(hopefully not a double-post)
**liirogue[/b[ I’ll respectfully suggest NOT looking specifically for a “no-kill” (more properly called “limited-access”) shelter.
Limited-access shelters don’t perform many euthanasias themselves, it’s true. Generally, they accomplish this by having a limited number of cage spaces; once their kennels are full, they turn people away.
That’s fine, if there’s a full-access shelter nearby that folks can take their animals to. If there’s no full-access shelter, the animals might get dumped by the side of the road, or worse.
Full-access shelters, like the one I work for, do euthanize animals. We often euthanize the animals turned away from limited-access shelters. And we hate having to do it.
So ADOPT from us! The more animals you adopt from a full-access shelter, the fewer we have to euthanize!
Limited-access shelters do have a place in the world of animal rescue: as long as they don’t claim a spurious moral high ground, as long as they work with their local full-access shelter, and (most importantly) as long as they don’t warehouse animals in filthy cages for years on end, letting the animals live in filth, disease, and neuroses, they can be a useful supplement to the work done by full-access shelters.
But it’s the full-access shelters that do the main of the work.
On another point, it may be a crap shoot to get an animal from the “pound” (we in the biz prefer "shelter
). Anecdotally, however, the animals I’ve adopted from shelters have been far gentlre and calmer than the one dog I lived with who was bought from a breeder. It’s a pretty good gamble, as long as you invest some time into finding the right animal.
Finally, look into North Shore Animal League. They’re not universally beloved in the animal welfare movement. I don’t know enough about the controversy to take sides on it, but there definitely is a controversy.
Rant over.
Daniel