This post is part of KQED’s Do Now U project. Do Now U is a biweekly activity for students and the public to engage and respond to current issues using social media. Do Now U aims to build civic engagement and digital literacy for learners of all ages. This post was written by Sarah Downey, Hana Harrell, Megan Hoglund and Jelyn Javier, students at St. Mary’s College of California.


Featured Media Resource
AUDIO: NPR

No-Kill Shelters Save Millions Of Unwanted Pets — But Not All Of Them
Hear about the growing movement of no-kill shelters and what that actually means for stray and abandoned animals.


Do Now U

Do no-kill shelters really benefit animals? Are traditional or no-kill shelters best for humanely managing stray and abandoned animal populations? #DoNowUShelters


How to Do Now

To respond to the Do Now U, you can comment below or post your response on Twitter. Just be sure to include #DoNowUShelters and @KQEDedspace in your posts.


Learn More About No-Kill and Traditional Shelters

Every year, about 6.5 million dogs and cats enter U.S. shelters. Of those 6.5 million, 1.5 million are euthanized. About 710,000 of the dogs and cats are brought in as strays and 47% of those are surrendered due to their behavioral problems. There are two major types of shelters: traditional and no-kill. Traditional shelters will euthanize animals depending on the circumstances and the no-kill shelters attempt to keep all animals alive. There has been a debate over the last couple of years as to which type of shelter is most beneficial to animals.

“No-kill” tends to have different meanings to different shelters. The no-kill movement was founded by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). Some shelters save all animals while others euthanize up to 10 percent. Both are considered “no-kill” because the general consensus of no-kill shelters is that 90 percent of animals will be adopted. An advantage of these shelters is that they strive to keep animals alive and provide them a home. Those in favor of no-kill support these types of shelters because they do not euthanize old or unadopted animals. They also do not euthanize animals when the shelter is full. Euthanization is reserved for those that are deemed dangerous and/or terminally ill. The animals in no-kill shelters are often healthier and more energetic because they are usually young when they are dropped off,  giving more incentive for people to adopt. In 2015, the San Francisco SPCA had a live release rate of 93 percent, meaning that 93 percent of animals in their program were adopted, transferred to another no-kill shelter, or returned to their owners after being lost.

No-kill shelters have limited space, however, and have to turn away animals. No-kill shelters only accept animals on a conditional basis, based on the animal’s health or temperament, or the availability of space at the shelter. Animals that are turned away may not have a home to go to, which can lead to them being abandoned on the street. Of the animals that are accepted, many remain caged for long periods of time and sometimes are never adopted, resulting in the animals living the rest of their lives in a shelter. Another disadvantage is that many of the no-kill shelters typically do not provide the necessary services of spaying/neutering, shots and other medical procedures. In addition, the goal of adopting out 90 percent of animals may not be safe for new pet owners. Shelters may be pressured to let people adopt animals with serious health or temperament problems in order to achieve their goal.

Traditional shelters are alternatives to no-kill shelters. A traditional shelter is an agency that must accept any and all companion animals regardless of health and temperament, depending on space availability. Because of this, they often partner with foster programs and pet stores in an attempt to increase adoptions for their animals. Also, animals do not spend months and years in cages waiting to be adopted. If they are not adopted in a given amount of time, they are euthanized. Depending on the layout of the shelter, the longer an animal stays isolated in a cage the more it harms its mental health. A traditional shelter is considered humane because they euthanize animals that have been in their shelter for a long time and that are likely to be in poor mental states. Using data from a 1997 survey of traditional shelters by the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy, American Humane estimated that 56 percent of dogs and 71 percent of cats were euthanized after entering shelters.

To decrease the mortality rate, some traditional shelters turn away animals brought in. As these animals are rejected from the shelters they are likely to reproduce, resulting in more homeless animals. In addition, accepting all animals leads to overcrowding and poor living conditions. The control of infectious diseases is another conflict in these shelters because new animals welcomed to the shelter may carry multiple forms of pathogens. The more crowded the shelters, the more vulnerable the rest of the animals are.

