions of the funda- more wrenching than it might be in lenge with working with criminals, mental problem. Each group defined reality, and making it seem even more concluding that both animals and the problem somewhat differently, horrific or ghastly than it seems to criminals can be rehabilitated if peo- making for different solutions. Open- those workers who have learned how ple try hard enough. “If you’ve gotten admission shelter workers saw the to rationalize or cope with it. Similar- people who’ve committed certain lev- problem as an animal problem—one ly, many open-admissionists never els of crime, can they be rehabilitat- of managing pet overpopulation. They worked in no-kill settings; this lack of ed? If you give them the right coun- argued that no-kill approaches did experience certainly made any other seling, can you turn them around, or

74 The State of the Animals II: 2003 is it always in them? I would submit arrived there three years earlier. one no-kill shelter when a small num- that the right kind of effort hasn’t Fighting the good fight for all ani- ber of overly aggressive dogs were been tried.” mals made euthanizing any of them a slated for euthanasia. “We could not No-kill workers felt that open- difficult and labored decision. One fix them. We were at the end of our admission shelters turned their backs facility had formal guidelines for ability,” lamented one worker. Some on animals that were less than “per- deciding on all acts of euthanasia dogs had become a danger to the staff fect,” euthanizing those that could be (except for extreme emergencies). and were a liability risk. Management placed in homes if given behavioral or The guidelines included obtaining held special meetings with different medical attention, along with time signatures of approval from the presi- groups of workers and volunteers to and careful placement. One no-kill dent, vice president, and initiating deliver this news, calm those upset or worker elaborated on this view, say- department head, and requiring that in “shock,” and reset the organiza- ing, the animals’ names be posted so no tion’s “bar” for rehabilitating difficult Where do you draw the line? Does staff would be shocked by inadver- dogs. During the meetings senior everything have to be pristine and tently discovering that a “friend” had staff placed most of the blame on perfect, and you kill everything been euthanized. After completing external forces, saying, “Our hand has else? We want to give animals a this paperwork, cats slated to be been forced by elements in society.” chance that we think ought to be euthanized were given special foods Those external forces included what given a chance. It’s kind of like a and treats; soft, comfortable, secure the staff described as unreasonable “quantity versus quality” type of bedding; adequate scratching posts; expectations for the behavior of ani- thing. I mean, the Blackies and and visits from the staff. Dogs were mals, and society’s excessive litigious- the Willies out there, they would given similar bedding; a rawhide bone ness. Trying to ease distraught and be killed because they are not per- during the day; a beef bone at night; confused listeners, senior staff fect, and I see this wonderful pet special food and “extra special good- claimed they “did not have choices” that would make a great compan- ies”; a cloth toy; and visits from staff and “couldn’t” do anything else with ion for someone and I think they members who would give them “qual- these dogs. are worth investing the resources ity time” through long walks, outdoor Nevertheless senior managers with- into. play “with their special buddies,” or drew their initial list as pressure This logic meant that no-kill facili- quiet time. This “spoiling period,” an mounted to spare these animals; a ties could “save” or “rescue” animals informal practice at many no-kill few workers and volunteers demand- from open-admission shelters, and facilities, involved special considera- ed meetings with shelter officials to that those shelters denied the value tion for animals after the decision was protest this list, and rumors circulat- of rehabilitating animals who could made to euthanize them. Spoiling ed about a volunteer protest strike be improved and perhaps adopted. periods “were awkward” for the staff and leaks to the press. Workers Saved animals often faced a severe- because they knew that animals were feared that conducting euthanasia ly reduced pool of potential adopters, to be “put down,” but the special on this scale would subvert their since it took a very special adopter to treatment also made the staff feel identities as no-kill advocates. One be the right match for an animal with better about the euthanasia decision. uneasy worker spoke about the slip- behavioral or veterinary problems, let One worker said, pery slope created by doing even a alone one that was old or unattrac- The last days are so difficult. I find small number of euthanasias: “We tive. Despite this, no-kill workers con- it very hard to look at a dog car- are in a position now of either vinced themselves that perfect rying on its normal life, when I becoming like every other shelter adopters existed for virtually all of know that soon it will all be over. and we save only perfect dogs who their charges. Having this view, how- But I think it helps us to know need nothing or what. . . ?” Consider- ever, justified keeping animals for a that our dog’s last day or so was able, continued pressure by workers long time as staff searched for suit- really special. It seems to bring resulted in several dogs being taken able adopters. This search could be peace to the people around the off the list and sent to sanctuaries. particularly trying when dogs were dog who are suffering, knowing Despite these efforts a few dogs highly aggressive and needed muz- that the dog is going to get euth- from the list were euthanized. The zling and constant monitoring. When anized. most unsettling case involved a dog a no-kill worker was asked who would The individualization of shelter ani- having a history of aggression, but be an appropriate adopter for such a mals meant that no-kill workers were with whom the animal’s “fan club” challenging animal, she said a dog very disturbed when euthanasia took had bonded intensely. Only this inner trainer would come to the shelter one place, even though, or perhaps because, circle was permitted to attend Maria’s day and adopt one. However, she this was a rare event. “It is always euthanasia; lights were dimmed in acknowledged—without apparent such a big deal. I just cannot get used the dog’s quarters, and the mood was irony—that no such adopter had to it,” observed one worker. Enor- extremely solemn if not despondent. come to her shelter since she had mous internal resistance occurred at Many workers were tormented; a few

