When “No Kill” Doesn’t Mean What We Think It Means

What do you think of when you hear the words, “No Kill?” 

Many people don’t realize that “No Kill,” as in No Kill shelters, does not literally mean that no animals are ever euthanized. The term itself is often misunderstood. But what we want to talk about here goes deeper than definitions—it points to what we believe may be a systemic issue within the animal welfare and rescue world.

Nathan Winograd, founder of the No Kill Advocacy Center and a longtime advocate for truly No Kill communities, has repeatedly challenged animal advocates to look more closely at the practices of large, well-known organizations. His work encourages transparency and asks us to question assumptions we may have accepted without scrutiny.

Just this morning we received an article by Winograd that we found deeply disturbing. In it, he discusses PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals)—an organization many people believe exists solely to protect animals—and presents evidence that the organization euthanizes a significant number of animals. These are serious claims, and they are not easy to absorb. His article includes documentation and public records that shed light on practices many advocates may not be aware of.

One detail that stood out was a photo of a postcard Winograd states he received from PETA, in which the organization says, “We do not advocate ‘right to life’ for animals.” Seeing those words attributed directly to PETA was jarring and raised important questions. (A photo of the postcard can be viewed here.)

Wanting to better understand this issue, we looked further into the matter using publicly available information. What we found appears to support the core facts presented in Winograd’s article—that PETA does, in fact, euthanize animals at rates far higher than most people realize.

This leads to difficult but necessary questions, particularly regarding their own philosophy and consistency about their advocacy for Veganism. If killing animals for food is considered unacceptable, how is killing animals for other reasons justified? These are not questions meant to provoke outrage, but to encourage honest reflection. We hope those at PETA will reflect on that truth and examine themselves.

As animal advocates, we believe it’s our responsibility to ask hard, including controversial questions, even when the answers challenge long-held beliefs. Transparency, accountability, and truth matter—especially when animals’ lives are at stake. Blind loyalty to any organization helps no one. Informed advocacy, however, can help drive real change. We all have to decide for ourselves what we can accept and live with. But we can't make an informed decision about this important subject when we don't know or have all the facts. Now we have them.