MA first state set to ban de-barking surgery

[Angelus9]

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/24308747/detail.html

BOSTON --

​

Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets
​

A controversial surgery that stops dogs from barking and cats from meowing will soon be illegal in Massachusetts. On Wednesday, the first-in-the-nation ban on devocalization surgery will go into effect on the Bay State.

The surgery involves cutting an animal's vocal cords to stop them from making sounds, according to the Humane Society.

The measure, named Logan's Law, was signed into law by Gov. Deval Patrick in April after it received overwhelming bipartisan support in the Legislature.

The surgery exposes animals to the possibilities of infection, blood loss and scarred vocal cord tissue regrowth, which could lead to chronic coughing, gagging and breathing difficulties, according to the Humane Society.

The law allows for the surgery to be performed if there are medical reasons including injuries, congenital defects and diseases.

Supporters of the surgery say it can allow families to keep a vocal pet that would otherwise be surrendered or euthanized, and it can help diffuse potential neighborhood issues spurred by noisy pets.

More than 200 veterinarians, animal shelter workers and animal behavior experts endorsed Logan's Law, which is named for a show dog that was surrendered after receiving the surgery.

Anyone who violates the law could face up to five years in prison.
Copyright 2010 by TheBostonChannel.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[thearsonist]

I'm glad to hear news regarding the banning of de-bark surgery. I am highly against the practice, let alone the idea of debarking. Only one veterinarian in my clinic continues to perform these surgeries. He, along with another DVM in the clinic, are set in their ways of practice from vet school in the 1980's. (They are among the types that still use Estradiol for female urinary incontinence.) It's hard to practice contemporary vet med when the owner of your clinic is still using outdated techniques.

Thankfully, we're able to utilize a CO2 laser for the majority of our surgeries.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

Debarking is one of those surgeries that needs to remain legal for the extreme cases. Would you rather a dog be *professionally* (ie good pain management, well done etc) debarked, or euthanized, given to a shelter, thrown away on craigslist, etc because a family becomes forced to move out, face court orders, etc because of the dog (and this is assuming all the usual training methods have been tried and behavioralists consulted). It is a surgery that needs to be reserved only for very few cases - in NO way shape or form should it be done without careful consideration or the rare circumstance after all other methods have been tried.... but I would rather see a dog debarked than the other options I mentioned. It reminds me of adult docking for "happy tail syndrome" in a way (again, after all other methods have been tried and the dog keeps hurting itself - however with debarking cases, the dog may face even euthanasia if such circumstances dictate something needs to be done - I'm not explainign it terribly well but hopefully you catch my meaning).

It should in NO WAY be encouraged. Let me repeat that: in no way ENCOURAGED. But it needs to remain legal.

 

[nyanko]

I agree with WhtsThFrequency.

There are some breeds that are naturally more of barkers than other breeds, and there are some individuals in those breeds who just can't be trained out of it.

The Great Pyrenees in my avatar is debarked. The breed rescue where I got him actually got the surgery done after he had been returned to rescue the second time, not counting the initial surrender that landed him in the kill shelter where they got him in the first place. The thing is, Sam would temperamentally make a great farm dog except for the fact that he is irreparably male dog aggressive and physically not up to the job. His hips and back are really bad, and he wasn't raised around kids so he's a little unpredictable around them and likes to play very rough. But he's very alert and likes to tell everyone what's going on within a one block radius of his territory. Any home that had the room for a constant barker already had dogs, or had kids...his only real option was to be an only dog, and to someone who could handle a large, somewhat difficult dog and didn't have kids around. So since his scope was already limited, the rescue made the decision to get him debarked in order to not have to further limit it and prevent him from finding a home. Even with having been debarked, he was in rescue for over 3 years total until I took him in. In the last 3 years he's come a long way - he will greet visitors in a down-stay, listens to verbal commands to relax when he passes a male dog on lead (though I would fear for the life of any that actually approached him...), and is generally a pleasant dog. Damned if he doesn't still bark constantly though, despite all attempts at intervention. Moreover, he doesn't really seem to KNOW that the barking doesn't really make that loud of a sound, and he has no scars or indication of throat pain or anything like that.

So, as usual I'm reluctant to support the banning of any procedure when used in the right situation and performed by an experienced, knowledgeable professional using appropriate pain management protocols.

