My Opinion About the Term 'No-Kill' Doesn't Matter (and Yours Probably Doesn't Either)

The term "no-kill" no doubt raises strong emotions within animal welfare. Discussions often center around whether the language is fair, accurate, understood, or divisive.  

Over the course of my 20-plus years in animal welfare, I've argued (often passionately) on both sides of this debate. But after years of talking with hundreds of people about it, I've reached a final conclusion: 

My opinion about no-kill language doesn’t matter.

I often think that we are making our work harder by not embracing no-kill as a community goal or wanting to shy away from no-kill language.  

When we don’t embrace no-kill language, we are throwing a huge amount of public good will and support out the window. We also can create a conflict with our public when we try to convince them that no-kill isn’t something they should want.  

I would love it if the public was so invested in our work that we could have in-depth conversations with them and have their support. But people are busy and have other priorities.  

They still want pets’ lives to be saved. And no-kill is their language for expressing that value. Regardless of what many of us in the industry think about the term “no-kill,” the language is no longer owned by us. The public owns it.

Each year, Best Friends does a survey that attempts to understand the public’s awareness and perception of no-kill.  

According to the most recent survey, conducted in 2025, about two-thirds of people in the U.S. have awareness of no-kill. Fifty-eight percent of people say that having a no-kill shelter in their area is important.  

Seventy-two percent say they are more likely to support a no-kill shelter in their area. That’s a lot of support.

But national surveys may not always be indicative of what is happening in individual communities, so we often do surveys in targeted areas as well. These more targeted surveys show, again, a familiarity with and support for no-kill, regardless of a community’s size or political leanings.  

The chart below shows the results from surveys in three communities that are very different from each other: Number 1 is a large metropolitan city that is politically pretty blue on the political spectrum. Number 2 is a mid-sized community that I’d mostly describe as pretty moderate, or purple. Number 3 is a mid-sized city in one of the reddest areas of one of the reddest states in the country.

Here is how people responded when asked which of the following statements best reflects their view of euthanasia in animal sheltering. 

Then we asked a follow up question that defines the term no-kill, and asks people what they think of it:  

“No-kill means that all healthy and treatable animals that enter a shelter are found homes. A widely accepted goal for a no-kill shelter is that 90% of dogs and cats leave alive. Do you think your local shelter should become no-kill?” 

And with just two short sentences used to describe no-kill, support for no-kill reaches nearly 80% across all three communities, with opposition being around 10%.  

It’s worth noting that in community number 1, there had been a pretty extensive anti-no kill campaign in place for a while and even then, opposition to no-kill was quite low.

When I see data like this, and I think about the argument that “no-kill is divisive,” my first thought is, divisive for who? Because it’s not divisive for the public. 

In this political climate, it’s nearly impossible to get 80% of people to agree on anything. And yet, consistently, across different communities and different political ideologies, no-kill has overwhelming support.  

It seems that no-kill isn’t divisive for the public — only for us in animal welfare.

I know what you’re thinking. This is all Best Friends data and Best Friends has a vested interest in making no-kill look good. The skepticism is fair. So don’t just take our word for it.

The public wants no-kill and supports it. They are willing to pay more in taxes for no-kill. If we don’t use this language, and promote this mission, we are throwing away decades of equity and support because we, as an industry, refuse to embrace something the public is telling us they care about and value.  

So, whether I like the words or don’t like the words, are totally irrelevant. If we want the community to support our work and save more lives, using "no-kill" can help us achieve that.

No-kill is good marketing. It’s a shorthand to help build community support. And we should stop acting like that’s a bad thing.

As one shelter leader once told me: The public knows what they want, just give it to them. It’s amazing advice.