I had heard of them in the past, but up until recently I did not know what they were really about.  I had naively assumed that the "no-kill" policy applied to healthy animals.

Based upon what I have learned recently, this does not seem to be the case.

Evidently, they will keep animals alive which are terminally ill, or blind, deaf, or both, or a horrific demeanor which makes them dangerous to anyone (which of course applies primarily to dogs.)

Personally, I consider pouring money into such a venture a waste of resources...but since it is privately funded I have no other objection to them as people are free to do with their funds as they see fit.

Where I draw the line, however, are keeping animals alive that are terminally ill and quite possibly suffering.  Like I said, the organization I learned about will keep an animal alive NO MATTER WHAT.  Leukemia, AIDS, cancer, or just basically crippled.  Dogs which cannot be taken out of their cage without a muzzle who have maimed people.   All are kept alive and fed.

I consider this cruel and inhumane.  Such animals should be euthanized, in my opinion.  As a matter of practicality for the organization itself, a strong arguement could be made to euthanize such animals to free up more funds for the other healthy animals to have a better life.

It's not like I don't like pets.  I love 'em.  I have two cats now, and have had dogs in the past...but I am also pragmatic enough to know that they aren't humans either...which is why I think pouring a lot of money into animal shelters is a waste of money.  I am not against euthanasia for animals, or humans either.

What say you?

Quoted: I had heard of them in the past, but up until recently I did not know what they were really about.  I had naively assumed that the "no-kill" policy applied to healthy animals. Based upon what I have learned recently, this does not seem to be the case. Evidently, they will keep animals alive which are terminally ill, or blind, deaf, or both, or a horrific demeanor which makes them dangerous to anyone (which of course applies primarily to dogs.) Personally, I consider pouring money into such a venture a waste of resources...but since it is privately funded I have no other objection to them as people are free to do with their funds as they see fit. Where I draw the line, however, are keeping animals alive that are terminally ill and quite possibly suffering.  Like I said, the organization I learned about will keep an animal alive NO MATTER WHAT.  Leukemia, AIDS, cancer, or just basically crippled.  Dogs which cannot be taken out of their cage without a muzzle, who have maimed people all are kept alive and fed. I consider this cruel and inhumane.  Such animals should be euthanized, in my opinion.  As a matter of practicality for the organization itself, a strong arguement could be made to euthanize such animals to free up more funds for the other healthy animals to have a better life. It's not like I don't like pets.  I love 'em.  I have two cats now, and have had dogs in the past...but I am also pragmatic enough to know that they aren't humans either...which is why I think pouring a lot of money into animal shelters is a waste of money.  I am not against euthanasia for animals, or humans either. What say you?

FWIW I worked at an animal shelter for a short time doing volunteer work.  I never inquired as to whether it was no kill or not.  I agree with you 100%.

Anyone else wanna reaffirm that I am not full of shit?

The local shelter is no-kill, but it doesn't apply to ill animals, is my understanding.

So if I don't choose to put my animal down when you think I should it's abusive and wrong?  

Perhaps I wouldn't choose the same criteria as they would but it's not my money running it so what is there to say about it?

It's their money, they want to pour their money that way more power to them.

That said, the definition of "no-kill" is up to whoever uses it.  Some do maintain the animals until they get sick and then there they go.  My bil put 2 cats in a "no-kill" shelter, and when one got sick, with a minor cold type virus, it was "Pick them up tomorrow or they both get the needle".  Others will maintain animals past what many of us might consider a reasonable point to put them down due to terminal illness or bad behaviour problems.

My son's "new" dog came from a breed based "no-kill" rescue shelter, that decided that although he wasn't one of "their" breeds, he just looked too good to be put down at the county shelter that was overloading from locals and Katrina animals.  

At this point ( about 4 months) I'm willing to donate my kid to the shelter and keep the dog.

Reminds me of our prison system.  

If there is nothing that can be done for the animal, sometimes It becomes neccessary to put them down.
From what I have learned if there is a chance for the animal they will go to great lenghts to save them as opposed to local shelters that give them 7 days.
My dog that I got from PAWS  was turned in from a older couple, he was with a PAWS person for three months. He is a LAB/COONDOG mix. He can be a handfull but he has learned that I am the Master and my wife is to be protected. I am home he sleeps downstairs. I go out of town he sleeps at her doorway.
My son learned the hard way, that that hall way is his. He lives away from my home but has keys, his first clue should have been that the dog did not bark when he opened the door. He had shifted his position. The dog Is all black, except for hisl ower half.
When I got home I fixed his arm iwth steri strips and demabond. It would have been worse if my wife did not wake and call him down.
This was from a dog that a traditional shelter would have been long dead.