There is no definite solution for animal shelters, but many animal rescue groups have come up with different programs to help and protect these furry creatures. Oregon’s Lane County Animal Services (LCAS) is a program that helps animals find a home. Although they do not work directly with animal shelters, they have contract with the local humane society to place animals in available shelters. They also provide spaying and neutering services. Although these kinds of programs do not solve all the problems surrounding both no-kill and traditional shelters, they do help many animals that are put onto the streets.

What do you think? Which kind of shelter is the best for humanely managing the pet population? Or is there a better solution?


More Resources

Website: The Humane Society of the United States
Pets by the Numbers
View data on U.S. households with pets and where people acquire their pets.

Article: NPR
Could ‘No Kill’ For Shelter Cats And Dogs Be Policy By 2025?
Read commentary about no-kill shelters’ goals of saving 90 percent of animals, and if lessening the quantity of animals euthanized also means raising the quality of their lives.


Find best practices for using Do Now, using Twitter for teaching, and using other digital tools.


KQED Do Now U is a biweekly activity in collaboration with SENCER. SENCER is a community of transformation that consists of educators and administrators in the higher and informal education sectors. SENCER aims to create an intelligent, educated, and empowered citizenry through advancing knowledge in the STEM fields and beyond. SENCER courses show students the direct connections between subject content and the real world issues they care about, and invite students to use these connections to solve today’s most pressing problems.

Do No-Kill Shelters Really Benefit Animals? 13 July,2017SENCER

  • Glenn Kirby

    The core problem is people who do not spay and neuter their cats and dogs. This overpopulation is costing local governments financial and staffing resources which equates to taxpayer money. The solution is local government pass ordinances requiring pet owners to buy annual licenses for every dog and cat they own. If they have certification that their pets are spayed/neutered and chipped, the annual license fee will be waived for the life of that pet. Those who wish to breed their pets will pay the license fee. Those who wish to breed to sell for money pay a much higher business license fee. Non-profit animal rescue organizations will provide the funding for free spaying/ neutering and chipping of all pets. Thus the burden does not fall on pet owners who wish to apply for a license waiver. Gradually the population will come down and non-profits will have fewer animals to house and be doing more to actually foster responsible pet ownership. This solution will need leadership and a public education program.

    • lausdteacher

      Well I have an animal rescue and could not afford to do that since I hardly take in any money. Government needs to pay for spay and neuter.

      • HajjFredMinshall

        So what your telling us is you hoard cats outdoors WITHOUT spaying or neutering them? Are there any native wild animals left where you live. Or children who can see? Or women who can carry a fetus full-term? Inquiring minds wanna know…

    • HajjFredMinshall

      Trap, neuter and release has been implemented to achieve the goal of unwanted cat population control ever since it was invented in the UK 60 years ago. Despite six decades of TNR, the stray and feral cat populations have not “gradually come down”. It has more than doubled–from 4.1 million in 1965 to 9.1 million today. There are 85.4 million stray and feral cats, and 46.4 million unsterilized, free-roaming “owned” cats in the US. These disease-ridden “community” vermin must be eradicated–hunted to extinction. Free-roaming “pet” cats must be outlawed–first offense, onerous fine. Second offense, even more onerous fine and destruction of the animal.

    • Leah Miller

      I agree with your idea. I feel it would really help with the over population. The license fee is a very good idea for breeders. The public education program is brilliant.

      • Luke Savage

        I agree with all of your ideas because they set rules and restrictions for breeders. I think that this would help tremendously for over population. I think licences for breeders is a great idea. The public education thing is a great idea.

      • Molly Moran

        I agree with your idea Leah. Because if you charge to have a dog they would not have to kill animals. And the educating the pubic could get those animals in to homes. And it will help people feel sympathy.

  • Charles Farmer

    I believe the no kill animal shelters benefit the animals because it gives the animal another chance to live. Instead of being left on the streets and eventually picked up by animal control then get euthanized. The stray animals on the street that are healthy enough and not overly aggressive will be saved and put in a no kill shelter that helps look for a new home for the animal. Both traditional and no kill shelters are a good way with controlling stray population, honestly I prefer the no kill shelters to save more animals. But having just no shelters instead of both may not work because of the number of homeless pets out there. It is humane to a point for the healthier animals with no severe aggression problems to get a spot in the no kill shelters but not all animals are healthy enough to have a spot and there is only so much space in a shelter for both the healthy and unhealthy.