 

[NStarz]

I'm not too sure of the specifics in this case, but I would assume there's some kind of contingency in place for vets to perform the surgery if deemed medically necessary? Whtsthfrequency, I understand your point completely, however, I think there needs to be some kind of stipulation that "convenience" debarking is not acceptable, and this is the only way I can think of to do that. Obviously, if all training methods have been exhausted (and there are a lot!), then it should be considered as a last resort to euth.

However, I do think the purpose of this law is to stop the convenience aspect of it--ie, person doesn't want to train their barking dog, oh! let's get him debarked!

*facepalm*

I don't think the law would be necessary if the veterinary profession took a solid stance on this, but the lines are always blurry. This seems like the clearest way to get a point across that convenience debarking is NOT okay, and it may possibly leave a way out if it is really deemed necessary by a veterinarian for medical reasons, in addition to a certified dog training professional (or veterinary behaviorist) for behavioral reasons.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

Yeah that is the issue. I totally applaud the THOUGHTS behind this legislation, and its goals to eliminate such a surgery for convenience. It's just frustrating to think of how complex "legalese" is and how difficult it would be to write in provisions for extreme cases. Bother....😡

 

[sumstorm]

Isn't it already banned in NJ except in extreme (well documented) cases?

 

[thearsonist]

I'm not quite sure how anyone can not be against the practice of debark surgery. In *special* cases, I might try to understand the idea behind the surgery. However, the practice is inhumane, point blank.
Yes, we all get those clients whose pets bark at literally everything, however, this is no reason to sever vocal cords because "it's annoying."
It's most commonly the toy breeds, who try to compensate their small stature with their bark 🙂. In the same sense, we do also see the clients with pets who are 60-70+ lbs that pull their owners left and right to explore the new environment. Forgive me if I am wrong, but is it not the owner's fault (majority) that their pet is rampantly pulling or barking? The biggest problem we have here is behavioral. Dogs can be taught not to bark, (I've taught both of my dogs, and they only bark when I say "speak", or "Who is it!?") Also, early socialization can prevent lots of problems, especially at the vet. Your 110lb bullmastiff is less likely to drag you across the lobby to check out the other dogs if they have a well-socialized upbringing. There will always be owners who may get a pomeranian because they're small and cute, but are quickly brought back to reality when it is screaming bloody murder at a pedestrian walking down the street. If the owner does not confront this problem, it will only go downhill. Which can lead to the dog pound. (I use dog pound to refer to places that frequently euthanize animals that don't "sell". This is different from an animal shelter).

As far as euthanasia, this is out of the question. You would end an animal's life because it barks too much? If so, please reconsider going into veterinary medicine.

 

[NStarz]

I'm not quite sure how anyone can not be against the practice of debark surgery. In *special* cases, I might try to understand the idea behind the surgery. However, the practice is inhumane, point blank.
Yes, we all get those clients whose pets bark at literally everything, however, this is no reason to sever vocal cords because "it's annoying."
It's most commonly the toy breeds, who try to compensate their small stature with their bark 🙂. In the same sense, we do also see the clients with pets who are 60-70+ lbs that pull their owners left and right to explore the new environment. Forgive me if I am wrong, but is it not the owner's fault (majority) that their pet is rampantly pulling or barking? The biggest problem we have here is behavioral. Dogs can be taught not to bark, (I've taught both of my dogs, and they only bark when I say "speak", or "Who is it!?") Also, early socialization can prevent lots of problems, especially at the vet. Your 110lb bullmastiff is less likely to drag you across the lobby to check out the other dogs if they have a well-socialized upbringing. There will always be owners who may get a pomeranian because they're small and cute, but are quickly brought back to reality when it is screaming bloody murder at a pedestrian walking down the street. If the owner does not confront this problem, it will only go downhill. Which can lead to the dog pound. (I use dog pound to refer to places that frequently euthanize animals that don't "sell". This is different from an animal shelter).

As far as euthanasia, this is out of the question. You would end an animal's life because it barks too much? If so, please reconsider going into veterinary medicine.

I don't think anyone is FOR the surgery, just there are a lot of gray areas that this law doesn't take into account. There are tens of thousands of animals put down at shelters across the country EVERY DAY. No, I don't think it is right for an owner to request a debark surgery for mere convenience. However, the seemingly black/white statement that I don't like debark surgery becomes gray when the owner is saying "debark my dog or I will give it to a shelter." Should it happen? Absolutely not. Does it happen? I'm sure it does. In the northeast, going to a shelter may not mean certain death, but down south, where there are stray animals running rampant, that is almost like a death sentence (not saying there are problems with southern shelters, just the fact that a lot of people down there don't spay/neuter so there are a lot of pets and not enough homes!). Would I debark a dog to save it from being sent to an overcrowded shelter that euths for space and save that dog from almost certain death? Maybe.

