This is highly dependent on where you live, in Europe or North America they have the capability to keep animals safe and up for adoption. But in 3rd world countries there are very few resources to control the stray population so they can't keep them all, not to mention the rabies problem that affect many areas in Africa and South East Asia, expecting those countries to deal with it the same as in developed nations is just unrealistic.

by Nitzschecarli 1 day ago

it definitely depends on the are but even in the US, many areas aren't able to help every animal. i can't speak for every state, but im in rural arkansas and many towns don't even have shelters. those that do have shelters also have wayyy more animals needing help than people willing to adopt. lots of hoarders, feral cat colonies, stray dogs, etc. and the very few shelters that exist don't have the space, money, or staff to help them all. sooo many dog/cat hoarders, there was recently 100-150 dogs rescued from one hoarder house in a rural area. with the way it all is now, many areas in the US just sadly don't have the capability to save them all and get them adopted

by peter10 1 day ago

Just want to go 'ehh!' that you are in rural Arkansas, because, same! I also live in rural arkansas, and yeah, as far as I know, there isn't a shelter nearby. The local vet works with the city, and keeps animals for a week to try to find their owners/get them adopted, but he can't keep them indefinitely, and he doesn't do that for rural areas (he really couldn't do that, because he has a very small practice and there wouldn't be enough room for it, he has also been my family's vet for like 40 years now) Sadly, this is a reality, and many people just don't understand it. They operate more on feelings than realizing that just because a shelter doesn't kill the animals, doesn't mean that animals aren't being euthanized anyways, because that shelter doesn't kill any of the animals, and thus is nearly always full.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

yep, rural areas suck with resources and a lot of people don't realize that if they haven't been in an area like it. 90% of the places i've lived in had no shelter, one had a shelter but they could only have 14 dogs and wouldn't take in cats. one county in arkansas is just now finally discussing animal control after a teen was mauled by a pack of dogs in an area where there was no animal control. that's what it took..

by peter10 1 day ago

This is an unpopular opinion, but, we can't save every dog and cat. I would love it if we could. But, resources are finite. Not just money, but space and time. The longer a single animal is kept while awaiting adoption, the more likely it is that multiple other animals will be put down because there isn't any space in the shelter to take them. Plus, is it really fair to make a dog or cat live out years of their already limited lives in a shelter environment? the noise, the stress, the small spaces etc... And don't get me started on spending thousands saving one dog or cat when that money could be used to help multiple others (this isn't about people's pets, but rather shelters and rescues who constantly beg for money for a dog or cat that needs thousands of dollars in medical treatment to survive). Sometimes, it is kinder to let them go and focus on those that *can* be saved, rather than trying to have a mentality of 'gotta save them all', because the second isn't feasible at all. I have known people who have found animals on the road, and had to have them put down at a vet, because the shelters were no-kill and all constantly full of dogs (mostly) who just weren't adoptible, and they weren't able to keep the animals. It is a sad reality.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

I saw this instance regularly when my shelter went no kill: wonderful family enters and wants a great dog for their kids, I HAVE a perfect friendly dog I'm ready to show them that has been here for a few days, and instead a manager decides to push a less stable and more problematic dog on them because that dog has been here longer and needs to get out more. Family hears dog 2's sad story, takes it home, and it comes back weeks later because it bit their kid / killed their cat / destroyed their house. Now the family doesn't want ANY pet from us because the one they got was a nightmare, and dog 1 has missed out on its forever home and dog 2 is right back where it started. Dog 1 also starts to mentally deteriorate and become dog 2. Its a cycle that feeds into itself until shelters get overwhelmed.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

This is so sad, and yeah, sadly a story I have heard before (not this one specifically) but about shelters lying about dogs to get them adopted.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

this. you worded it so much better than i ever could. hopefully one day it won't be like this anymore and we can save them all, but it's just not realistic for many areas

by peter10 23 hours ago

Exactly, and worryingly, for dogs at least, there seems to be a growing movement of 'don't neuter!' Some are 'don't neuter until they are older' which I can sort of agree with if it means fewer issues down the road (it seems like some dogs aren't finished growing until later than others) but there are more and more 'I have had dogs all my life, none of them neutered and no oops litters!' Well, congratulations, there are likely hundreds who HAVE had 'oops' litters. I have heard of male dogs tearing through screening, going through doors, digging under fences, going over fences, etc.. all because they smelled a female in heat. Not everyone has the luxury of having rooms that they can separate male and female animals when the female is in heat. Dogs still need to be walked and not everyone keeps control of their dogs like they should. We have had cats dumped here and they have gotten pregnant before we could neuter them. We did it as soon as our vet would. That also goes for the kittens, which we kept. We were fortunate that we *could* get them all neutered and keep them all, but not everyone is, and often it just snowballs. One oops litter, and they can't get rid of them all? Well, now if they couldn't afford to get the first one neutered, how are they going to get the rest of the litter neutered? Which often results in even more oops litter, especially if they kept any males.