    • Michael Miller

      I think no kill shelters benefit animals living longer and they are not starving.I 100% agree with Charles farmer about no kill shelters and how they benefit animals lives.I think no kill shelters help animals get off the street and get taken care of.I think the government should pay for some of the shelters.

      • Craig Hartman

        I dont belivie this because the animals might get sick or get hurt by a bigger animal that might be crazy!

      • Conner Zimmerman

        I also agree with no kill shelters and all the benefits it gives stray animals but i think it should be mostly volunteer workers and be paid for with our tax money. I think each county should have these shelters. There should also be big dog park areas for the rehabilitating animals to run and play without having to be watched carefully. That is what i think about non kill shelters.

    • Lauren Hubbart

      I also agree with no kill animal shelters. I also agree that no kill shelters control the stray population. I think all animals should have a chance at the no kill shelters. I think all animals should have a chance to live.

      • Desiree Partington

        I agree. Because animals are important and loving things. And no-kill shelters make animals not get killed which is a good thing. I think we need more no- kill shelters.

      • Samantha Molitor

        I one hundred percent agree with your response to this article!! I do too believe that animals should have a second chance. If many people help with your idea then we could bring down the stray population. Every animal in every shelter deserves a second chance to live maybe even with a family!

        • Sydney Giese

          I soo agree with you !!! animals are soo awesome and they should be love and be able to be cared for !!.
          If we step up to this idea we could make a difference and change how animals live . People should learn to love and care for animals and treat them how they would want to be treated . i agree with you 100%

      • Nathan Dewall

        I agree because animals should have a chance to live.They should be cared for and in harsh environments. They should live live to the greatest. Plus you should not kill animals

    • Justin Welt

      I think that we should have more no kill shelters because it takes animals off of the street and gives them a home. A no kill shelter also gives them room to run and play. In a traditional shelter if animals behave wrong they euthanize that animal. A no kill shelter gives them a chance to live.

      • Trent Kordosky

        I also agree that no-kill shelters help because it saves animals and stray population. I think we should build more no-kill shelters to help animals. I also think no-kill shelters should accept all animals no mater there health or kind. I think no-kill shelters should be able to bring a injured animal to the vet anytime for free.

        • Troy Simacek

          I also agree the with you trent, no-kill shelters help save animals and they clean the street from strays. I think we should build more no kill shelters. I think this because if one no-kill shelter gets to over flowed they get sent to other shelters that could kill. This could be bad thing for other animals because they could get euthanasia.

    • Ashley Sandquist

      I also think that no kill shelters are best. Even though the shelters may not have the most space they aren’t killing animals. They are bringing in animals that really need the help and caring for them. Also it helps bring all the animals off the streets and making there lives better.

      • Mary Terhark

        I agree, because they are not killing them they are saving them from the streets and the people who kill the dogs. They are also bring them in for care sand feeding them so they don’t starve to death on the streets, bad dog owners,etc. They give them shelter, food, and love, and care. There should be less”kill shelters” and more “no kill shelters”.

    • Abdriahman Abikar

      I agree with you because doctors should do anything to keep the animal alive even though theres nothing to do I think the animal should live until it just dies. I also agree with the no kill animal shelters because animals get to get taking care of and wont get killed. They also have another chance by getting adopted by a family and get a new and start life over with a new family.

  • Hillary Clintub

    This is really about the homeless problem in this country, right?

  • Brennen Kieffer

    No kill shelters don’t benefit animals. because if they don’t get adopted the animal will have terrible mental health. If they don’t get adopted they will have to live in cages for the rest of their life. If an animal is really sick the right thing to do is to put them out of their missery

    • Desiree Partington

      I disagree because if the animals have mental heath they are still living things. All living things expecially animals should have a chance to live. Mental illnesses are just what they think. It is sad to think animals get killed when they are living.

    • Nathan Hilton

      I agree with you because the shelter wont kill them. Over time they would be different being in a cage. I think they should put them out of their misery instead of keeping them living. I don´t think they should live in cages the rest of their life.

