![\"Ed](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.animals24-7.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/Picsart_26-08-26_21-51-20-908-e1787806307123.jpg?ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Editor\u2019s note:\u00a0 ANIMALS 24-7<\/strong> guest columnist Ed Duvin began his long career in social justice movements in civil rights and anti-poverty work during the Lyndon Johnson presidential administration. He later advised animal advocacy organizations including the Humane Society of the U.S., the No-Kill Conference, and In Defense of Animals.<\/p>\n Often called \u201cThe Father of the No-Kill Movement\u201d for his widely distributed 1989 essay\u00a0 In the Name of Mercy,\u00a0<\/em> Duvin wrote in that essay,\u00a0 \u201cIf our movement spent as much time soberly evaluating our policies and programs as we do polishing our public image,\u00a0 then no doubt the struggle for justice would be on higher ground.<\/p>\n \u201cSurrounded by the deaths of millions of precious beings,\u00a0 this industry has demonstrated neither the concern nor competency to even validate the information upon which it bases life and death decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n This remains among his foremost concerns.<\/p>\n ________________________________________________________________<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/a> From left to right, then-San Francisco SPCA president and later Maddie\u2019s Fund founding executive director Richard Avanzino, Ed Duvin, and No Kill Conference founder Linda Foro,\u00a0 at the 1998 No Kill conference.<\/strong><\/em> On January 13,\u00a0 2026,\u00a0 as an ANIMALS 24-7<\/strong> guest columnist, \u00a0I presented empirical data on the accepted standard for population control\u2014referred to as the 70% Rule.<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 (See \u201cNo kill\u201d: Still stumbling in the dark after all these years, by Ed Duvin<\/a>.)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This was no original insight on my part.<\/p>\n The late pioneering spay\/neuter veterinarian Marvin Mackie explained it in detail more than two decades ago:\u00a0 see Pet Overpopulation and the 70% Rule<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n Stated succinctly, \u00a0it is well established\u2013\u2013and has been for eight centuries\u2013\u2013that reaching 70% sterilization creates a critical mass that permanently stabilizes a population of any sort of animal from microbes to megafauna.<\/p>\n But it seems science carries no more weight among animal advocacy movement leadership than with the current Donald Trump administration.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n Since publication of \u201cNo kill\u201d:\u00a0 still stumbling in the dark,\u00a0<\/a> some animal advocacy leaders have argued that sterilization and measuring success by live release data are not mutually exclusive.<\/p>\n I will respond to that shortly,\u00a0 but first allow me to address the state of animal advocacy movement leadership. \u00a0I have had the privilege of participating in three movements and consulting for several others.<\/p>\n Each movement has its shortcomings, \u00a0as they are merely subsets of our larger culture. However, \u00a0in my experience, no movement is more plagued by leadership challenges than animal advocacy.<\/p>\n The reasons are many and varied, \u00a0starting with the difficulty of attracting the \u201cbest and brightest\u201d of available talent. \u00a0These high performers have myriad career choices, \u00a0and only a small percentage elect social causes. \u00a0Among those, \u00a0most are attracted to careers that benefit humans. \u00a0They may support animal protection, \u00a0but they perceive it as a lesser priority.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n This is compounded by a lack of professionalism, as few animal protection movement organizations utilize state-of-the-art succession plans to attract top talent.<\/p>\n A more subtle difference is that this movement has highly diverse activists and supporters, spanning the ideological continuum. \u00a0There is also considerable diversity in other causes, \u00a0but there is far more homogeneity in core values. Animal protection primarily attracts those with deep affection for animals, \u00a0whereas social justice causes have a profound commitment to Lady Justice at their core.<\/p>\n Without question, \u00a0there is richness in diversity\u2014from thought to ethnicity\u2014but it can be problematic in reaching consensus on critical issues.<\/p>\n As an illustration, \u00a0I cannot imagine a social justice organization turning a blind eye to the loss of human lives. \u00a0Yet, \u00a0in this movement,\u00a0 leaders seem impervious to such a tragedy, \u00a0with mounting casualties from dangerous dogs. \u00a0Only those with shades of misanthropy would remain silent while innocent lives are needlessly lost. \u00a0This is a regrettable form of selective morality,\u00a0 and yet many defend the indefensible.\u00a0 Justice is not divisible.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n Another challenge is that victims in virtually every cause have a voice.\u00a0 They speak out if those acting in their name fall short of their responsibilities.<\/p>\n Even in children\u2019s causes, \u00a0young people grow up and hold others accountable. \u00a0They shared their poignant stories of life in substandard orphanages, and now we have foster and family-based care\u2014not ideal, \u00a0but a marked improvement. \u00a0Animals never have a voice, \u00a0and thus the movement is without accountability to those it professes to protect.<\/p>\n Thirty-seven years ago, \u00a0I wrote an essay on the lamentable \u201ckilling them kindly\u201d mantra of shelter leadership. \u00a0It is obviously imperative to provide a humane death when health or behavior require it, \u00a0but our foremost responsibility is to affirm life.<\/p>\n My essay was widely praised, \u00a0but it is not false modesty to say the accolades were unwarranted. \u00a0Every word I wrote was self-evident and should have been written before I was born.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n All these years later, \u00a0the debate is no longer about no-kill, \u00a0but what constitutes no-kill. \u00a0In the overpopulation and world hunger movements, \u00a0it would be laughable if someone proposed to redefine success by the percentage of enfeebled leaving relief stations alive.<\/p>\n Analogies are never perfect, \u00a0but the salient point is, \u00a0this movement\u2019s propensity to undermine its stated mission is unmatched.<\/p>\n I can already hear opposing voices saying,\u00a0 \u201cWe aren\u2019t diminishing the importance of sterilization in favor of live release rates, \u00a0as we prioritize both.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s fine if you are flush with resources, \u00a0but that is hardly the reality for most shelters. It is sheer nonsense for affluent organizations to redefine success and then claim it doesn\u2019t cause shelters to primarily focus on live release rates.<\/p>\n Only those heavily invested in perpetuating the status quo would offer such a surreal assertion.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n Why in the name of reason, \u00a0after shelters were finally on the right track, \u00a0did movement leaders decide to change the metric by which success was measured?<\/p>\n Without a mandate, \u00a0a select group took it upon themselves to redefine no-kill by a metric with no scientific support or history of success.<\/p>\n The Asilomar Accords became the norm for no rational reason, \u00a0in part because a signatory of the accords represented the movement\u2019s leading foundation. \u00a0Their enormous influence played a significant role in institutionalizing live-release rates as the no-kill standard.<\/p>\n No one is questioning the major players\u2019 intent, \u00a0but they acted capriciously and with a manifest disregard for scholarship. \u00a0A change of this magnitude requires considerable deliberation and research,\u00a0 not a self-appointed group of leaders meeting for a few days in California.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n If they had done their due diligence,\u00a0 they likely would have changed course. \u00a0However,\u00a0 diligence is a lonely stranger in this movement.<\/p>\n None of this is written self-righteously, \u00a0as though I descended from the mountaintop with great wisdom. \u00a0All I am asking is that the signatories of the Asilomar Accords meet again, \u00a0and find the humility and integrity to say, \u00a0\u201cWe stand by the live release rate as a useful measure, but we erred in not acknowledging that sterilization is the only proven means of ending this tragedy.\u201d<\/p>\n That does not seem like too much to ask of movement leaders, \u00a0but I caution readers not to hold their breath.<\/p>\n <\/a> Socrates. (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n Why do organizations that experience extensive growth often lose their way?<\/p>\n When rapid growth is poorly managed, \u00a0decisions are predicated more on self-interest than principle\u2014severely diluting founding ideals.<\/p>\n Most leaders lack the training and professionalism to recognize the perils of growth, \u00a0and any criticism directed their way is simply dismissed. \u00a0They hold the widespread cultural view that big is better, \u00a0and those with size and power are above accountability.<\/p>\n Some time ago, \u00a0when directing an ethics center, \u00a0I wrote these words before leaving this movement to serve another cause: \u00a0\u201cI have endeavored these past years to follow the Socratic tradition of raising thorny questions. \u00a0As organizations grow, \u00a0principles are often subordinated to self-interest, \u00a0with expediency reigning supreme. \u00a0Significant gains have occurred in public awareness and damage control, \u00a0but not systemic approaches that reach the roots of exploitation.\u201d<\/p>\nChoose wisely,\u00a0 as homeless animals have no choice.<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\nDoes science carry no weight?<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nAre sterilization & live release rates mutually exclusive?<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nLack of professionalism<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nAnimals cannot speak for themselves<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nNo longer about no-kill, \u00a0but what constitutes no-kill<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nWhy in the name of reason<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nDiligence is a lonely stranger<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nWhen rapid growth is poorly managed<\/h2>\n