![\"Shelter](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.animals24-7.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/Picsart_26-09-01_12-48-04-532-e1788292143725.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 This\u00a0<\/em>ANIMALS 24-7\u00a0guest column originally appeared as the September 1,\u00a0 2026 installment of author Ed Boks\u2019 own blog,\u00a0\u00a0Animal Politics with Ed Boks<\/a>.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Boks may be reached at\u00a0animalpolitics8@gmail.com<\/a>.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ed Boks\u2019 resum\u00e9 in animal welfare includes having headed the animal control departments in Maricopa County,\u00a0 Arizona;\u00a0 New York City;\u00a0 Los Angeles;\u00a0 and Yavapai County,\u00a0 Arizona,\u00a0 plus the Spokane Humane Society.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Ed Boks,\u00a0 below,\u00a0 appreciates and amplifies Ed Duvin\u2019s message in Is your allegiance to movement leadership or those you serve? by Ed Duvin<\/a><\/strong>,\u00a0 which is essentially the same message that Duvin issued 37 years ago in his essay \u201cIn The Name of Mercy,\u201d\u00a0 as more-or-less the Thomas Paine \/ Common Sense<\/em> author of what became the no-kill movement.<\/p>\n Something more must be added,\u00a0 however,\u00a0 that Ed Duvin emphasized:<\/p>\n \u201cI cannot imagine a social justice organization turning a blind eye to the loss of human lives.\u00a0 Yet,\u00a0 in this movement,\u00a0 leaders seem impervious to such a tragedy,\u00a0 with mounting casualties from dangerous dogs.\u00a0 Only those with shades of misanthropy would remain silent while innocent lives are needlessly lost.\u00a0 This is a regrettable form of selective morality,\u00a0 and yet many defend the indefensible.\u00a0 Justice is not divisible.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n Since Ed Duvin wrote \u201cIn The Name of Mercy,\u201d in 1989,\u00a0 ten times more Americans have been killed by dangerous dogs than in the entire 131-year previous documented history of the organized humane movement.<\/p>\n Worse,\u00a0 ten times more Americans are killed by dangerous dogs each year than in 1989,\u00a0 100 times more Americans (at least) suffer Level 3 and up injuries in dog attacks,\u00a0 and the number of Americans killed each year by dogs rehomed from animal shelters now exceeds the total number killed by dogs per year in 1989.<\/p>\n More than 70% of this killing and mayhem is inflicted by pit bulls,\u00a0 90% by pit bulls and other closely related \u201cbully\u201d breeds,\u00a0 including Cane Corso,\u00a0 Dogo Argentino,\u00a0 Presa Canario,\u00a0 et al<\/em>,\u00a0 while the no-kill sheltering community disregards breed-specific reality,\u00a0 pushing more and more dangerous dogs out among the public,\u00a0 along with leaving more and more dangerous dogs at large instead of accepting owner surrenders and impounds.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n That isn\u2019t all.\u00a0 The U.S. canine anti-rabies vaccination rate has over the same years dropped from upward of 80% to as low as 52%.<\/p>\n The original point and purpose of tax-supported animal control agencies and dog pounds,\u00a0 which evolved into sheltering contracts with humane societies,\u00a0 was to protect the public from dog attacks and rabies.<\/p>\n Until and unless we can return to the level of public safety from dog attacks and rabies that Americans enjoyed in 1989,\u00a0 no-kill is an abysmal failure.\u00a0 Redefining \u201csuccess\u201d by denying the hardest part of the job is no success at all.<\/p>\n Ed Boks,\u00a0 by the way,\u00a0 has previously pointed this out himself.\u00a0 See How Los Angeles normalized shelter dog attacks, by Ed Boks<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n Ed Duvin, widely considered \u201cthe father of the no-kill movement,\u201d has reopened a question he first posed 37 years ago, a question the movement has yet to answer:<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Have we confused excellent shelter outcomes with achieving no-kill?<\/em><\/p>\n A no-kill movement worthy of the name must be accountable for more than shelter outcomes. Its ultimate test is more fundamental:<\/p>\n Is the community becoming less dependent on its shelter?<\/p>\n That question does not diminish the importance of live release, \u00a0adoption, \u00a0foster care, \u00a0rescue, \u00a0medical treatment, \u00a0behavior support, \u00a0return-to-owner work, \u00a0or humane euthanasia decisions. \u00a0Shelter animals deserve every possible opportunity to leave alive and well. \u00a0Shelters should be judged by how they treat the animals in their care.<\/p>\n <\/a> Ed Boks.<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>But shelter performance is not the same thing as reducing shelter dependency.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n A shelter can improve its live-release rate, \u00a0expand foster care, \u00a0build rescue partnerships,\u00a0 increase adoptions, transport more animals, \u00a0and save more animals than ever before.<\/p>\n Those are real achievements. They matter to every animal they save.<\/p>\n Yet a community can do all of that while remaining deeply dependent on its shelter.\u00a0 It can become better at managing animal outcomes without reducing the number of animals needing the shelter.