    • Caden Neisius

      I agree with your opinion about how no kill shelters do not benefit animals. I agree because it said in the article that no kill shelters don’t always have the right medical attention to help the animals. I believe that their should be more traditional shelters so in case the animal is suffering very bad you can just put them out of their misery. In all I think that traditional is a better option becaue they have the right medical attention and can put animals out of their misery.

  • Blake Reamer

    I believe there should be more traditional shelters. If the animals are suffering from mental health you should do the right thing and put them out of their misery. Some people think it is inhumane to kill them but it is better for them than just sitting around for their whole life. Also it could over populate animals.

    • Kayla Stenerson

      I agree with your solution to putting them out of their misery. I think it is sad to see an animal suffering, especially if they have a mental health problem. It is almost healthier to put them down then to let them survive in pain. The traditional shelter is the way to go in my opinion.

      • Ty Krick

        I agree with kayla and the article. In the article they want more traditional shelters. If the pet is suffering or in a lot of pain it would be better if we just put them down. If the shelters decide if the animals need to be put down they should have many reasons that the animal should be put down. If the animal has a mental health or physical and there is no possible medicine or anything they could do they should put them down.

  • Carter Pasch

    I think they should be even enough no kill and traditonal. Because some dogs are in a lot of misery. There are also alot of dogs that deserve to live so. That is why i think they should be equal

    • Desiree Partington

      I agree somewhat, depending on the misery the dog is in. it seems a little unfair tho that they kill dogs when they aren’t really miserable they kill animals that are even perfectly fine sometimes.

  • Autumn Adricula

    I think the no kill shelter is best because you could save a lot of animals that way. The problem with this is no kill shelters have very limited space. So shelters have to deny a lot of animals which causes animals being left abandoned on the street. The traditional shelters kill the animals if they are not adopted in a certain amount of time, which doesn’t let the animal have a another chance to live.

  • Taylor Birke

    I think the no-kill shelters benefit animals because it means the animals do not have die when a person does not adopt them. When there is a dog on the side of the road, it doesn’t have to be put down immediately. It can keep on living until someone does want to adopt it, or live out a life of in a nice shelter where they don’t put them to sleep when nobody wants to adopt them. I definitely think no-kill shelters save more animals than other shelters where they put them to sleep because people don’t want the animals to die.

  • Morgan Buck

    I think that there should be more no kill shelters because I love animals and I think that it is important that they live. I think that shelter animals can be better for families because it may teach younger kids to adopt sheltered dogs therefore it might make more animals have homes. In the article it says, ¨No-kill shelters only accept animals on a conditional basis, based on the animal´s health or temperament, or the availability of space at the shelter.” This supports my opinion because if we had more no-kill shelters we would not have to worry about space at those shelters as much because there may be more space at other shelters if one does not have any space.

    • Lauren Reuter

      I agree with you because I also love animals and I think it´s important that they live. Many dogs are killed in shelters everyday and I think more no kill shelters will solve that problem. All of the comment I replyed on proves my point. If we have more no kill shelters less dogs will be rejected because of space.

      • Paige Seekon

        I agree with you because animals are my favorite and i love them. Its sad to think how many animals get killed or just die cause they don´t get what they need like the love and attention. Even if we put in more no kill shelters animals will still die because they still don´t get everything they need because they don´t get as cared for as they do in a home with kids or somebody who loves them. Even if little kids grew up with an adopted animal i don´t think it would chance them because i think it depends on the age and how much they care for them.

    • Brooke Williams

      I agree with your decision, because I love animals as well and I hate to see them suffering. I also agree that there should be more no kill animal shelters for the animals. To save them and to give them another chance to be adopted. This is my opinion.

  • Olivia Smiley

    I personally think that we need to have both kinds of shelters because other wise we could have a lead to ovder poopulation. If we only have no kill shelters we could have over population becasue they dont kill their animals and they only take in certain aniamls so they would reproduce out in the wild and have more stray animals. If we only have traditional shelters the aniamls have a very little chance of surviving. Another thing with no kill shelters is they spay and nuter their aniamls and that can lead to the animals getting dieases. So if we have both shelters aniamls can have fair chances of living and getting adopted.