ETA: Also, as someone who works in a shelter, a lot of the dogs we adopt out are not puppies, or even young dogs. That is not to say that dogs cannot be trained, but there is a critical period of socialization for puppies up to about 3 months of age. A 6 year old dog is wayyy past its socialization landmarks. That is, a shy dog can be socialized to the extent that it does not cower under the table whenver someone comes near her (maybe, possibly, depending on the animal), but that dog will never be a happy-go-lucky, outgoing, sociable dog. I am ALL FOR shelter adoption, but there are some hurdles one must overcome in adopting a pet from a shelter, and the lack of control over that critical socialization period is one of them.

 

[Angelus9]

I'm not too sure of the specifics in this case, but I would assume there's some kind of contingency in place for vets to perform the surgery if deemed medically necessary?

Uh, did you not read the article 😉 :

"The law allows for the surgery to be performed if there are medical reasons including injuries, congenital defects and diseases."

 

[Angelus9]

You all do know that de-barking just reduces the volume of the bark, right? It does not make the dog utterly silent. It gives them a hoarse bark instead of a sharp and louder bark.

A problem barker will still annoy the neighbors, debarked or not. True, the bark might not carry as far, but the dog is still going to make noise.

 

[Jamr0ckin]

This is another instance of good intentions gone wrong. I don't agree with the government telling vets how to practice. I think the AVMA, and the individual state VMAs should get together and decide what is best for our patients. Why are animal-rights activists who are not professionals (i.e. not DVMs or say PhDs in animal science) allowed to influence how veterinarians practice? What is next? They've campaigned for declaws, ear croppings, de-barkings. Pretty soon these people will be dictating every aspexcct of vet med, and that isn't right.
Am I for de-barking? In general, no. But I believe professionals should be making these decisions. Let the AVMA make recommendations such as the discouraging of cosmetic ear crops and tail docs. That came from a group of professionals, who are respected in the community. It makes a bigger statement, and vets are more likely to respect that than a law passed by legislators that are often getting very one-sided information.

 

[NStarz]

Uh, did you not read the article 😉 :

"The law allows for the surgery to be performed if there are medical reasons including injuries, congenital defects and diseases."

Yes, thank you. I do not know, however, what kinds of hurdles one needs to jump over in order for something to be deemed "medically necessary." Making it impossible or improbable for the vet to declare it medically necessary is the same as not allowing for any stipulations in the first place.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

Uh, did you not read the article 😉 :

"The law allows for the surgery to be performed if there are medical reasons including injuries, congenital defects and diseases."

But that doesn't include the serious behavioral cases facing shelters/euth/whatever mentioned earlier in the thread.

 

[thearsonist]

You all do know that de-barking just reduces the volume of the bark, right? It does not make the dog utterly silent. It gives them a hoarse bark instead of a sharp and louder bark.

A problem barker will still annoy the neighbors, debarked or not. True, the bark might not carry as far, but the dog is still going to make noise.

Yes, we are all aware of the results from the surgery.
Personally, I would choose a barking dog (preferably a deep bark) over a hoarse (debarked) shih-tzu any day.

In reply to NZstar's comment about shelters, there are dog pounds, and shelters. Shelters can be divided into sub-categories such as no-kill, temporary placement, and special needs. Each sub-category defines its purpose.
Dog pounds are places that owners drop-off their pets if they do not want the pet anymore, or can't afford tx for a life-threatening illness, usually parvo, Felv/Fiv, or something of the sort. Shelters, however, are for people that are not able to take care of their pet but want to find them a nice alternative home. Their pets either have no medical conditions, or minimal medical care is required.

*I'm not saying that cats with Felv/Fiv are a lost cause, but there is a lot of medical care required. (immunostimulant injections, single pet, ect). unfortunately, the lives of these pets are usually short-lived.

 

[NStarz]

In reply to NZstar's comment about shelters, there are dog pounds, and shelters. Shelters can be divided into sub-categories such as no-kill, temporary placement, and special needs. Each sub-category defines its purpose.
Dog pounds are places that owners drop-off their pets if they do not want the pet anymore, or can't afford tx for a life-threatening illness, usually parvo, Felv/Fiv, or something of the sort. Shelters, however, are for people that are not able to take care of their pet but want to find them a nice alternative home. Their pets either have no medical conditions, or minimal medical care is required.

