Today, I agree, shelters use the word euphemistically and dishonestly, to soften the notion that they are killing at all. However, I do not think it was insincere for activists of the late 19th century to say, “If we’ve got to kill these animals, we should not be drowning them in cages or clubbing them. We should do something that is not so painful and prolonged,” and to use the word “euthanasia” to describe what they were promoting.

HOWEVER, for those shelters that are NON-PROFIT and supported by donations from people who believe the organizations’ purpose for being is to HELP ANIMALS, killing animals for population control is at best a perversion of the messages they are sending out to donors, and at worst an immoral fraud.

I am unconvinced on the discourse strategy of the “no-kill” camp; however, I am firmly in solidarity with what I perceive as their stance that if a pet animal ends up homeless, it is immoral to kill that animal as a convenient means of solving the problem of its homelessness.

Not trying to keep going in argumentative circles here - just pointing out that there has to be SOME common ground for dialogue to be meaningful - otherwise people either continue to be misled, or get frustrated and give up.

Remember years ago in math classes when you had to draw circles to represent sets, subsets, intersecting sets, and so on? That concept is useful here to make these distinctions. Draw a big circle and draw a smaller circle inside it. Label the big circle “Kill” and label the small circle “Euthanize”. That describes the relationship between the two terms and might help a person understand which situations in which the two can be used interchangeably and which situations in which they cannot.

When a shelter kills healthy animals for population control, they’re operating in the “big circle”. They’re simply killing. That’s the only word between the two that applies.

When Christie chose to end Raven’s life because her suffering could not be relieved any other way, she was “killing” her, but she was ALSO “euthanizing” her (the little circle within the big circle). There is nothing deceptive in this case in choosing to use the word “euthanize” rather than the word “kill”. They BOTH apply, but in this case, “euthanize” actually offers a more precise description of what occurred.

“The public needs to understand what may happen to their pets when they give them up…. perhaps it will make them think twice.”

This is what shelters do NOW. “People are ‘bad,’ and we have to kill the animals to show people they are ‘bad’ until they LEARN.” This is what’s happening now, and this is what’s NOT working. Hence the ever-more misguided and draconian laws.

It’s not us, say the shelters, it’s “them.” We need laws to punish “them.”

Emily, have you read “Redemption”? It would be helpful to the discussion if you have, instead of arguing your assumptions about what Winograd has said and written.

Yes, I had Raven killed. The form of her death was euthanasia. Either term is correct and I sincerely, as someone who makes her living with words, do not agree with you that it is Orwellian or even euphemistic to say she was euthanized.

The dog killed at the shelter because they ran out of cage space was NOT euthanized. That dog was just plain killed. There aren’t two words for that one. Calling that “euthanasia” is Orwellian.

And if my decision to euthanize Raven because I couldn’t stop her suffering was euthanasia, why isn’t a shelter’s decision on the exact same basis also euthanasia? I believe that when a shelter kills an animal who is untreatably suffering or ill in the same way and for the same reasons I did for Raven, it is euthanasia and the use of that word is not Orwellian in the slightest.

I’m sorry Christie, but what you write is Orwellian.
Kill means kill. Dead.
The dead don’t care if you say they were euthanized. Put to sleep. Sent to the Bridge.

They are still dead.

And yes, it is NOT always wrong to kill a pet, as everyone who’s had to end a pet’s suffering knows. (not to mention the appropriate killing of animals who may truly NOT be safely adopted out)

I am absolutely in favor of the goal of “no kill” and I think Winograd’s strategic vision is brilliant.

But this playing around with words is just plain wrong.

And it is deceptive.

The public will assume that when they give up a pet to a “no kill” shelter that it will live out its natural life.

That is not always true.

I think we should stop using words that try to make what we do sound “better”

I think shelters should be absolutely upfront about how many pets they KILL.

The public needs to understand what may happen to their pets when they give them up…. perhaps it will make them think twice.

That to me must be part of the “no kill” goal.

“no kill” will NEVER mean “every pet will live out its natural life whatever its health and/or temperament”.

There will always be a certain number that will be killed.

Let’s be honest.

Honesty will not derail the movement to end the unnecessary and preventable slaughter of pets in shelters, which some are calling “no kill”.

Exactly my point. That’s why it’s important to define succinctly from the get-go.