by Anonymous 23 hours ago

I would rephrase it more as "not all euthanizing shelters are high kill". Some are, especially in low funded shelters in large cities, but many euthanizing shelters have been slapped with the "high kill" tag unfairly, very often by no kill shelters competing with them for donations. To get the no kill designation you have to have a 90% or higher release rate, which means a shelter could have a live release rate of 89% and still get demonized. I worked for a euthanizing shelter that was taken over by a no kill group and, in my opinion, it was a huge downgrade. Employee culture turned from a standard workplace to a martyrdom, where if you dared to ask for anything you were somehow robbing the animals. Humans were no longer a priority and hardly a concern, and anybody who works in animal rescue knows 2 things: the families are just as important as the animals they're adopting and our field has one of the highest suicide rates and generally low mental welfare. In order to achieve the 90% release rate the tactics taken were shady and bordered on torture; terminally sick animals kept alive until the next quarter, dogs kept in small popup crates instead of kennels because housing them together caused too many fights and risked deaths, hiding dangerous animal's histories from potential adopters because pushing the long term animals out was more important, animals going slowly insane in their cages because a shelter environment is not intended to house them for months or even years, etc. I will never support a no kill shelter again and I hope I can convince others to at least start supporting the euthanizing shelters more.

by Anonymous 23 hours ago

i definitely don't disagree with that. i actually think a better term for them would maybe be "open admission" or "open intake", but most people seem to understand what i'm talking about more with the term "high kill shelter" sadly. hopefully one day that changes, as well as people's opinions about these shelters. the more support they get from people, the less they have to euthanize

by peter10 23 hours ago

ofc! these shelters need all the help they can get, and i really hope one day peoples opinions of them will change that way they can get the support they need

by peter10 23 hours ago

We couldn't have made it work without our wonderful core of volunteers too

by Substantial_Mix5126 23 hours ago

I live in an area with multiple shelters and we still have dog attacks on the streets. People are afraid to let their kids play outside or go for a walk. When the shelters are full and the animals inside are unadoptable, I'm ok with euthanasia. No-kill designations can be earned if a shelter saves 90% of the animals it takes in.

by Anonymous 23 hours ago

I also agree- mainly because a lot of "no-kill" shelters will just pass off their unadoptable animals to kill shelters in efforts to keep their hands clean. And sometimes, euthanasia is in the best interest of the animal- especially if they are sick or behaviorally challenged.

by Most_Teaching4567 22 hours ago

I have an issue with the no kill also. There is no recourse for unwanted animals. I had a neighbor that trapped feral cats and took them out to the country and dropped them off. That can't be better than euthanasia.

by Anonymous 22 hours ago

yeah we have a few people that do that here and its heartbreaking. it's all terrible but in some places there's truly just too many animals and not enough resources

by peter10 22 hours ago

A life free in the wild not better than being put in a cage and euthanized? I disagree on that one

by Anonymous 22 hours ago

You seem unaware of how destructive feral cats (hell, even "outdoors" cats) can be to local fauna.

by Gislasonjacquel 22 hours ago

why do you disagree? domestic animals don't really do well in the wild. in my experience they're usually starving and if they're not saved quickly, they get killed outside. plus the risk to native wildlife, people, pets, livestock, etc.. plus they could breed and have more puppies/kittens, making the problem even worse

by peter10 21 hours ago

In the wild where they will populate unregulated and decimate the local wildlife population.

by Anonymous 21 hours ago

As someone who lives in the country: A 'life free in the wild' to be torn apart by predators, or to slowly starve to death because they can't hunt well in an unfamiliar environment, or to be poisoned by people who they are bugging, or to be hit by cars and slowly die an agonizing death is in no way, shape, or form 'better than euthanasia'. Most cats dumped in the country are going to die. They are going to die horribly. The lucky ones will find a home. We have given many homes. But we can't take them all. The next lucky ones will die quickly. Because otherwise they are just going to end up as prey for some predator or get hit or hurt by vehicles or people protecting things like chickens or rabbits from hungry cats.

by Anonymous 21 hours ago

Human irresponsibility is the problem, not the shelters trying to cope with the aftermath of the irresponsible treatment and management of domesticated and non-native animals. Spay and neuter your pets.

by Afraid_Connection 21 hours ago

i think this depends on your definition of a "kill" shelter as well as the area. where i am the closest shelter euthanizes about 85% of the pets that come in, and it would be higher if they took in strays from out of city limits

by peter10 20 hours ago

It's the parents who cave to their bratty children when they whine about wanting a pet and not taking care of it.

by Big-Back 20 hours ago