*I'm not saying that cats with Felv/Fiv are a lost cause, but there is a lot of medical care required. (immunostimulant injections, single pet, ect). unfortunately, the lives of these pets are usually short-lived.

I actually disagree with the above. "Dog pounds" (as far as I know) were traditionally run by the city to take in stray animals. They were kept alive for the minimum amount of time required by the law in that municipality and then they were put down. Dog pounds existed before the modern "animal shelters" and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find ANY modern animal-care facility call itself a "dog pound" unless it is still under direct control of the city and is being used to hold stray animals until they are redeemed or put down.

Modern animal shelters may or may not be well-run, but 99% of them have a goal of adopting out animals to loving homes. This is not to say that they all succeed or that there aren't differing policies within animal shelters, but the distinction between animal shelters and dog pounds is not where (I think) you are placing it.

I work at an open admissions shelter. We take in any animal that comes in to our doors as well as from other states and other shelters. We are close to becoming so-called "No Kill" (93% adoption for dogs, 85% I think for cats--you need >90% adoption/redemption for both dogs and cats to be considered a no-kill facility).

There are other types of shelters, rescue groups, etc, as you mentioned. There are those that are designated "no-kill" that are private facilities and only go around to other shelters and hand-pick the most adoptable animals so their adoption rates are high. There are shelters that euthanize for space. There are shelters that will keep any animal alive regardless of its quality of life (or possible risk to the public). I have not heard the term "pound" used ever since the modern shelter movement has evolved, and I think it is a disservice to the animal welfare community to say that ANY modern animal care facility is still taking in unwanted animals and euthanizing them without chance of adoption (internal politics notwithstanding).

We are an "animal shelter," by your definition. We have a special FIV+ room and adopt out FIV+ cats to loving homes. We have provided dogs with ACL surgery (through the wonderful donations of vets in our area!), we have allowed dogs that are living with terminal illnesses (but still have good quality of life) to live out the rest of their lives in a loving foster home. We get aggressive animals, animals that hate dogs/cats/kids/old people/men/women/anything that moves, animals that need expensive medical care or extensive behavior modification. No, not all shelters will take in these animals, but the shelters that do not are not considered "dog pounds," they are shelters with different policies and hopefully the same overall goal of animal welfare and adoption to good, loving, forever homes.

ETA: There are city-run shelters that still may perform the function of a "pound," ie, take in stray animals under contract with the city. But I'm sure they all have adoption programs as well, even if they are under contract to take in animals off the street. Many shelters nowadays are privately run. Dog pound = no chance of adoption for the animals, IMO. There may have been some simple adoption programs in traditional dog pounds, but not like we see today. Animal sheltering is an entirely different (and evolved) field of animal welfare. It's gone beyond redemption vs. euthanasia and providing basic care to stray animals to a strongly linked network of people working to place homeless animals into quality homes.

 

[BaliDoll]

I agree with what has already been said, dogs will be put in added danger due to this law if they are barkers and the owners can't find a quick fix. It horrifies me when I hear the stories of people trying to do elective surgeries like de-barking and ear cropping themselves... and there may be a rise of this if it's outlawed. People don't research breeds before they get them, people don't CARE if that's an inherent quality in a breed once it's a problem for them, and they will surrender the dog or something worse if there is no instant gratification type alternative.
In my own moral beliefs, it's horrible to de-bark a dog for your convenience. I wouldn't do it to a dog unless it was the ONLY alternative... and honestly I don't see many people being happy with the results. The dogs bark turns into a raspy, much more annoying and disturbing sound, in my opinion. My AWFUL step mother breeds yorkies and gets them all de-barked if she ends up keeping them for show and breeding. that kind of logic completely mystifies me... why breed an inherently barky dog if you don't want barking? she's an idiot.

 

[nyanko]

Dogs can be taught not to bark, (I've taught both of my dogs, and they only bark when I say "speak", or "Who is it!?")

So what you're saying is that your two dogs could be taught not to bark. Great for you. Unfortunately, for my dog, whatever intrinsic positive reinforcement he gets from barking is far and away more satisfying to him than food, treats, clicks, attention, toys, or any other method of reinforcement. He quite honestly cannot be redirected if he gets it in his mind to bark.

