Neutral Argument Against Kill Shelters

Some find a way through light, others through darkness, yes ladies and gentlemen, the debate between Kill shelters, and No-kill shelters has begun. Let me just present you with a Neutral argument. Kill shelters and No-kill shelters share the same benefit, keeping animals for a period of time whilst caring for them, and trying to get them adopted. People that work at kill shelters, necessarily do not hate animals, or want them to die, but unfortunately for them, Cruel ones pay well, while the Perfect way, does not most of the time.And for people and the shelters, Time is unfortunately money. The more money a shelter makes, the longer they can afford to keep the animal, and care for them, providing them with food, water, shelter, and medical care. There are also other types of shelters that fall into the same kind of money problem. Like Bird sanctuaries, Unfortunately for them, Kindness pays no bills. But donation does. …show more content…
Kill shelters, though they sound atrocious, do provide a place for the animals for a time, and kill because of the overpopulation of pets at the shelter. And the killing they do is not painful for the animal, and sometimes vets euthanize their animals, along with kill shelters, who are suffering, or who they think will not get adopted. But against them, Killing animals is the wrong way to deal with a overpopulated shelter. You could send them to pet stores, or even other shelters, or take the high road like Faye Carrie did. Killing an innocent animal should be treated as a murder of a human being. The shelters care about innocent lives...don’t