The semantic battle among animal people about the meaning of the term "no-kill" seems to have run its course. Even those who use the term frequently admit they no longer know what it means. Or, at the very least, recognize that it means different things to different people. Unfortunately the public takes the term at face value and assumes that "no-kill" means there is "no" killing of animals in some of our shelters, even some of our cities. In reality, most "no-kill" shelters set policies that allow them to be selective in the animals accepted into the facility and accept animals only when they have space. The term "no-kill" implies that organizations faced with euthanizing animals are "kill" shelters, when both serve the mission to save animals' lives. This label arbitrarily sets one program against another, good guys vs. bad guys, rescuers vs. killers. As a result, the very facilities that most desperately need public support and resources to increase their adoption statistics and reduce the number of animals euthanized are instead scorned as "bad guys." And that's not right or fair - not to the animals, those who work in those shelters, nor to the public, the unintended victims of this misconception.

It no longer benefits the animals for us to participate in this debate. It has become a sinkhole for our energies. Some animal welfare professionals, their communities, their politicians, and their boards have been seduced into thinking they could become "no-kill" by warehousing animals in inhumane and disease ridden environments. When "no-kill" is applied as policy in a shelter that takes in more animals than are released to adopters or owners, the result is disaster, whether animals languish in overcrowded, unsanitary cages for weeks and even months, or succumb to outbreaks of widespread disease. Ensuring animals' illness prior to their death was never the goal of ending euthanasia of "healthy adoptable pets."

If we truly want to save more animals' lives, then we must move beyond this euphemistic, conflicting term and start collaborating and cooperating instead of fighting amongst ourselves. The truly successful agencies that have high live-animal release rates build coalitions rather than those who use rhetoric to dupe the public into thinking they are more successful than they are, or put the burden of dealing with those animals that are "unadoptable" out of sight.

Unfortunately too many Californians still see domestic pets such as cats and dogs as "disposable" and a commodity. These concepts are not something animal welfare professionals, animal workers or animal lovers have created. The ultimate accountability must rest on the shoulders of the community in which the "killings" take place.

As animal professionals, we have a responsibility to provide leadership and model the behavior we expect. We cannot afford to join the ranks of the marketers and evangelicals who think that pretending there is an immediate solution to pet overpopulation will make it go away. Low- or no-fee spay and neuter efforts are a necessity throughout California. We must embrace the diverse animal groups or individuals in our communities, treat them with respect and invite their participation. We must redefine what it means to be an open-door shelter by opening our doors to scrutiny, to the challenges that rescue groups, interested individuals, volunteers, and activists bring forward. We must court and attract those individuals that can be respectful to all points of views and are willing to help us save lives in a responsible way.

Coalitions of stakeholders that include the public must come together to be educated about euthanasia and address the community's surplus of animals, introduce high volume spay and neuter, find resources, fund initiatives, pass ordinances, raise money, and support each other to move beyond these divisions that hurt us all and, in the end, hurt the animals we say we care about.

This article represents the professional or personal opinion of the author. The CACDA Board of Directors has approved this posting, however, this article does not necessarily reflect the views, positions or opinions of CACDA.