Part of the Bay Area News Group

How do you feel about “No-Kill”? Do you understand it?

By Gary Bogue
Thursday, November 15th, 2007 at 7:43 am in No-Kill.

Let me explain.

** Should routine euthanasia of surplus pets by animal shelters be the social norm?

** Should we be operating animal shelters in this country where healthy and treatable dogs and cats are not euthanized for time and space considerations?

** Is there a difference between “no kill” and “No-Kill”?

Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States, has written an excellent and perceptive blog, “Setting Aside Semantics: Not Killing Pets Must Be Our Goal.” In it, Wayne presents the best explanation I’ve seen yet about what “no kill” and “No-Kill” means, and why he feels we ALL have to become involved in this crusade to make it work.

It doesn’t matter if you have pets or even care about animals. This is going to affect you (maybe it already has) in some very important way, whether you like it or not. Read what Wayne has to say. Then give it some thought.

Just click on this:

What do you think? I’d like to hear about it.

Please leave your comments below under “post a comment,” or by clicking on “Comments.” Or you can send me an e-mail at

Thanks for caring! /Gary

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

No Responses to “How do you feel about “No-Kill”? Do you understand it?”

  1. Stacy Says:

    I believe that Nathan Winograd has developed a workable solution to euthanasia of shelter pets. Unlike mandatory spay and neuter laws such as AB 1634, the No- Kill method of shelter management has proven to be successful time and time again in the elimination of euthanasia. The PAPA initiative will mandate that all California humane shelters shall operate according to Winograd’s No- Kill protocol. This will make California the first No- Kill state in the nation. A humane solution to the care and adoption of our shelter pets as well as a proud accomplishment for California! Be sure to sign the petition for PAPA as soon as they start to circulate.

  2. Laura Says:

    The best information about the No Kill shelter movement that I have seen is in Nathan Winograd’s new book “Redemption”. Gary, I figured this would be a subject that interests you, so I sent you a copy of the book last week. I hope you have a chance to read it, and write about it in your column.
    All the best.

  3. DogLover Says:

    Do you EVER do any research into the articles you write?
    Most of what Wayne Pacelle has written (and I’m talking like 99.9%) has been what Nathan Winograd has been saying (and doing) for YEARS.
    Not even one year ago Wayno was completely against No Kill….that is until those ideas started damaging his donation coffers. Wayno wouldn’t know the first thing about running a shelter; the H$U$ owns none. Now that Wayno’s donation coffers are down he has now decided to do a complete 180 on the subject of no kill and what we get is regurgitated info straight from Nathan Winograd’s new book Redemption. Wayno is becoming more pathetic as each day goes by.

  4. Laura Says:

    Nathan Winograd’s well-researched response to Wayne Pacelle’s ‘no kill’ blog post can be found here

  5. Paula Hanson Says:

    How long have you been a shill for the H$U$? The only reason Wayne Pacelle is bringing up the No Kill topic is because of Nathan Winograd’s book “Redemption”. Otherwise it would be “business as usual”.
    I urge you to read the following by Nathan Winograd.

  6. George Eigenhauser Says:

    There really are no “surplus pets.” The number of homes seeking pets exceeds those available. That’s why tens of thousands of pets are smuggled into this county each year, and tens of thousands more brought in legally. There is no surplus, only badly run animal shelters. No Kill is being opposed by traditional shelters because it exposes the truth, that the killing is a choice the shelters make, not a result of a bogus “pet overpopulation” crisis.

    George Eigenhauser

  7. Barbara Saunders Says:

    One option rarely discussed, for a reason I cannot fathom, is to simply legislate the killing of “surplus pets” off the table. No state, no municipality, no county has the option of not taking care of “surplus people.” We don’t give taxpayers the option of deciding that “surplus people” are not a priority. And, no, I am not “comparing” people to animals. I believe the protections to animals should be added not because they deserve “the same” as humans but because animals deserve this in their own right.

  8. Carol Says:

    What about killing of wildlife to protect birds? They are regularly killing foxes and raccoons at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore to protect some birds. While I believe in the protection of birds, I also believe that no one has the right to kill a wild animal doing what comes natural. When did advocacy groups get the right to play God? Why not just remove the eggs and incubate?

Leave a Reply