Also, early socialization can prevent lots of problems, especially at the vet. Your 110lb bullmastiff is less likely to drag you across the lobby to check out the other dogs if they have a well-socialized upbringing.

And yes, I also wish that 7 years ago my dog's previous owners would have subscribed to this notion of early socialization and training. Of course, were that the case he may not have ended up in a shelter and breed rescue for the majority of his formative years in the first place...

Which can lead to the dog pound. (I use dog pound to refer to places that frequently euthanize animals that don't "sell". This is different from an animal shelter).

The absurdity of this "dog pound" and "shelter" dichotomy has already been addressed and with more eloquence than I feel like your ideas are worth, so let's leave it at that.

As far as euthanasia, this is out of the question. You would end an animal's life because it barks too much? If so, please reconsider going into veterinary medicine.

I don't think it's a direct "This dog barks too much, put it to sleep" mandate for anyone who's planning on entering the veterinary field. The argument is that if the dog is for the most part untrainable with respect to barking and has other issues that would preclude being able to find a home that can tolerate a frequent barker, it's easy to see how the dog could either end up euthanized or in a shelter for way too long (which could also be somewhat damaging to the dog's social and behavioral development!).

Yes, we are all aware of the results from the surgery.
Personally, I would choose a barking dog (preferably a deep bark) over a hoarse (debarked) shih-tzu any day.

You know, personally the depth and volume of the bark don't matter much to me either - the "smoker's bark" is sort of annoying. However, the louder, deeper bark carries much better, causing much more of a neighborhood problem and the possibility of noise ordinance violations.

 

[sumstorm]

I thought surgical procedures could not be performed on dogs going in the show ring?

Can someone share a link to the official documents that defines what 'pounds' and 'shelters' are and what constitutes 'no-kill' vs other? I am curious, because I have never seen any legislation that defines it this way, but I would love to share it with some of the organizations near where my family lives.

 

[NStarz]

I thought surgical procedures could not be performed on dogs going in the show ring?

Can someone share a link to the official documents that defines what 'pounds' and 'shelters' are and what constitutes 'no-kill' vs other? I am curious, because I have never seen any legislation that defines it this way, but I would love to share it with some of the organizations near where my family lives.

Hi Sumstorm, these are mostly arbitrary designations (evolved over time by the animal welfare community), but I'll try to come up with some official-looking links 😉 I'll edit this post later. Those are the definitions used in context in my shelter in the NE, other places may be different. Again, I'll look for some links and post back.

ETA:

Okay, good old wikipedia's definition of "dog pound" under its animals shelter article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_shelter

"In the past, a shelter was more commonly referred to as a "dog pound", a term which had its origins in the impoundments of agricultural communities, where stray cattle would be penned up or impounded until claimed by their owners."

Also on the above link is the distinction between open-door vs. no killl vs. animal sancutary, etc.

From the No-Kill Advocacy Center (http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/Matrix_002.pdf)

"To put it bluntly: regardless of what claims shelters make, No Kill can only be acheived when at least 90% of all the animals impounded (regardless of reason) are saved..."

The No-Kill movement was pioneered by Nathan Winograd. The first No Kill shelter (so-called) was the Tomkin's County's SPCA in NY, designated No-Kill following a complete overhaul of the ineffective shelter policy that caused the unncessary euthanization of many animals before Winograd became director.



Note: I am not agreeing or disagreeing with these designations or their use in categorizing animal sheltering organizations. This is merely the state of affairs as is designated by the animal welfare community. All shelters are trying to do their part in finding animals homes, with the hearts of the bureaucracy usually in the right place.

 

[BaliDoll]

I thought surgical procedures could not be performed on dogs going in the show ring?

If that's directed toward what my wretched step mother does to her yorkies, ie: de-barking them because of their breed rather than waiting for their actual inclination to bark to be proven and THEN de-barking (not any better but whatever..), then I MAY be wrong that she does it to the ones she shows... but I know that her two breeding females are de-barked, and her two pet quality pups she's kept. Perhaps she de-barked the bitches after their championships... either way, she practiced no methods of redirecting the behavior, just went straight to her vet who does this all the time for her when she has new puppies going to homes that want them debarked. But I know she has show dogs that are de-barked... whether they were shown WHILE de-barked I don;t know...

She also always recommends it to the people who are buying her puppies.... 🙁 I hate her. With a passion.