    • Kayla Klippen

      I agree with you that we need to have both kind of shelters or just combine them. This is because as the article said 6.5 million animals are brought into the shelters each year and 1.5 million are killed. If we had both kind of shelters the animals that do have a chance to live and only the pets that are killed are the ones that need to be put out of their misery. The animals that are not killed do not have to live in a kennel they can be treated like a real pet and be outside all day and play with with other animals and only put in the kennels at night.

  • Alexis Carlson

    I really don’t think there should be no-kill shelters because its really sad that the animals have to die for know reason and i really love dogs and cats. I have know idea how they die but someone is killing the animals and that’s not right. If they would right away kill a animal i would go ahead and adopt it even though that’s not the animal that i want. I’m reading a article in language arts class and it says ” No kill shelters save millions of unwanted pets. This supports me because i really don’t want the animals to die and they do not deserve to die:(

  • Peyton Cater

    I think there should be no more kill shelters because all animals have lives. I think that all animals have lives and that we always take them for granted. How would you fell to be the sad lonely dog that is dumped on side of the road to only be taken here were you can never run away and your only chance of living is 56%. I fell that all animals matter and need to have a chance and a life. All animals think, feel pain, and love which is something that we don’t even care about. Dogs have 72 hours to live if the the shelter is full which can even take the lives of pet dogs who are lost. This has happens on so many locations and it needs to stop. I think there is a better way to help all animals than just killing them to get them gone.

  • Gabriel Tribe

    I think we should have more no kill shelters because in the article it states that more animals are leave the no kill shelter with happy families. With the traditional shelters there are why more euthanizing and less dogs/cats getting adopted. Also with the no kill shelters we just need more government funding which shouldnt be that hard with how many people want this. In conclusion I think we should just have more no kill shelters.

    • Emma McCaffrey

      I agree with part of this, it really depends on how popular the shelter is. Yes i agree there should be no more kill shelters because animals really benefit from it, but not all animals get adopted from a no kill shelter than a traditional shelter. Yes there should be more government funding, because many shelters are struggling. I do however agree there should be no more kill shelters but that does not necessarily that those animals get adopted more.

  • Madison Kennedy

    I think we should have more no kill animal shelters because it takes animals off the streets and keeps them healthy. I think the solution to keeping animals off the streets is making more shelters to stay in. I think another solution is making more room in the shelters for the animals That is what i think are the solutions to this problem.

    • Anela Johnson

      I agree with your opinion that there should be no-kill shelters because, you can save lives of both dogs and animals off the streets and give them a home. The government though needs to fund in for all no-kill shelters, so that all can provide medicine. That can prevent from more dogs and cats getting sick. They should provide more room for pets to come in so we can help save more lives.

      • Allison Caballero

        I agree with you because, you can save a lot of animals lives that don’t have a home. Dogs should have a good home and they should be loved. We should have more shelters for the dogs and other animals who do not have homes. If dogs are just on the streets they can get sick or abused and they can die, dogs should be able to live their lives to the fullest.

  • Tyler Bohlken

    In my opinion there should be more traditional shelters. If an animal is suffering it should be killed. The kill shelters should be limited to 1 per city. Every animal deserves a chance.

  • Ashley Caballero

    I think that there should be no-more kill shelters since dogs have a life. They all need love, a great home, and a chance to live there life to the fullest. I think that they should try to fund more money from the government or try to raise money by donations. I also think they should do foster care for dogs so they can see what it is like to have a family and try to help the dog get adopted.

  • Kora Seleski

    I believe that no kill animal shelters should continue, and that there should be more in the U.S. because animals are suffering everywhere and by the time we can get there to save them, a lot of them have died. I agree with the article that over one million animals have to be euthanized, because of physical conditions and behavioral problems in the animals. I think one of the best solutions is to try and provide more no kill shelters, because as I said before there are so many animals that die before we can get to them. This is why I think no kill animal shelters should continue.