The No-Kill Controversy: Manifest And Latent Sources of Tension 75 chose not to attend the euthanasia I can do for so many others. I always nizing animals. Having because they were so distressed. One have to come back to looking at all the people who were involved staff member was hospitalized because numbers. I can’t afford to get in his [the dog’s] life standing she was so disturbed by the event, and attached to a new dog. I have to around him, pushing their emo- several others took “sick days” be- think with my head. I have to keep tions on the doctor....it could be cause of their grief. During the hours part of me for the good of the whole. difficult for the doctor not to cry. preceding the euthanasia, as well as I won’t sacrifice a few for the many.” That’s not fair to do to the doctor the days following it, workers could According to open admissionists, or the tech holding the dog. Why be seen embracing each other, offer- relating to shelter animals with one’s should they be forced to have an ing words of comfort, and shedding heart caused ethical and emotional emotion for an animal that they tears. “People are walking around like problems. They claimed that no-kill have no connection to? They are zombies,” said one sad worker about shelters had such a narrow definition forced to feel sympathy. her peers. A wake held the evening of of suffering, they often could not These ethical and emotional draw- the euthanasia again excluded those “see” it; certain animals might not be backs of bonding so closely to shelter outside the inner circle of mourners; euthanized even to end their suffer- animals were worrisome not just to a poem in honor of Maria was avail- ing. Without clearly seeing suffering, the no-kill workers but also to open- able; stories were swapped about the workers as well as animals suffered, admission proponents who pondered animal along with photographs of although the workers’ suffering was the fate of their no-kill peers. her; flowers and wine were there for emotional. By comparison, a nearby municipal the occasion. As one worker said, the These problems were evident at animal-control office routinely and sentiment was: “We love you guys, you Maria’s euthanasia, according to shel- unceremoniously euthanized animals. did good work but this one just didn’t ter staff members who sympathized While bemoaning euthanasia, workers work.” Contrary to shelter policy, one with the open-admission approach. there felt that it was the right thing to of the workers requested Maria’s The fact that this euthanasia was for do given the large number of surren- ashes; a few staff members thought behavioral rather than medical rea- dered animals and the limited space this was going “overboard.” sons made it especially difficult for and resources available. They, like Open-admission workers, in con- workers to say that Maria’s “suffer- other open-admission workers, reject- trast, related to shelter animals less ing” justified her death. One excep- ed the notion that they were the “bad- with their hearts and more with their tion was a staff member who had dies” because no-kill workers needed heads. Unquestionably they too want- worked previously at an open-admis- to “rescue” their shelter animals. The ed the best for animals that came sion shelter. She commented, implication of using this language was their way, but their approach was col- Whenever I put an animal down, I that these animals were salvageable as ored by what they saw as a more always found it to be redeeming potential pets and therefore should important issue than the need to feel because the dog has been in tor- not be killed. The problem, according good about their relationships with ment—and any dog I have put to open admissionists, was that if no- individual animals—namely, the need down has either had an aggres- kill workers “rescued” with their to attack the overpopulation prob- sion issue or just not been happy, hearts, they would neglect the “bigger lem by increasing the number of has had a bad life. For me it was picture,” which the former could see. adoptions through euthanasia of ani- the one thing I was able to do for This criticism was expressed even by mals deemed unadoptable. They also that dog—give it some peace. I some no-kill workers who bemoaned used their heads because they felt it was able to end the suffering. turning away so many animals for lack was important never to say no to sur- Indeed, a number of workers at this of sufficient resources to deal with renderers of animals; despite their shelter felt that the strong emotional them all. To open admissionists, this frustration and anger with surrender- reaction to the death of Maria was was a management problem—a com- ers, open admissionists feared what “unfair” to some staff members and bination of poor resource allocation might happen to the animals if they out of proportion with what should and bad judgment—that allowed were not left at the shelter. This happen after the loss of an un-owned workers to be self-indulgent. Such thinking forestalled deeper emotion- shelter dog with a history of biting. shortsighted policies were seen as al relationships with their charges, One such dissenter said that, if any- beneficial to workers, since they because all the animals stood some thing, members of Maria’s fan club gained emotional gratification at the chance of being euthanized and usu- were “mourning their failure” to expense of animal welfare. ally were in the shelter for relatively rehabilitate this highly aggressive The above-mentioned animal-con- short periods. One worker aptly sum- dog. Moreover, his opinion was that, trol office, like many open-admission marized this type of thinking as fol- although he thought it might sound shelters, had no formal protocol call- lows: “There’s a part of me that I “cold,” it was a better idea for emo- ing for signing off on euthanasia deci- don’t give to the dogs—not to that tional reasons to have a veterinarian sions or for in-house postings of the dog—because that would inhibit what and technician be alone when eutha- events. Nor was there a spoiling peri-

