No-Kill Argumentative Essay

Noel, a 6-month old golden retriever, arrives on the front porch step of SICSA with a gleefully wagging tail and a heart bursting with love. Unfortunately, no room exists at SICSA for Noel, and they must turn her away to a shelter that can only do one thing: euthanize her. The argument over whether or not communities should institute no-kill shelters presents itself all over Ohio. Multiple people in Ohio believe that no-kill shelters cause financial stress on the community and prove to be a substantial hassle. However, in reality, no-kill shelters lower the overall costs of animal control with multiple methods. Additionally, they help increase the revenue of local community businesses. Finally, they keep possible families’ loved ones cared

Multiple people believe that no-kill shelters cost communities more than they give back. According to Hunsdon Cary of Lynchburg, Virginia, the responsibility to pay for the “animal control subsidy [of] $396,000” is not the city’s responsibility (Chalmers). While Cary’s statement is not unreasonable, one must also remember that the $396,000 required for the animal control subsidy to function re-enters the community in the form of local business revenue. The No Kill Advocacy Center reports that “Americans spend $50 billion annually on the care of their companion animals” which demonstrates the amount of money that must flow back through the community. Countless workers and business owners in a community such as “groomers, boarding facilities, pet sitters, veterinarians and businesses which sell products for pets such as treats and toys” benefit from adopted shelter pets because the fees these pets produce provide more business for the workers and business owners (“Dollars and Sense” 8). Although no-kill shelters can sometimes create extra costs for a community, the effects of adopting from these shelters and caring for pets instead of putting them down gives back to the

According to Jennie Baxla of the SICSA organization, SICSA gives their animals significant amounts of care while they are under their responsibility. The animals at no-kill shelters such as SICSA receive copious amounts of care, such as “spay[ing] and neuter[ing], microchipping, vaccinations, [and] tests for parasites” (Jewell). These no-kill shelters are incredibly dedicated to their work and animals. Additionally, the pets that receive care at no-kill shelters also receive human interaction. Multiple volunteer activities exist at no-kill shelters across the nation that involve people from all ages interacting and playing with the animals (Baxla, Jewell). In this way, no-kill shelters keep the animals happy and feeling cared for, which is important to an animal’s health. According to Ed Boks of Maricopa County, Arizona, in a nation where 43,400 animals are euthanized every year in Arizona alone, a pet’s life seems worthless, but no-kill shelters do not adopt that mentality. No-kill shelters nurture their animals in a world where no one else seems committed. Because no-kill shelters are not cost ineffective and negative, Ohio should institute no-kill shelters throughout the entire state. No-kill shelters profit from adoptions and save communities’ money by not participating in euthanasia procedures. Additionally, adopting