  • Olivia Storlie

    i think that no kill shelters are a good thing and a bad thing. for example if a cat was walking down the street and gets hit by a car but survives, that cat has a very low chance to live, and some one brought that cat in then it would be okay for them to put it down because they would be putting it out of it pain, but if it was fully capable of recovery then they should bring it back to full health and put it up for adoption. but it can be very bad too. like i´ve heard of stories where a no kill shelter killed a dog that was fully okay but didn´t have enough room. so i see why people think both. but i know some have good intentions and some don´t

  • Mallory Provost

    In my opinion, i think the best option depends on both. there are parts of both shelter’s that we could benefit from. From the no-kill shelter’s, I like the idea of keeping animals alive, because I love animals. Though there are so faulties such, as overcrowding, an animal’s mental well-being, and animal’s not being accepted into shelters because of existing complications, all in which you stated in the artitcle. In traditional shelters, they accept all animals, though if they are not adopted in that certain amount of time, they will be put down which does not give a great appeal. Thanks for this artitcle!

  • Emily Heinbuch

    I do agree with no kill shelters and the fact that they only kill animals if they have a terminal illness or are dangerous to other animals or people. Something i think that they should do though is if there are animals who become old and have physical problems that dont allow them to get around that they should be euthanized. Another reason i do agree with them though is that they do focuss on trying to find all of the animals a home. But I also dont agree with the fact that they turn animals away that may never get to have a home and could be abandoned on the streets.

  • Justine Caron

    i believe that they should make all shelters no kill shelters. Because they should never kill animals that are in need. they should give all animals a chance in no kill shelters. because all animals deserve a home.

  • Sage Alverson

    I think that “kill shelters” should be limited because its saying if the animal is not worthy of getting adopted the animals will be killed. If the no-kill shelters don’t have enough room maybe they should add on a little more space for the injured. If the shelter doesn’t want to spend the money to add on than maybe they should have volunteers foster the animal, (foster care is when a person will bring the animal home and take care of it until it finds a home). If the animal has no chance of living and is suffering by the second than i feel its okay to put the animal down, if the animal is just not getting adopted than put them into foster care so they don’t go crazy in a cage locked up, get put down, and have a house until their adopted.

    • Haley Shanks

      I agree, There should be less “kill shelters” in this world or even none. If theirs not enough money to pay for “No Kill Shelters” then we need to figure out how to raise the money so people will want to help. I also agree if the shelter doesn’t want to spend the money and time to add on than maybe they should have volunteers foster or the animal.This supports my opinion that more animals should have the chance of living.

  • Mia Molitor

    I think there should be more no kill animal shelters because in the article it says animals are treated better there. The article says animals are treated better so they are happier and have a better chance of getting adopted. This supports my opinion by saying more animals have the chance to live instead if getting killed. Animals will have a better chance of living instead of dying.

  • Jackson Palla

    I agree with the fact that we need more no kill shelters. I think this because cats and dogs die because no kill shelters dont have enough room. Another reason we need more no kill shelters is because people are most likely not to adopt a dog or cat that is to be euthiorized. If we get more no kill shelters more cats and dogs are more likely to survie.

  • Samuel Rumpza

    I think that there should be more room or expand the no kill shelters. Like they said almost every no kill shelters are full so the animals have no place to go so they just have to reject the animals. So they just have to make more room or make more no kill shelters so more animals are off the street and safe and not going to die. So more shelters more animals off the street so no kill shelters do not have to make no kill shelters reject animals.

  • MacKenzie Tryba

    I think that both ideas are good for what each type of shelter does for the animals. The no-kill shelters don´t let the animals die, and the traditional shelters have the proper medications. I think that if the shelters combine and share what they have, it could result in no animals dying and the animals will also get the proper medications.

  • Jacob Page

    I agree that there should be more no kill shelters because if there is only one it will probably overpopulate. No kill shelters are good because it will give a chance to an animal to survive. When people see a stray animal that’s hurt some of them will have the courtesy to help that animal off the street and bring them to that specific shelter. Some people are careless otherwise.

  • Andrew O’Tool

    I believe that no kill animal shelters can be very beneficial because it can give that animal a second chance. I think all animals deserve this. Because they were abandoned and had no choice or control of over this.

    • Tyler Larson

      I also agree that no kill shelters can be very beneficial. Because it dose give the animal another chance to live. They also get another chance to live that they would of never had before. Because there had no choice to be left behind before they got rescued.