76 The State of the Animals II: 2003 od for animals being euthanized, were responsible for “saving” more which takes a “toll.” One respondent, although the workers here, like their animals. One open-admission defend- however, did use the word suffer, peers in open-admission shelters, er wrote in an editorial, “The Door claiming that some no-kill shelters maintained that they “spoiled [the Remains Open,” that “no-kill shelters kept animals so long that they devel- animals] as much as possible” for as seldom operate programs to rescue oped “that nervous thing, like dogs long as they were in their shelter sick and injured animals off the spinning, or some of the barking “. . . not [just for] twenty-four hours.” streets,” suggesting that animals in [which] sounds like suffering to me. Spoiling periods per se were thought need are turned away (Savesky They are just unhappy and crying.” to be more for the psychological ben- 1995b, 2), while open-admission shel- Similarly, another critic of warehous- efit of workers than for the animals ters “rescue sick and injured animals ing pointed out after visiting a no-kill and to place a “huge emotional bur- every day. . . dogs hit by cars, cats tan- shelter that “it was spotless....They den” on the staff members doing the gled in debris, animals injured by had air conditioning, climbing trees, spoiling. While workers lamented hav- other animals, victims of all sorts of toys, and good food. But when you ing to euthanize animals, they han- accidents.” In addition, no-kill shel- walked in, they were all over you. I dled it quite differently from their no- ters, according to Savesky, “often had cats attached to my legs and kill peers. Rather than expressing turn away older animals, those with arms, on my shoulders and my head. I their emotions about preventing minor health or behavioral problems, had scratch marks for a week after euthanasia or grieving when it or those that they otherwise classify that but not from aggression. These occurred, these workers blocked their unadoptable.” Moreover, this author cats were starved for human contact. emotions when it came to euthanasia. added that “no-kill shelters seldom That’s what breaks my heart about As one worker recalled, “I was like a investigate and prosecute complaints these places” (Donald 1991, 4). Some killing machine, a certified euthana- of cruelty and neglect” (2). By con- critics suggested that workers com- sia tech that euthanized 60 to 100 trast, she argues that many such ani- pounded the detrimental psychologi- plus animals every single day. Some mals have a greater chance of being cal effects of long-term housing by days that’s all I did—clean and kill. adopted in open-admission shelters. using inappropriate behavior and And go home. You put your feelings People working in open-admission training techniques. As evidence, one on the shelf. You just do your job. You shelters also thought it was cruel to respondent cited a case of several have to deal with that sometime down “warehouse” animals past the point dogs who were born in a no-kill shel- the line.” where they should be “humanely ter and stayed there for seven years. euthanized.” Some claimed that All displayed serious behavior prob- Being Humane warehousing was cruel because of the lems that were attributed to the Short of the most extreme manifesta- harmful psychological effects of keep- methods used in their training. tions of physical suffering in animals, ing dogs and cats in long-term hous- Open-admission spokespersons also no-kill and open-admission workers ing, especially if caged with multiple argued that warehousing in no-kill had very different perceptions of what animals and given minimal stimula- shelters could cause physical harm. constituted suffering, or at least tion and human contact. But in dis- This critique was echoed in a popular enough discomfort to justify killing cussions less-than-ideal caging or ani- magazine, which reported the follow- an animal for his or her own sake. mal care often fell short of being ing reaction of a 4-H group leader Having conflicting ideas about the labeled as cruel. One animal control after taking the group to visit a no-kill nature of suffering led to suggestions worker, for instance, was uncomfort- shelter: “Dogs limping around with that members of the opposite camp able with the local no-kill shelter’s mange and open sores. Others gasp- were being cruel to shelter animals practice of putting animals into ing for air or dragging broken legs, because they caused needless suffer- boarding kennels when space ran out struggling to fight off vicious packs in ing, either for killing them or for in the facility. “Who do they have to the large communal pen. ‘I might as keeping them alive. Alternative love them? They are going from one well have taken them to a horror notions of suffering also allowed both cage to another just to keep them show’” (Foster 2000). The reporter open-admission and no-kill workers to alive. I don’t know if it is cruel; it just who wrote this article referred to the see themselves as humane because seems. . . neglectful. The reason why “atrocious conditions” at some no- they could say that they were acting it is hard to say it is cruel is that it is kill facilities, and the “luckless in the best interests of animals com- not for a bad reason. The intention is inmates” who are “condemned” to pared to their peers in the other ‘Hold on, hold on, you’ll get your “filth” and who “suffer” from long- camp. chance.’” Another respondent hesi- term caging. Indeed, one respondent Some open-admission representa- tated to use the word suffer, but claimed that the “quality of care of tives argued that no-kill workers were spoke of the unintentional emotional animals is horrific. They [no-kill shel- cruel to turn their backs on so many “neglect” of dogs who are confined in ters] need to do it right and have needy or less desirable animals, and cages and have to deal with many dif- some standard of care.” For example, that open-admission shelters actually ferent handlers and visitors—all of he pointed to a no-kill facility that

