Guest Blog submission by No Kill Iowa's Very Own Erich Riesenberg

Does-No-Kill-Really-Mean-Low-Kill?

I recently finished the book Redemption, by Nathan Winograd. It dealt primarily with the history of the animal welfare industry, its failures, and its dishonesty.

I was hoping it would explain the phrase No Kill. What I mean is, there will always be some animals who can not be adopted out, they will not leave the shelter alive. Even the best run shelter with unlimited resources will not adopt out every animal, and lives will be ended.

The problem with the phrase No Kill is that people often will react by commenting that the goal of No Kill is impossible. Even some No Kill supporters think the phrase should actually be Low Kill, for accuracy.

I do not think Redemption even touched on the controversy of No Kill versus Low Kill. However, it did explain the misuse of the word euthanasia, and I think a true understanding of the word euthanasia eloquently explains why No Kill does indeed mean No Kill, rather than Low Kill.

Merriam Webster defines euthanasia:

the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy

Understanding the word euthanasia is critical to understanding No Kill.

No Kill does result in the death of some animals. In No Kill, only the truly dying and dangerous animals are put to sleep. That is euthanasia, not killing. No Kill truly means no killing.

High kill shelters practice killing, in addition to some genuine euthanasia. They simply refuse to acknowledge killing is killing, and instead label it euthanasia.