Kill Vs. No Kill Animal Shelters

Pretty much everyone who realizes there are stray cats and dogs on the streets knows that the pet population is a problem in this country. Most shelters are over stocked with homeless animals and continue to take in more than they are able to adopt out. Those who felt that it was unfair to put animals in shelters for a short period of time only to euthanize them later, even while perfectly healthy and only for the reason that they have no home, are the ones who invented the "No Kill Shelter". But how far does the term "no kill" have to go before the welfare of the animal is taken into consideration.

I mean sure, it stinks to have to euthanize an animal. It's horrible when it's your own pet but when you are the actual person ending this animal's life, it comes from a different perspective. I've been in those shoes numerous times and I will tell you, it's never fun. There are times when an animal is sick and suffering and the deed needs to be done. That doesn't make it any better but one has to take solace in knowing that the suffering for that animal has ended. In shelter situations, in the case of kill shelters, it gets more difficult.

The fact is, perfectly healthy animals do get euthanized because they are homeless. Some are put to sleep when it has been determined that they will be unadoptable. Dogs that are aggressive or severely ill often fall under this group. The same goes for cats. When you look at it from the view of the Kill Shelter, there are many homeless pets out there and keeping pets in the shelter who may never be adopted are simply taking up space that adoptable pets could be placed in. Sick pets cost money to treat and money isn't something that can just be thrown around at shelters. It really does sound cruel to doom one pet to death in exchange for another. In reality, what else are they to do?