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.