The No-Kill Controversy: Manifest And Latent Sources of Tension 77 called his shelter in hopes of transfer- Part of their defense also rested on mals could be kept alive and even ring some of its 110 animals to the language used by no-kill advo- adopted. Some methods of euthana- reduce overcrowding. When the cates to describe physical and mental sia were easier for critics to decry on respondent visited the no-kill shelter, problems of animals housed for long the grounds that they caused animal he found that the facility was very periods of time in shelters. The advo- suffering. For example critics of a cold, merely a “semblance” of a build- cates fought hard to describe these shelter that used carbon monoxide ing, and that some of the animals problems in ways that did not lead deemed this gassing to be morally were dead. In addition, when the no- quickly to perceptions of hopeless- “wrong” and “cruel” because animals kill shelter was told it could transfer ness for the animals. For example, in cried out in pain or fear and saw other some animals, its manager declined one such facility, animals with behav- animals dying (Gilyard 2001). The because the open-admission director ior problems who would have been more common method used, injec- could not rule out their euthanasia. euthanized in open-admission shel- tion of lethal drugs, still was attacked Most no-kill respondents denied ters were described as having as cruel. “warehousing.” They felt that they “issues.” The word “issues” conjures Moreover most no-kill workers felt addressed the “quality of life” issue up psychological problems in humans that if adverse “warehousing” existed and provided a better life for animals that can be lived with and managed, it was at a facility other than their in shelters than some had in adoptive as opposed to more troubling behav- own. Some no-kill proponents were homes. Although one worker admit- ior that is difficult to tolerate and very clear that shelters whose mission ted that, “from the dogs’ perspective, control. In one case a shelter dog had was to adopt animals should not keep they are always prisoners,” she felt a history of snapping at children, and unadoptable animals in too-small that their quality of life was “as good was spoken about as “having an issue quarters for extended periods of time; if not better than the [homes where] with children.” The solution was to to do so was considered inhumane. many open admission shelters place work on ridding the dog of that Other advocates acknowledged that their dogs....I know a good many “issue,” while seeking childless these abuses probably occurred in at dogs in suburbia who don’t get adopters who could keep the dog least some no-kill facilities, but they walked, have minimal veterinary care, away from children. were marginalized and viewed as don’t get socialized. They don’t get Language modification also helped exceptions rather than as represent- patted much by their owners. They’re lessen the image of dangerous ani- ing the vast majority of no-kill shel- in the yard.” Others defended extend- mals so they might appear as “nice, ters. Indeed one common way to cre- ed stays; one respondent said they soft.” One group of no-kill trainers ate this “bad egg” hierarchy was to were “less than ideal, however it is was particularly concerned, for legal refer to the abusing facility as a fortunate that [the animals] get a reasons, about written records that “sanctuary” (used here pejoratively) chance to end up in a wonderful created an image of dogs as vicious, rather than a no-kill shelter, thereby home where they are completely perhaps indiscriminate biters. They distancing it from “better” organiza- loved and adored.” started a “language project team” not tions. Well-funded no-kills described “lav- to “hide data,” but In fact no-kill proponents felt that ish” surroundings for shelter animals [T]o be cautious. If somebody keeping behaviorally or medically dif- to counter charges of inhumane ware- reports something, even if it’s lit- ficult animals was a sign of success housing—though these surroundings erally a puppy who puppy-bit, that and an opportunity to save more ani- were sometimes belittled by the press would go down on the record. We mals, rather than evidence of their or open-admission shelters as exces- are trying to clean up all that insensitivity or cruelty. One hopeful sive, and better than facilities provid- junk. . .trying to make a big dis- no-killer said these animals were a ed for some homeless people. One no- tinction between when a dog play- challenge to rehabilitate, and her kill “Q and A” included a question bites versus really bites. We are goal was to make ever sicker animals asking how it could justify such a giving people who do the report- into adoptable ones: “We are raising “beautiful” and expensive shelter ing a multiple-choice form rather the bar for what we can handle med- with “luxury suites for animals, than letting them editorialize ically or behaviorally. We’ve got ani- replete with toys, TVs, and play- about it. [One choice is] “dog mals with chronic health conditions. rooms,” when “most humans don’t play-bit hard with bruising.” We’ve got aggressive dogs. We are try- have quarters like these.” The reply, In any case keeping compromised ing to rehabilitate them so they can in short, claimed these “amenities” animals alive or warehousing them be made adoptable.” By “raising the were not excessive but “important for was not as bad as killing them, bar,” no-kill workers felt they were the animals” to reduce their stress according to no-kill respondents. attempting to reduce suffering in ani- and make them “healthier and happi- They countered criticism with the mals rather than increase it through er. So the toys and playrooms are not charge that euthanasia itself was prolonged caging. For the most part, frivolous. They’re just what the doc- often cruel by definition, if not by they denied the latter happened. For tor ordered.” practice, because most shelter ani- example, when discussing a highly

