NCSCE and KQED are partnering on Do Now U, a project that engages undergraduate students in online discussion through social media about current scientific issues.
This week’s Do Now U asks, “Do No-Kill Shelters Really Benefit Animals?”
The post, written by Sarah Downey, Hana Harrell, Megan Hoglund and Jelyn Javier, students at St. Mary’s College of California, asks readers if no kill shelters really benefit animals.
There are two major types of shelters: traditional and no-kill. Traditional shelters will euthanize animals depending on the circumstances and the no-kill shelters attempt to keep all animals alive.
Those in favor of no-kill support these types of shelters because they do not euthanize old or unadopted animals. They also do not euthanize animals when the shelter is full, however no-kill shelters have limited space and have to turn away animals. No-kill shelters only accept animals on a conditional basis, based on the animal’s health or temperament, or the availability of space at the shelter. Animals that are turned away may not have a home to go to, which can lead to them being abandoned on the street. A traditional shelter is an agency that must accept any and all companion animals.
A traditional shelter may be considered humane because they euthanize animals that have been in their shelter for a long time and that are likely to be in poor mental states.
What do you think? Do no-kill shelters really benefit animals? Are traditional or no-kill shelters best for humanely managing stray and abandoned animal populations? #DoNowUShelters
Join the Conversation!
Engage your students in the conversation about the benefits and drawbacks of aquaculture. Students can share their thoughts directly in the post’s comment section, or post their thoughts on Twitter by using the hashtag #DoNowUShelters. Explore previous Do Now U posts to spark dialogue among your students.
Photo: David Trawin/Flickr