The State of the No Kill Nation - Winning the War of Discourse

The “No-Kill” Movement Today: Winning the War of Discourse

No-kill activists must not write off to “semantics” shelter industry insiders’ attempts eradicate the term “no-kill.” Instead we must understand and respond to these arguments about language as an attempt to frame the discussion to protect the status quo. In linguistics, semantics, the study of meaning, is distinguished from pragmatics, the study of the social uses of language.  When speaking publicly, enemies of the no-kill movement talk semantics while they load pragmatic weapons.

People of good faith justifiably debate the semantics and the concerns the language highlights. Among them are the ethics of pet hospice for homed or homeless animals, and whether or not it is humane to execute dangerous dogs who are not suffering. This is not, however, the focus of argument that comes from leaders such as many of the signatories to the Asilomar Accords. Their prime strategy is to disguise their claims to power behind lingo about precision.

The phrase “no-kill”, they insist, is “inaccurate”, “confusing and misleading to the public”, and “divisive”. It is not evident, though, that the public is confused about the term “no-kill” — except to extent that no-kill enemies have proactively deceived them.

There is open disagreement about whether companion animals should be afforded natural deaths; however, euthanasia is a commonly accepted humane standard of care for suffering animals in terminal condition. Similarly, despite great controversy around what behaviors merit labeling a dog dangerous and many people who believe that even the most aggressive dogs must be spared, the majority of the public expects and accepts that shelters in “no-kill” communities destroy dangerous animals as a last resort. Members of the public occasionally make that grave decision about their own companion dogs, despite the agony of doing so.

So, why does the language inspire such ire in some directors of public and private shelters? In “What Has the No-Kill Movement Accomplished?”, Merritt Clifton of Best Friends Animal Society states it plainly: “Another way to describe the ‘no-kill’ movement might be ‘the democratization of animal sheltering’.” 

“No-Kill” is an imperative coming from communities and directed at industry people, and some of them just don’t like it. In the same article, Clifton points out that over the past twenty years, declines in animal shelter deaths have been dramatic. The cause: a meaningful proportion of the public has gotten the messages about altering their pets, adopting from shelters, and training. Many people are also spending money on pet sitters and doggie play groups and day care, to keep their pets despite pet-unfriendly schedules. The responsible members of the public, those who are holding up our end of the bargain, now demand a higher level of performance from people who collect paychecks funded by tax or donation dollars. We are calling that demand “no-kill.”

Animal Sheltering is a publication of the Humane Society of the United States, “the nation’s largest animal protection organization,” in its own words. Large, here, refers to its coffers; HSUS does not operate shelters. A piece entitled “The Language of Cooperation” lauds efforts in Denver, Colorado, to clarify labels attached to animals coming into the public and private shelters in the area. It tells the story of a coalition of staff from area agencies that came together for a “definitions task force.” According to committee member Martha Smith of All Breed Rescue Network, “no-kill” was dismissed as “negative, destructive, judgmental, divisive, and dishonest.” No surprises there.

Now, consider a quotation concerning the term “rescue” from Jan McHugh-Smith, Asilomar Accords participant, former CEO of the Humane Society of Boulder Valley (Colorado), and current President of the San Francisco SPCA, formerly a pioneer of no-kill. “In some communities,” she is quoted as saying, “the word ‘rescue’ has been divisive, but not in Denver—All Breed Rescue Network has always been supportive of the work shelters do, never using its own name to deride it. The word ‘rescue’ has never been used offensively, says Smith, and so no one seems offended.”

Pay attention to the words: “Dishonest” points to a claim about semantics, about precision. “Deride”, “offensive” (as contrasted with “supportive”), “judgmental”, and “divisive” all point to something else. Specifically, they suggest a lack of deference to those folks in the political position to get seats on bodies like the “definitions task force.”

It has been said that, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” What greater example of absolute power exists in our society today than the statutory authority to put living creatures to death under the cover of trade secret?

The objection to “no-kill” terminology signals an objection to scrutiny from the ordinary citizens who provide the tax dollars and donations, and who subsidize nonprofit tax exemptions. It signals an objection to lawmakers dictating performance objectives. It signals refusal to cede decision-making authority to independently certified professionals whose formal codes of ethics might lead them to defend an individual animal’s right to live over a shelter’s annual budget, concerns about legal liability, public relations, or the costs involved in hiring competent employees and providing them with the right tools and technologies. It signals an unwillingness to submit to a system of checks and balances.

What’s a no-kill activist to do about this? Press forward with concrete language. Ask questions like: “What precisely is the process, and what are the criteria, for determining that a dog’s behavior is beyond remediation”, “How many kittens were killed due to suffer acute illnesses? How long are cats with chronic illnesses being retained, and what, if any, chronic illnesses are not treated?”

The power to ask such questions is ours, no matter how offensive that may seem to those who have become accustomed to abusing it.  

Before entering the world of animal welfare, Barbara R Saunders was a discourse analyst, working on complex litigation for clients near the top of the Fortune 500.