78 The State of the Animals II: 2003 aggressive dog who had been shel- no-kill shelters sometimes debated This dissent can become a building tered for eighteen months, a no-kill the appropriateness of their facility’s block for establishing a common worker said the animal was not a can- stance on euthanasia when that issue ground. Although twenty years ago didate for euthanasia because that was raised for certain animals. As they individuals in shelters expressed “means you are ending suffering, and discussed the fate of these animals, doubts about their shelter’s policies, he is quite enjoying his life.” workers mulled over the various argu- these questions were unlikely to have ments now associated with the no-kill credibility because they were coming or open-admission perspective. Work- from a single person having no larger Toward a ers at one no-kill facility were sharply voice. Instead of having their objec- divided over the proposed euthanasia tions considered seriously, dissenters Common of several dogs with threatening probably risked being seen as “prob- behavior who had been sheltered for lem children,” “difficult employees,” Ground several months. Most strongly not “team members,” or the like, Unearthing the manifest and latent opposed the death of these animals, with the expectation that they needed tensions behind the open-admission believing that their quality of life was to adjust to the job, become silent, or and no-kill perspectives suggests that satisfactory and that their risky leave. With the growth of the no-kill a large and perhaps insurmountable behavior was modifiable, while some movement and crystallization of the gulf exists between the camps. How- supported it on the grounds that open-admission identity, dissenters ever it would be wrong to portray their lengthy caging adversely affect- now can name, and thereby attach these differences as antithetical. Situ- ed them and that they were danger- their individual doubts to, something ations exist where each camp’s ous to adopt out. Those in the dis- larger and more legitimate. When defenses are down, vulnerable to con- senting minority espoused a view that they speak it is from a position of cession or change. This offers hope of at times was closer to the open- strength. Giving voice to both per- a common ground between camps admission than the no-kill stance, spectives provides an opportunity for that would improve dialogue, en- since it saw euthanasia as an accept- healthy, albeit critical, debate and hance cooperation, and mollify ten- able alternative to the deleterious discussion at the ground level. Such sions. Four bases exist that auger well effects of long confinement. The two empowered discussions within shel- for such change, including internal factions within the shelter were ters make it possible for previously dissent, shared values, mutual identi- engaging in a meta-discussion about defensive workers to hear the other fication, and maturation and change. the proper handling of all shelter ani- camp’s views. mals who faced a similar quandary. At Internal Dissent this general level, they were debating Shared Values Far from public posturing that yields and considering the merits of both While internal dissent over the man- rigid ideological distinctions, there no-kill and open-admission stances; agement of specific cases permitted was internal dissent within the open- this process allowed for the possibili- the expression of opposing views with- admission and no-kill camps over the ty that features of these perspectives in each camp, there also was more proper handling of specific shelter might be merged. general evidence of mutual subscrip- animals—a dissent that mirrors the Open-admission shelters also had tion to fundamental sheltering goals. same criticisms made between the their share of internal dissent. Tradi- When their guards were down, many camps.5 It was common to find some tionally, workers who became respondents spoke about their work workers within open-admission and attached to individual animals quietly in ways that were far less polarized no-kill shelters who were uneasy with resisted the euthanasia of their than the sheltering oral culture and their own shelter’s ideology but “favorites” or, over time, quit because literature suggested. Linguistic flash- remained on the job because they of “burnout” from the routine of points used for public consumption strongly believed in the importance of killing. Perhaps empowered by the no- and for posturing by spokespersons voicing an alternative view in their kill movement and seepage of its were not necessarily accurate reflec- own shelter, even if this marginalized ideas into the open-admission camp, tions of the feelings and actions of them from peers. In larger facilities, these workers were more willing than everyday workers. If workers were there were cliques devoted to such in the past to express doubts about confronted about their use of these dissent, but they, too, felt alienated the rationale for euthanasia and to terms, stark and inflammatory dis- from their own shelter’s dominant garner support for such resistance tinctions started to blur or fade. In outlook on these issues. Whether from fellow workers. At these times, fact, there was some agreement as to individuals or cliques, the concerns of workers and shelter managers, much the meaning of important language these workers came to a head over like those in no-kill shelters, debated that typically divided the camps. In the handling of particular shelter the appropriateness of euthanasia in this regard people in both camps cases. ways that echoed sentiments from demonstrated common rather than For example workers within some both camps. The No-Kill Controversy: Manifest And Latent Sources of Tension 79 conflicting values about basic issues ers need the bond. . .[of] some- versus when they went out or were and concerns faced by all. thing or someone, and sitting in put to sleep, and they get worse not To some degree both camps had that kennel is not the same for better. Shelters aren’t always great similar views of what constituted “suf- them. They just can’t hack it. places for dogs. And the longer they fering” and what conditions justified Members of both camps also saw are here, the more likely we are to euthanasia. Despite what open admis- almost all shelter animals as poten- make them worse.” sionists assumed about no-killers, tially adoptable and not requiring Recognition of shared values is an many of the latter were willing, in euthanasia, despite their physical and important tool for building common principle, to euthanize animals when emotional limitations. Sounding ground. Most workers in both camps their “fates were worse than death,” a quite like a no-kill advocate, one are not absolutists; they neither position championed by open admis- open-admissionist explained: “Most of unthinkingly carry out every euthana- sionists. As one no-kill advocate the animals we kill are to us adopt- sia nor rigidly oppose every possibili- claimed: “I haven’t heard one person able. That’s why we don’t use the ty. Despite such overlap in values, [at the no-kill facility] saying, ‘Yeah, I word adoptable in any of our litera- however, most workers believed that think it is much better if we let the ture. A kitten with two legs who is members of the other camp did not animal go on the highway then euth- four weeks old is adoptable to a per- share their own broad, if not ambigu- anize them....Better the animal is son who wants to adopt her. Adopt- ous, perspective toward fundamental free and roaming around with mange ability is only about who wants this animal sheltering issues. This think- and starving to death than to be animal. We had a thirteen-year-old ing served only to polarize further the killed.’ I think that’s nutty. [Is that dog with no front legs. She gets no-kill controversy because it empha- cruel?] Absolutely. Absolutely. I would around. She kisses everyone. And she sized differences in values and exag- pick euthanasia over that.” Another was placed.” Of course, some open- gerated the ideological distance no–kill proponent, agreeing with this admission respondents did not work between the two camps. Discovering, view, likened the plight of some ani- in shelters that had resources to treat noting, and acknowledging shared mals whose suffering merited death or keep such compromised and diffi- values would help proponents and to that of humans facing dire situa- cult-to-adopt animals. But they clung workers “see” their common inter- tions. This no-kill worker criticized just as strongly as their no-kill peers ests and change their current think- “sanctuaries” that kept animals alive to the hope that almost every shelter ing and practice. to the point where they suffered, animal, regardless of disability, age, arguing that humans do not let that or unattractiveness, could be placed Mutual Identification happen to each other. In her words, if given sufficient time. Although public posturing toward If you are not being humane, and Most respondents from both camps and stereotyping of the no-kill and the animal is in mental or physi- saw shelters—even the “best” of open-admission approaches common- cal distress, that may be consid- them—as unhealthy, if not destruc- ly occurred, when individuals aired ered a ‘sanctuary’ [living out tive, environments for animals. Every- their thoughts in private, they some- their lives until they end natural- one agreed that, in an ideal world, times identified with those in the ly]. Technically we don’t even do shelters would not exist or, if they did, opposing camp. Research on pro-life that for humans anymore. If would serve only as temporary way and pro-choice supporters also has someone is in pain, they usually stations to rehabilitate and home found their differences to be less pro- are put on a morphine drip with needy animals. One no-kill worker nounced than their public rhetoric the dosage slowly increased to admitted that even her own “nice” (Dworkin 1993; Kaufman 1999). reduce their discomfort. The real- shelter was “still” a shelter, as she Among shelter workers, mutual iden- ity is morphine suppresses the questioned the “quality of life” of one tification was evident when respon- respiration. animal who had been in her shelter dents spoke informally with peers or Other no-kill respondents also spoke for more than five hundred days. “I with the author; at these times, polit- of euthanasia as a humane option by don’t care how wonderful we make it ical and rhetorical guards were low- comparing the plight of some shelter for them, they are still institutional- ered enough to reveal more overlap in animals with that of humans isolated ized. Caretakers are there for thirty humane identities than many might from society. As one said, minutes to an hour and then the dog realize or admit. What happens when you confine is alone, not able to do any of the For example, there were occasional humans? What happens when you innate things that a dog is supposed expressions of empathy for workers in put humans in mental institu- to be doing.” Another no-kill worker the other camp. No-killers, as seen tions? You can make it acceptable agreed with this sentiment, saying, earlier, reported pity for open-admis- for some time for some dogs. “We’ve had dogs here for a year or two sion workers who had to euthanize Some can handle kenneling. Oth- and you look at when they came in animals, or even work in a shelter

80 The State of the Animals II: 2003 that did this, because of the emotion- doing well in the shelter environ- role of euthanasia and to see that dis- al toll such actions were believed to ment.” Workers who shared this comfort as a sign of correctly manag- take. One no-kill worker felt that thinking felt that their peers in the ing a complex and subtle issue. open-admission shelter staff might other camp were forced to go through As the no-kill issue matures, other resent the greater resources available the same excruciating decision mak- organizational changes are likely to to the few well-endowed no-kill shel- ing to decide the fate of shelter ani- reduce the distance between camps. ters. She explained, mals. Because they did this too, they Some no-kill groups will become insti- It’s a horrible thing to have to felt collegial and cohesive rather than tutionalized over time, if they have euthanize animals every day. I confrontational and competitive. not already, moving them closer to a feel fortunate that I am working Identifying and acknowledging humane centrist position. As this hap- in an organization where we mutual identification can help to pens, they will reject, with the same don’t have to do that. I can un- lessen the present polarization that conviction and vehemence as tradi- derstand them [open-admission leads to overgeneralization and blan- tional humane groups, “fringe” or shelters] being resentful that we ket assumptions about those in the “lunatic” groups also claiming to be have the resources that we do opposite camp. In such a hostile envi- no-kill. Some no-kill leaders have and are able to run things the ronment, people are likely to feel acknowledged the existence of these way we do. And that is where this unfairly and negatively judged by oth- marginal “shelters,” and the need for [tension] is coming from. They ers, and certainly unappreciated for them to be improved or eliminated. have the same amount of com- their emotional and ethical labors. More centrist no-kill organizations passion that we do have, but be- Sympathy can be the starting point will move to some degree toward the cause they have fewer resources, that opens lines of communication open-admission camp. To wit, there they can’t do what we do. and support for different, but not nec- has been some response to the open- Open admissionists sometimes essarily antagonistic, ways of manag- admission plea for less provocative pitied no-kill workers who had to say ing shelter