Originally posted as a Greene County Daily World column authored by Kegan Inman.

Let me start by stating that I am going to present to some information that may be uncomfortable and can be as controversial to some people as abortion or gun control. I am asking that you have an open mind to these different ideas and that while you may not particularly agree with some, that you try to understand why organizations use them.

This will be the first part of three consecutive pieces. There is too much information to try to convey in one short column.

Let’s start be clarifying that there is no official definition of a “no-kill” shelter or rescue and while there is disagreement in the definition of the term, most organizations define a no-kill shelter as having a live-release rate of 90% or greater. This means that 90% of the animals that enter that organization are released from care alive.

It is important to note that organizations get to choose how they calculate that number. Some organizations only include animals that are euthanized, because that is “killing”.

Other organizations prefer to include all animals that are not “live-release” which can include euthanasia but more often includes animals that pass naturally due to old age, disease, injury, birth defects etc.

I personally prefer including these items in our numbers because I think it gives a better understanding of the big picture. It allows us to identify trends and make changes to mitigate those. This includes accounting for every animal that enters our care and every reason for discharge from the system. I want for our organization to be ultimately responsible for all animals, regardless of situation. This allows us to provide the most transparency and accountability to the community in which we serve.

Before getting into specific categories of no-kill and kill organizations, it is important to first understand the difference between open-intake and a limited-intake organizations. These differences can impact how the organization falls into the no-kill world.

An open-intake organization is one that takes everything, regardless of available space or any other factor. These facilities typically have a contract with a government organization that requires them to take all animals but do not have to. The uncontrolled amount of animals can account for a lot of things such as the need to euthanize for space, overcrowding, burn-out among staff and volunteers and so on.

A limited-intake organization can vary in policies but these are organizations can either specialize in a certain type, breed or size of animal or defer intake based on their capacity level and ability to provide adequate housing for the animal, the behavior of the animal and a number of other reasons.

Limited-intake facilities typically believe that they can best serve animals by limiting intake to give the ones that they currently have the most proper care and ability to be adopted. Overcrowding can lead to

a lot of things such as disease spread, progressively worsening behavioral issues and so on. Additionally, when a shelter is overcrowded, the staff is typically more stressed and the organization can have a higher turnover rate which reduces the knowledge and skills in the organization, causing a decrease in the quality of care.

The downfall here though, is what happens to the ones that are turned away. Limited-intake facilities need to have a responsibility to try to provide resources to the community and pet owners to help with animals that they cannot take. This can include foster programs, spay/neuter and vaccine assistance, programs to keep animals in their homes, lists of other rescues that a person may try to contact and so on. Just simply turning a blind eye to animals in need shouldn’t be an option.

Next week, I will talk about the types of organizations from a no-kill perspective and how each of them fall into the bigger picture. Then in part three, I plan to discuss some of my ideas on how to avoid the need for euthanasia, overcrowding, etc.

In closing, I want to remind everyone to keep an open mind, especially to concepts that may initially be foreign or off-putting to them. To quote Frank Zappa, “A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it is not open.”