<\/p>\n That is the distinction the movement can no longer afford to ignore.<\/p>\n <\/a> Ed Duvin.<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n Duvin is not raising this concern for the first time.<\/p>\n In his 1989 essay,\u00a0In the Name of Mercy<\/a><\/em>, \u00a0Duvin challenged the shelter world to reject the idea that killing healthy animals was an act of mercy. \u00a0He warned that shelters had become too consumed by internal operations and daily crisis management while giving too little attention to prevention, public education, \u00a0reliable data, \u00a0and the causes of animal homelessness.<\/p>\n Duvin was writing at a time when millions of healthy animals were dying in shelters each year. \u00a0His language was blunt because the reality was brutal. \u00a0A movement that claimed to care for animals, \u00a0he argued, \u00a0could not call itself humane while accepting the killing of healthy animals as an unavoidable part of sheltering.<\/p>\n Duvin\u2019s concern did not end at the shelter door. \u00a0He argued that shelters had neglected the community education, \u00a0outreach, \u00a0reliable data, \u00a0and prevention needed to break the cycle of animal homelessness, \u00a0shelter dependence, \u00a0and preventable killing.<\/p>\n In January 2026, \u00a0Duvin returned\u00a0to that concern. \u00a0He argued that no-kill had become too closely tied to live-release rates and that the movement had allowed a shelter-outcome measure to stand in for population stabilization and prevention.<\/p>\n <\/a> Then-San Francisco SPCA president and later Maddie\u2019s Fund founding director Richard Avanzino, Ed Duvin, and No Kill Conference founder Linda Foro, Richard Avanzino at the 1998 No Kill Conference.<\/strong><\/em> On August 27, \u00a02026,\u00a0 writing again for\u00a0ANIMALS 24-7<\/strong>, \u00a0he sharpened the question further:<\/p>\n \u201cIs the movement loyal to its own leadership, \u00a0metrics, and institutional habits, \u00a0or to the animals it claims to serve?\u201d<\/p>\n Duvin\u2019s point is not that live release is meaningless. \u00a0It is not that foster care, \u00a0adoption, \u00a0rescue, \u00a0and transport do not save lives.<\/p>\n His challenge is more fundamental.<\/p>\n Wrote Duvin:<\/p>\n \u201cNo-kill cannot be achieved by getting better at managing animal homelessness. \u00a0It must also reduce the number of animals dependent on shelters in the first place.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/a> The original Morris Animal Refuge, the first animal shelter in the U.S., started out no-kill in 1858, but was unable to remain no-kill after taking the Philadelphia animal control contract in 1874.<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n A shelter\u2019s live release rate tells us what happened to the animals whose outcomes it reports.<\/p>\n It may reflect stronger adoption programs, foster and rescue networks, veterinary care, behavior support, \u00a0or improved return-to-owner practices. \u00a0Those are all measures of shelter performance.<\/p>\n But a high live release rate does not answer every question that matters.<\/p>\n It does not tell us whether fewer animals entered the shelter than last year.<\/p>\n It does not tell us whether puppy and kitten intake is declining.<\/p>\n It does not tell us whether residents in high-intake communities have timely, \u00a0affordable access to spay\/neuter and basic veterinary care.<\/p>\n It does not tell us whether families received help before a housing problem, \u00a0medical bill, \u00a0behavior issue, \u00a0or temporary crisis led to a surrender.<\/p>\n And it does not tell us whether the community is becoming less dependent on its shelter. \u00a0That is the question that reaches beyond the shelter walls.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n A community making real progress should, \u00a0over time, \u00a0need its shelter less.<\/p>\n That does not mean the shelter should offer fewer services. \u00a0It means fewer animals should require those services.<\/p>\n It means fewer unplanned litters entering the shelter.<\/p>\n Fewer animals surrendered because a family could not obtain affordable care.<\/p>\n Fewer pets relinquished because housing support arrived too late.<\/p>\n Fewer animals transported across county or state lines because the community has not invested enough in reducing the flow of animals into its own shelter system.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n It means the shelter can become what a humane community needs it to be: \u00a0a reliable safety net for animals in genuine crisis,\u00a0 not the community\u2019s default answer to every preventable problem.<\/p>\n When that line blurs,\u00a0 when a community relies on shelters and rescue organizations to absorb animals who are homeless, \u00a0displaced, surrendered, \u00a0or otherwise at risk, \u00a0it creates what Animal Politics<\/em>\u00a0calls\u00a0shelter dependency<\/em>.<\/p>\n Shelter dependency is not an abstract statistic. \u00a0It is a measure of how much a community depends on its shelter to manage problems that should, \u00a0whenever possible, \u00a0be prevented before they become shelter cases.<\/p>\n The central question is not simply whether the shelter saved the animals whose outcomes it reported.<\/p>\n It is whether fewer animals in the community need the shelter.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n Too much of the modern no-kill movement is devoted to managing a community\u2019s dependence on its shelter rather than reducing it.