animals. language and to stop using the label “no” to people wanting to drop off “no kill” or inflammatory terms that their pets, only to tell them there was Maturation compare open admissionsts to Nazis, no room or a very long waiting list criminals, or other killers. Aware that and that they either had to take their and Change the no-kill language hurts or angers animals to some other shelter, go to a New common ground will be discov- others, some in the movement sympa- veterinarian for euthanasia, or find a ered over time as the “no-kill issue” thize with this concern and have cur- neighbor or friend to adopt the ani- matures in the humane community. tailed use of such terms. In one mal. One respondent said that he This is likely to happen as more peo- instance the director of a major no-kill thought it was at least as upsetting ple reject simplistic characterizations shelter publicly acknowledged that, for no-killers to tell many people “no” of the no-kill “debate” or “controver- because the term no-kill can offend as it was to euthanize animals “eight sy” that pit one camp against the others, he consciously tries to stop hours a day.” How hard, he conjec- other, even though the present study using it when speaking publicly. And tured, it must be to turn away people could be faulted for doing so. several shelters whose policies were who sometimes are pleading for their Although many people consider the no-kill in practice and principal animals to be taken. He even comput- no-kill controversy to be highly polar- refused to label themselves as no-kill ed the number of people who are told ized, it is more accurate to think of it because they had various problems “no” at a prominent sanctuary, esti- as a range of views about the appro- with the term’s meaning and its effect mating many thousand each year, and priateness of killing shelter animals. on open-admission shelters and staff. finding the thought of doing this to While some tension no doubt occurs In one case, the president of a no-kill be mind boggling. as these differences are negotiated, a shelter claimed that she did not Mutual identification was manifest- working order probably will be creat- “tout” her organization as no kill: ed in ways other than pity. There was ed that, despite occasional bumpi- The only reason we are “no kill” is recognition by some that, in the end, ness, allows most shelters to draw on because, unlike animal shelters, both camps resorted to a similar and be comfortable with different per- we have the ability to turn people process for deciding the fate of ani- spectives toward euthanasia. This away....Just because one organi- mals when space became limited. At diversity of views should be seen as a zation is not killing does not mean these times, said one respondent, healthy form of organizational con- that animals are not dying en “You go through your populations and flict that allows both perspectives to masse. The animals we unfortu- you are going to try and euthanize exist under the same roof. Such a nately must turn away very likely the animals that are the least place- plan means that the humane commu- end up at the end of a needle in a able. . . the ones with the worst nity will have to live with some resid- shelter. (Stinson 1997) health, or the oldest, or the ones not ual uneasiness about the nature and Finally, the organizer of the national

The No-Kill Controversy: Manifest And Latent Sources of Tension 81 no-kill conference decided to drop “no will be dropped by the wayside gling to respond to the difficult situa- kill” from the name of this meeting, because they lack this broad interest. tions of everyday life. Workers see for so as to include rather than exclude The result will be a new humane ide- themselves that within their world people from the open-admission per- ology that can be embraced by no-kill views is a shared concern for animals. spective. The organizer renamed it the and open-admission advocates alike. Certainly there are many other “Conference on Homeless Animal This change will require refashion- notions, long familiar to shelter work- Management and Policy.” ing the meaning of familiar concepts ers, that can be infused with new More progressive open-admission or creating entirely fresh ones that meaning to connect rather than sepa- groups, in turn, are likely to rethink bridge tensions rather than create rate open-admission and no-kill sup- their mission and identity, moving them. The very ambiguity of such porters. Indeed, entirely new concepts somewhat closer to the no-kill camp terms as shelter, humane, and unfamiliar to the shelter world may be by adopting more aggressive adoption euthanasia frustrates people, but this brought into this community to policies; questioning long-standing vagueness can benefit those who want bridge its camps. Whether old ideas definitions of what constitutes to give them new meanings that res- are being reinvented or new ones are “acceptable” rates of euthanasia; and onate for all shelter workers. To being imported, to succeed they must trying to lower these rates. Some bridge the tensions, superordinate be based on common ground between open admissionists also have shown a concepts must draw from common camps. The challenge facing the willingness to embrace a no-kill iden- ground between camps—shared prac- American sheltering community is to tity in their speaking. For instance at tices, values, and identities—so that discover additional bases for this com- one shelter that has had great success most workers can agree with and mon ground and to articulate a new in controlling dog overpopulation, a extol them in professional and public language to reaffirm it. senior staff member commented, “We arenas. are no-kill with puppies.” Even if said The notion of welfare could serve Acknowledgements tongue in cheek, his language sug- aptly as one superordinate concept to I wish to thank Kathy Savesky, Natalie gests a recognition that no-kill is a unite rather than divide the shelter DiGiacomo, and Anne Lindsay for worthy aim and a sign of success. A community. Although somewhat providing advice and criticism. I am few open admissionists are even tricky to reinvent because of its pre- also grateful to the Edith Goode Trust styling themselves as “no-kill advo- sent political connotations in the and the San Francisco Society for the cates,” although this is laughable to general animal community, the term Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for no-kill workers. Perhaps there is more