“No Kill” – What Does It Mean?
“No Kill” is a term coined by Best Friends Animal Society in the 1990s. They defined a no-kill shelter or community as one where euthanasia is reserved only for animals that cannot achieve a safe, healthy, humane outcome—even with veterinary or behavioral intervention. Achieving this requires coordinated efforts between shelters, government or legislation, and the community, so shelters aren’t carrying the burden alone.
To be designated as No Kill, a shelter must typically save at least 90% of the animals entering its care. The remaining 10% usually includes those with untreatable or unmanageable health or behavioral issues.
Does the SPCA Serving Erie County Qualify as a “No-Kill Shelter,” and Has This Organization Received No-Kill Distinction? YES.
Why We Don’t Use That Language
Although our live-release rate meets the national no-kill benchmark of 90%, we choose not to label ourselves this way. While we understand the heart, and oftentimes nuance, behind that term, it can be misleading and oversimplifies the complex realities of animal sheltering. Here are some examples of confusion that stems from using the term “no kill.”
-One-Dimensional Misinterpretation
“No kill” can mistakenly be taken to mean “never euthanize—under any circumstances.” This misreading can create unrealistic expectations.
-Pressure from Misunderstanding
These misunderstandings can lead to community pressure on shelters to keep animals that are suffering or pose a risk to public safety. The label may wrongly imply absolute zero euthanasia, which is not aligned with professional animal welfare standards.
-Risk of Label-Based Division
The term “no kill” can create unintended divisions—implying that every other shelter is a “kill shelter,” which may foster resentment within the broader sheltering community. The implication is also simply not fair. For instance:
BEST FRIENDS’ DEFINITION OF NO KILL: Humanely euthanize only when medically or behaviorally necessary.
COMMON MISCONCEPTION/RISK: “No kill” means never euthanize, even when inhumane or unsafe.
BEST FRIENDS’ DEFINITION OF NO KILL: 90% save-rate benchmark, with flexibility for exception programs.
COMMON MISCONCEPTION/RISK: Believe that a 100% live outcome is the norm.
BEST FRIENDS’ DEFINITION OF NO KILL: Requires collaboration, transparency, and community support to work.
COMMON MISCONCEPTION/RISK: Unrealistic expectation that animal shelters are solely responsible for achieving no-kill status.
We support the spirit of the no-kill movement. It helped lead us to where we are today: a nation where most animals entering shelters can and should be saved. But as the field has evolved, so has our understanding of success. A single metric, like a 90% save rate, tells only part of the story. For example, a shelter that saves 100% of the 100 animals it serves each year is doing great work—but so is the shelter that saves 75% of 4,000 animals, many of them facing urgent or complex challenges. Impact is not just about survival—it’s about access, reach, equity, and how many lives we touch with meaningful care.
Highlighting this distinction ensures that public understanding stays realistic and humane. It protects both animals (by allowing professional assessment in dire cases) and shelters (from backlash when euthanasia is necessary). It also reinforces that true “no kill” is about smart, community-supported, transparent lifesaving.
We stand in partnership with shelters across the country—large and small, rural and urban, public and private—who are doing their best for animals every day. We know that every organization works within its own set of circumstances, and that compassion can look different in different places. We also know that collaboration, not comparison, is what drives real change.
Euthanasia is not the enemy—suffering is.
Every animal is unique—and so is every decision.
Our organization serves a wide range of animals: dogs, cats, horses, hamsters, iguanas, parrots, pigs, and more. We also operate a wildlife center where we care for thousands of injured, orphaned, or ill wild animals each year. The needs of these animals are incredibly diverse—and so are the ethical considerations that guide their care.
Sometimes, the most humane decision we can make is to provide a peaceful and dignified passing. This may be due to untreatable illness, unmanageable suffering, or behaviors that pose serious safety risks.
We also support community members facing heartbreaking circumstances. When a pet is suffering and a family has no access to veterinary care, we step in to help—offering relief, respect, and kindness through our end-of-life humane euthanasia program.
In wildlife care, the standard is different still: animals must be fully rehabilitated and able to survive independently in the wild. Unlike domestic animals that can survive missing one leg or one eye (sometimes with frequent human assistance), in most cases a wild bird or wild mammal cannot live safely with one eye or one wing or three legs. Their survival depends on their wholeness.
Transparency and Trust
At our organization, we believe that transparency and accountability are the foundation of trust with our community, staff, and volunteers. We are committed to sharing our practices and outcomes openly, including the moments when we must make difficult decisions for an animal’s welfare or public safety. By providing the full picture—not only the joyful adoptions, but also the complex and sometimes heartbreaking realities—we help our community understand the care, thought, and compassion behind every choice. This openness allows our Board of Directors, staff, volunteers, and supporters to stand with us as informed partners in lifesaving, united by a shared commitment to doing what is right for both the animals and the people we serve.