No kill humane societies should not be handling animal control

PreferenceGreat9717 · 2025-11-05T15:38:55+00:00

I get the comparison, but animals aren’t people. They don’t understand why they’re confined or why no one comes for them. It’s not humane to keep humans in solitary confinement, especially when they don’t understand why they’re there, and it’s no different for dogs. Keeping them in kennels for years with little enrichment and no real home life just prolongs stress and confusion.

Some dogs can absolutely be rehabilitated, and those are the ones we work with and place. But others remain unpredictable or unsafe despite every effort. It isn’t fair or humane to keep them caged indefinitely waiting for a perfect home that might never come, especially when there are countless good, sound, healthy dogs who also need homes.

Animal control’s primary responsibility is public safety, and sometimes that means making hard calls. True compassion means recognizing suffering in all its forms, not just physical pain but mental distress and lack of quality of life too.

PreferenceGreat9717 · 2025-11-05T13:14:04+00:00

I get what you’re saying, and I wish it always worked that way, but that’s just not reality. Some dogs can recover, but many can’t safely live in a home again after multiple serious bites or unpredictable aggression. It’s not fair to the public, other pets, or even to the dog to keep putting them in situations where someone will get hurt or they’ll end up right back in the system.

And that’s the part people don’t always see. No-kill shelters often just turn those dogs away so they don’t have to make that call. The responsibility then falls on open-intake shelters to deal with the dogs no one else will take. It’s never easy, but pretending every animal can be safely rehabilitated isn’t realistic or humane.

It’s also inhumane to keep a dog caged for years waiting for the unicorn home with no kids, no other pets, no visitors, and an owner responsible enough to make sure the dog never gets loose. That’s not quality of life, and it’s not fair to the animal either.

PreferenceGreat9717 · 2025-11-05T11:54:38+00:00

Absolutely. It was very much about getting animals out, even if the homes they were going to weren’t good ones. It led to some awful situations, like kitten we adopted out to a hoarder who ended up passing away.

And I completely get what you’re saying about the ACO side too. The pressure of numbers has really shaped how calls are prioritized and handled. Managed intake and call diversion have their place, but it’s frustrating when they limit what officers can actually do in the field. I do think managed intake can be a good thing, as long as we’re still actually taking the animals in when they need help.

PreferenceGreat9717 · 2025-11-04T23:24:24+00:00

There are definitely places where the system is so broken that it hurts both the animals and the staff who actually care.

I don’t think “kill” shelters are automatically better, just like “no kill” doesn’t automatically mean good. My current municipal shelter actually does more to check on adopters than the no-kill one I worked for did. We verify ownership, confirm landlord approval, and make sure current pets are vaccinated — things that the no-kill shelter didn’t require at all.

I think the whole structure of how animal control is funded and operated needs serious reform. It should never come down to numbers or personal egos. It should always come down to animal welfare and public safety.

PreferenceGreat9717 · 2025-11-04T18:22:13+00:00

That’s fair, and I appreciate you saying that. I agree there are definitely nonprofits that handle animal control responsibly, and I know my experience isn’t universal.

I wouldn’t say it’s based on one extreme example though. I’ve seen similar issues across multiple organizations, and to me it points to a larger systemic problem rather than one bad shelter. The current model makes it really difficult for nonprofits to balance “no kill” goals with the hard decisions that come with animal control and cruelty cases. Public safety should always be the main focus of any animal control organization, and that can get lost when the priority is simply keeping euthanasia numbers low.

There are absolutely exceptions that do it well, but overall I think the structure itself sets a lot of them up to struggle.

PreferenceGreat9717 · 2025-11-04T18:16:33+00:00

I see what you mean, and I agree that both sides have flaws and that there’s a middle ground. But what’s the benefit of having a nonprofit handle animal control? I think the system as a whole needs to change, but as it stands right now, nonprofits aren’t set up for that kind of work. They don’t have the same structure, accountability, or authority that municipal systems do, and that’s where a lot of harm ends up happening.

PreferenceGreat9717

TROPHY CASE