Q and A with PetPAC Chairman Bill Hemby on "No Kill" Revisited
February 13, 2009
Q. Bill, Last November you spoke about the importance of introducing new legislation to push Nathan Winograd’s “No Kill” animal shelter method. Do you still feel the same about “No Kill”?
A.Yes. In fact, I feel it is a very important issue that must be resolved. Every year hundreds of thousands of shelter animals are killed for no better reason than the shelter says it has run out of room, or it can’t adopt them out, or a number of reasons. None of which warrant the killing.
Q. Well, does “No Kill” mean every animal is saved? That sounds impossible.
A. “No Kill” does not purport to save every animal. What it does do is proclaim that every animal has a basic and fundamental right to live; that shelters and S.P.C.A.s were founded to establish standards for humane treatment of animals and to protect them from harm.
Certainly, there are animals brought into shelters that are ill or injured beyond saving, old and infirm, or truly vicious and a threat to pet owners. These animals must be killed. But, they are not, by far, the majority. As civilized and compassionate people we have a duty to do everything possible to save the lives of the animals we love.
Q. Lets go back to the question of a shelter’s over population of animals. Shelters tell us; “What can we do? If we run out of cages or room to house them all, we have no other solution.”
A.First of all, you have to question are you hearing the truth? Nathan Winograd in his book “Redemption” says; “Shelters kill dogs and cats every single day, despite empty cages. Doing so makes it easier for staff to clean. In Philadelphia…I counted over seventy empty cat cages in February of 2005, on a day they were killing “for space”. These are not isolated examples. They are epidemic—and endemic—to animal control. Empty cages mean less cleaning, less feeding, less work. Some shelter directors simply don’t care and do it for that reason. Others do it because they falsely believe that no one will adopt the animals anyway. Still others kill because they believe the cages will get full. And others….require a certain number of animals to be killed in the morning to make room for the new animals they expect that day---animals who might or might not come…”
Because most shelters are so set in their ways, they fail to realize “No Kill” methods will keep their shelters from filling. When you increase adoptions and foster care, provide low cost and free spay and neuter climics, open your shelter to make it more convenient for adoptions, and rescue, work with the community to save the animals, you can save over 90% of them. You also reduce shelter costs, and increase income through community donations.
Q. Bill, as a practical matter, both the state and local cities are facing huge deficits. How can they afford to implement a “No Kill” shelter when they are facing such a huge financial downturn?
A. One of the things we plan to do this year is to show state and local governments that running a “No Kill” shelter is less expensive than just killing out of hand. It is less expensive to adopt them out then to kill them. More adoptions means more funding returned to the shelter. Research shows low cost and free spay and neuter clinics return $10. for every dollar spent. Experience shows when people learn your shelter is not killing animals, they feel better about adoption, which in turn increases adoptions even more. The public is more willing to donate money to help finance shelter operations. No Kill allows shelters to do what they were originally meant to do---save animals.
Q. OK, so what’s the plan? Will PetPAC attempt legislation to bring about “No Kill”?
A. As I have said, Yes we will! We have a moral responsibility to do whatever is possible to stop the killing of thousands and thousands of animals who don’t deserve to die.
PetPAC is sponsoring a legislative resolution making “No Kill” the perferred shelter method in California. This resolution, while having no force or effect in law, will allow us to publish the benefits of “No Kill”, to examine its financial aspects, to answer questions from shelters that refuse to consider “No Kill”, and to educate the public that there is a way to save hundreds of thousands of animals in California.
Q. Do you think such an effort will succeed?
A.I have high hopes. I want to reach out to the pet community, to pet owners, to dog and cat organizations, to animal welfare and animal rights organizations. Its time we work together to save the animals. Last year AB 1634 was a very devisive issue forcing pet loving people into opposing sides. During that year, through discussions, we realized both sides really wanted the same thing---to save animals. I believe “No Kill” is the answer. I hope others will see it that way too.