<\/p>\n The movement has built an extensive downstream system. \u00a0It has developed adoption campaigns, \u00a0foster programs, \u00a0veterinary treatment, \u00a0rescue networks, \u00a0transport pipelines, \u00a0marketing systems, behavior programs, \u00a0intake diversion practices, \u00a0and sophisticated ways to move animals through crowded facilities.<\/p>\n These interventions can be humane. \u00a0They can be necessary. \u00a0They can save the life of the animal in front of us.<\/p>\n But the need for an intervention does not prove that the crisis that made it necessary is shrinking.<\/p>\n The need for more foster homes, \u00a0more transports, \u00a0more emergency rescue pulls, \u00a0more veterinary capacity, \u00a0and more adoption events is not proof that we are solving the problem.<\/p>\n In some communities, the growing urgency of those needs may show that we have become better at responding to shelter dependency without reducing it.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n We may be winning battles inside the shelter while losing the larger war outside it.<\/p>\n We can celebrate a rising live release rate while intake remains high. \u00a0We can celebrate fuller foster networks while more animals need foster homes each year. \u00a0We can celebrate transport numbers while the communities producing those animals remain dependent on sending them elsewhere. \u00a0We can celebrate managed intake while animals unable to gain admission disappear from official intake counts but not from the community\u2019s unmet need.<\/p>\n The problem is not that downstream programs exist. \u00a0The problem is that the movement has allowed them to define no-kill success.<\/p>\n When no-kill success is measured mainly by how efficiently animals move through the shelter system, shelters will build more capacity to move animals through their doors. \u00a0That may relieve immediate suffering. \u00a0But unless it is paired with serious prevention, \u00a0it does not reduce the number of animals who will need that shelter next year.<\/p>\n That is not an argument against foster care, \u00a0transport, \u00a0adoption, \u00a0rescue, \u00a0or shelter medicine.\u00a0 It is an argument against confusing better crisis management with less crisis.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n If we are serious about ending shelter killing, we cannot be satisfied with becoming more efficient at managing the consequences of animal homelessness. We must reduce the number of animals who need the shelter.<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>The test is simple: \u00a0If an intervention succeeds exactly as intended, \u00a0will the community become less dependent on its shelter next year?<\/p>\n If the answer is no, \u00a0the intervention may still be humane. \u00a0It may still be urgent. \u00a0It may still save lives. \u00a0But it is relieving pressure inside the shelter rather than reducing the upstream conditions that keep filling it.<\/p>\n Hiring more veterinarians may improve shelter flow. \u00a0Recruiting more foster homes may reduce overcrowding. \u00a0Expanding transport may save animals who need placement now.<\/p>\n All of those things can be good.<\/p>\n But targeted prevention can change how many animals need those services tomorrow. \u00a0That is the difference between managing a crisis and reducing the conditions that create the crisis.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n Prevention is easy to undervalue because its success is often invisible. \u00a0The litter is never born. \u00a0The pet is never surrendered. \u00a0The kennel remains empty because an animal never needed it.<\/p>\n But the absence of a crisis is not the absence of accomplishment. \u00a0It is the accomplishment.<\/p>\n This is where Duvin\u2019s call to restore spay\/neuter to the center of animal welfare matters most.<\/p>\n Spay\/neuter is not a magic answer to every reason animals enter shelters. \u00a0 No single intervention is.<\/p>\nEditors\u2019 note:<\/span><\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nDog attack mayhem in the name of mercy<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nPlummeting anti-rabies vaccination rate<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Finish the job that no-kill started<\/strong><\/h2>\n
by Ed Boks<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nImproved shelter performance is not reducing shelter dependency<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nDuvin\u2019s unanswered question<\/strong><\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\nDuvin sharpened the question<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nThe community is not the shelter<\/strong><\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\u201cA community making real progress should, \u00a0over time, \u00a0need its shelter less.\u201d<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nA reliable safety net<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nManaging dependency is not reducing it<\/strong><\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\u201cWinning battles inside the shelter while losing the larger war\u201d<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nPrevention is the work<\/strong><\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nPrevention is easy to undervalue<\/h2>\n