 

[Angelus9]

For the AKC show ring you cannot exhibit a spayed or neutered dog in conformation (obedience, tracking, etc. it's ok) and you cannot do any surgeries that alter the appearance of the dog, so de-barking is ok. Not saying they approve of it, but they wouldn't know it was done.

Big breeders of Shelties and Collies were (maybe still are for all I know) notorious for routinely debarking puppies by the litter - ALL were debarked.

 

[sumstorm]

NStarz, it bugs me when folks start splitting hairs on terms that don't, as of yet, have well-defined meanings and/or the meanings differ vastly by municipality, county, and state. Some no kill shelters are hoarders in disguise. Some shelters in areas with low surrender/stray rates are no-kill for adoptable animals....and it is possible that less than 90% of animals coming in are viably adoptable. Some high kill shelters are not pounds. Some county facilities that typically don't adopt will if someone comes in and expresses a high interest, but aren't able to hold animals beyond their last hold date. Trying to put easy labels out, or strict definitions, doesn't take into consideration all the variations existing across the country, and might be a bit misleading to others, affecting how they consider spending their time and energy, overlooking a great 'pound' to go to a no-kill that is actually a hoarders project, or feeling betrayed when they find out their no-kill shelter euths 16% of animals because that is the ratio that comes in with serious behavior issues that endager human life or with such poor health and prognosis that treatment would be unlikely to help and would prolong suffering. Sorry, it is a pet peeve of mine, and may be the result of dealing with shelters in three distinctly different regions of the country (midwest, NE, and deep south.)

 

[sumstorm]

There are other surgical restrictions that I found on AKC, but apparently the policy on debarking is "Debarking is also a decision left up to a dog's breeder or owner. Because debarking does not change the appearance or temperament of a dog, the AKC Board has determined that debarking does not make a dog ineligible. This procedure allows owners to alleviate noise in populated neighborhoods so that the dogs do not become a nuisance." I haven't been in a conformation ring in over a decade, and didn't really enjoy it then. preferred obedience, herding, agility, etc. My mistake! 🙂

For the AKC show ring you cannot exhibit a spayed or neutered dog in conformation (obedience, tracking, etc. it's ok) and you cannot do any surgeries that alter the appearance of the dog, so de-barking is ok. Not saying they approve of it, but they wouldn't know it was done.

Big breeders of Shelties and Collies were (maybe still are for all I know) notorious for routinely debarking puppies by the litter - ALL were debarked.

 

[NStarz]

NStarz, it bugs me when folks start splitting hairs on terms that don't, as of yet, have well-defined meanings and/or the meanings differ vastly by municipality, county, and state. Some no kill shelters are hoarders in disguise. Some shelters in areas with low surrender/stray rates are no-kill for adoptable animals....and it is possible that less than 90% of animals coming in are viably adoptable. Some high kill shelters are not pounds. Some county facilities that typically don't adopt will if someone comes in and expresses a high interest, but aren't able to hold animals beyond their last hold date. Trying to put easy labels out, or strict definitions, doesn't take into consideration all the variations existing across the country, and might be a bit misleading to others, affecting how they consider spending their time and energy, overlooking a great 'pound' to go to a no-kill that is actually a hoarders project, or feeling betrayed when they find out their no-kill shelter euths 16% of animals because that is the ratio that comes in with serious behavior issues that endager human life or with such poor health and prognosis that treatment would be unlikely to help and would prolong suffering. Sorry, it is a pet peeve of mine, and may be the result of dealing with shelters in three distinctly different regions of the country (midwest, NE, and deep south.)

Completely agree! Unfortunately, the public perceives "No kill" as the way to go nowadays, whereas many so-called no kill shelters are limited admission and only take the most adoptable animals from other shelters to maintain their no-kill status. I definitely agree that it is splitting hairs, and that the main goal of most shelters (save maybe the ASPCA, but that's another story 😉 ) is to adopt out animals to good homes. Most shelters would do well to adopt out as many animals as possible, within the possibilities of their organization and with a little creativity and outside help. Whether or not a shelter is "no kill" is not the point--the point is adopting out as many animals as possible to loving, responsible, caring, forever homes.

What I will say, is that I don't think "pounds," in their traditional sense, exist anymore. You will not find a shelter (as far as I know) that calls itself the ________ Pound. The mentality of the animal welfare community has changed and with it has come great things for lost and homeless animals. Terms may differ, but the goals are hopefully all the same!