nevertheless has the potential to their support of this research. substance to this claim; certainly, no bridge tensions underlying the no-kill shelter worker wants to euthanize debate, just as others have suggested Notes animals. If these organizational using the concept of welfare to quell 1My use of the term kill, except when specifically changes take place, friction between the abortion controversy (Kaufmann discussing its meaning to shelter workers or quot- camps will subside, leaving a small 1999). Concern for the welfare of ani- ing them directly, is made without symbolic or political connotation. number of marginalized humane mals deeply motivates both no-kill 2Throughout this report the terms open organizations outside the boundaries and open-admission advocates. It is a admission and no kill are used because most of mainstream shelter culture. major area of common ground, lead- members of the respective camps accept these labels as self descriptions, while rejecting other ing virtually all shelter workers, terms for themselves. Open-admission advocates regardless of their camp, to preserve reject the label “kill shelter,” and even the less and improve the quality of life for ani- sensitive language of “full service” or “tradition- Conclusion al” are received ambivalently. Similarly no-kill Maturation and change in the no-kill mals. When threads of common proponents reject the term limited admission for controversy is likely to lead to new ground surface in dialogue between their facilities. members of the two camps, workers 3Open-admission advocates use the same argu- language and ideology for speaking ment against no-kill proponents when they con- and thinking about issues facing all can understand how the same con- tend, in so many words, that “all that money and shelter workers. This will happen as cern for animals triggers one person’s effort on keeping animals alive keeps them from decision to be no kill, the other’s to their mission of preventing births in the first the humane community chooses not place.” to fan the fires of current tensions, or be open admission. The lifework 4While this piggybacking on the pro-life move- even focus on them, but rather to inspired by this motivation is differ- ment’s symbolism offers cachet to the no-kill ent for the two camps, but it is work identity, it also escalates the controversy because look upon them as an opportunity to it confuses two reasons for believing that redefine to shelter workers and the that both parties can admire. Focus- euthanasia is often, if not always, wrong. Like the public its identity and mission. Some ing on this common ground can fos- pro-life movement’s ideological confusion over ter mutual respect, as the enemy whether it is wrong to abort a fetus because the divergent ideas from both camps will fetus has a right to live or because all life has become synthesized and appeal to image is replaced by the actual pres- intrinsic value (Dworkin 1993), the no-kill move- most shelter workers, while others ence of another shelter worker strug- ment’s confused ideology argues both that the unwanted or undesirable shelter animal has a

82 The State of the Animals II: 2003 right to live and that euthanasia as commonly Foster, J.T. 2000. A fate worse than practiced shows disrespect for animal and human life. death: Are “no-kill” shelters truly 5It is important to be cautious about the sig- humane? Reader’s Digest, July 20. nificance of such dissent, especially when it Gilyard, B. 2001. Out of gas. Showing involves a new social movement. Rather than serving as a common ground, internal diversity Animals Respect and Kindness, and emotional fervor can divide and weaken August: 6–7. camps. Hints of this can be seen in tensions Ginsburg, F. 1986. Contested lives: between behavior/training staff and adoption staff in some no-kill shelters or, at a different The abortion debate in the American level, between doctrinaire no-kill advocates and community. Los Angeles: University other no-kill proponents who occasionally resort of California Press. to euthanizing their animals. Hess, B. 1998. Shelter skelter. New York Magazine, October 19. Hicks, J. 1993. A.S.P.C.A. plans to Literature Cited give up job killing New York strays. Bogue, G. 1998a. Readers climbing New York Times, March 26: B14. on the no-kill bandwagon. Contra Hughes, E. 1964. Good people and Costa Times, n.d. dirty work. In The other side, ed. H. ———. 1998b. Shelters need to join Becker, 23–26. New York: Free forces to stop killing. Contra Costa Press. Times, n.d. Kaufmann, A. 1999. The pro-choice/ Caras, R. 1997a. Letter to Richard pro-life conflict: An exploratory Avanzino, July 9. study to understand the nature of ———. 1997b. Letter to Val Beatty the conflict and to develop con- and Bonney Brown, August 21. structive conflict intervention ———. 1997c. Viewpoints. Animal designs. Ph.D. diss., George Mason Sheltering Sept./Oct.: 16–17. University. Cubrda, E. 1993. Letter to Mark Luker, K. 1984. Abortion and the poli- Hamilton from the California tics of motherhood. Berkeley: Uni- Humane Society, Los Angeles versity of California Press. SPCA, October 15. Milani, M. 1997. The no-kill contro- Donald, R. 1991. “The No-Kill Con- versy. Journal of the American Vet- troversy,” Shelter Sense September: erinary Association 210: 26–27. 3–6. Miller, P. n.d. “Chain Reaction: ‘No- Doyle, M. 1982. In-house rhetoric of Kill...’ or ‘You Kill?’” California pro-life and pro-choice special Humane Action and Information interest groups in Minnesota: Moti- Network Letter 4: Fall. vation and alienation. Dissertation Paris, P. 1997. HSUS animal shelter Abstracts International 43 (11): no-kill article. Interoffice memo. 3454. (University Microfilms No. New York: American Society for the AAC83-08038.) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Dworkin, R. 1993. Life’s dominion: An September 24. argument about abortion, euthana- Savesky, K. 1995a. Letter to James sia, and individual freedom. New Chimera, May 25. York: Alfred A. Knopf. ———. 1995b. The door remains Foro, L. 1997. Viewpoints. Animal open. Paw Prints, 2–3. Sheltering Sept./Oct.: 16–17. Sheeran, P. 1987. Women, society, the ———. n.d.a. Know the thrill of no state, and abortion: A structuralist kill—Retreat, Hell! Online Doing analysis. New York: Praeger. Things for Animals. Stinson, P. 1997. Letter to Roger ———. n.d.b. Vegetarianism and no Caras, June 25. kill. Online Doing Things for Ani- mals.

The No-Kill Controversy: Manifest And Latent Sources of Tension 83