  • Matthew Dallman

    I think no kill shelters are better because they have a chance to get adopted and live there life happy.Animals deserve homes not death maybe there a kid who wants a animal and that animal is in a normal shelter and when the kid goes to the shelter and there sad cause its dead. no kill shelters should have more rooms for more animals so they don’t have to go to a normal shelter.

  • Tyler Warmka

    I think that there should be a mixture of the shelters. Some animal will come in a bad state of health and the no kill shelters will turn them away . But if there in good health they will keep the animals. In conclusion I think that there should have a big shelters that try to help the animal

  • Nathan LaCroix

    just butcher them all and serve the meat at fast food restaurants, tastes the same anyway, i’m not even talking about the animals, i’m talking about homeless humans, put them down, most of them are drug addicts anyway. As for the animals, if their not cute or capable dogs, kill them too, feed them to dogs with owners. In conclusion, just kill anything without a house. I’m obviously just joking, i dont really care about the whole thing.

  • Matthew Thompson

    I think that there should be more “no kill” shelters because if there were no “no kill” shelters then there would be a lot of animal deaths around the world.

    • Alexander Christie

      I think that we need more as well because a lot of animals would die example your dog or cat might have been home less before and it would have died. This would would be a lot less hard on pet owners they would not have to kill their pet often. Plus some places would get more money.

  • Tyler Hague

    In my opinion this is a great idea but has negative parts that can be fixed. this is how i feel you can fix it make more space for dogs. Also you can not just leave dogs to die if you don´t have enough room make like a charity. That´s how i feel you can make it better.

  • Olivia Lussier

    I think no-kill shelters are good and there should be more worldwide. Having more could help prevent less homeless animals that have diseases. All animals should have a chance at anything. Every animal should be treated equally

  • Isaac Leavitt

    I think that there should only be traditional shelters. This is my belief because there are too many stray animals. The euthanizing will really help with the amounts of animals and costs of them. This will help because in my world pure breaded animals are better than little mutts that you find in a building full of caged raggedy animals.

  • Taber Kunshier

    I believe that no kill shelters is a good idea because animal lives matter. They could have another chance to live. animals have feelings so we should not hurt them. So lets go save them!!!!!! besides the diseases…

  • Mason Kylen

    i think that no kill shelters help animals to live longer and live a better life. i also think that no kill shelters should expand the number of animals that they take in. they also help homeless and stray animals find a home. they also give the animal a chance to get adopted. so the animal can live a better life then being a stray.

  • Zackary Wog

    I think that if a no kill shelter has no more space for animals they shouldn’t send the animals out to the street. They should send those animals to another shelter near by. Even sending those animals to a traditional shelter would be better then the street. If those animals that there sending away aren’t in to bad of shape sending them to a traditional shelter could save a life.

  • Valeria Serrano

    I think there should be more no kill shelters because there is no reason to kill a animal . But I think that the government should invest more on them so all the animals can be spade or nutted and have the proper shots and health. Then that the shelters should not tern animals away and the no kill shelters should have more space for all the dogs. I think that more people should volenteer to be fosters for the animals so they can be out of the shelters and be free for a weekend.

  • Bryan Quinn

    I think there should be more no kill shelters because it gives animals a place to stay. If there are stray animals on the streets they can be brought in and cared for. Its also nice because the animals do not get killed in the shelters in the article it says the no kill shelters attempt to keep all animals alive. That´s why there should be more no kill shelters because the animals get cared for and do not die.

  • Casey Borndale

    I believe that no kill shelter really do benefit cause it helps with the stray or homeless animal problem. Homeless animals spread sicknesses and are overall a nuisance but if they are put in shelters it helps with that problem. The shelters also don’t harm the animals and they don’t kill them. I’m pretty sure everyone already said what i did but that’s okay.

  • Owen Glade

    I think that no kill and kill shelters both have upsides and downsides it is just a moral question that people should ask their selves and they shouldn’t just pick what makes them selves feel better and what is better for the people and the animals.

  • Donavon Niebur

    I believe that no kill shelter are good because then dogs and cats are not going to be a dieing. It also bad to because they might have to many animal and to little room.Also they might get in trouble to if they put there animal to sleep the wrong way. I think that it might be bad to keep them in cages for long periods of time.

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor