Animal welfare experts say the unregulated label misleads millions of pet adopters while shelters self-report their own compliance
American animal shelters labeled "no-kill" euthanized approximately 425,000 dogs and cats in 2024, according to Best Friends Animal Society, the nation's leading no-kill advocacy organization. The figure reveals a gap between public perception and industry practice that animal welfare leaders say has become a serious problem.
The disconnect stems from how "no-kill" is actually defined. A shelter qualifies for the designation by maintaining a 90% "save rate," meaning up to 10% of animals entering the facility can still be euthanized while the shelter markets itself as no-kill.
No regulatory oversight exists
Unlike food labels regulated by the FDA or housing terms governed by fair advertising laws, no government agency or independent body determines what "no-kill" means. Shelters self-report their statistics and self-apply the label.
"Unfortunately, no-kill doesn't mean what most people think it means," Janelle Dixon, president and CEO of Animal Humane Society, told reporters in a statement published on the organization's website. "It's like labeling food products 'natural' or 'gourmet.' Those terms appeal to the public but without any kind of watchdog or standards they are virtually meaningless."
The 90% threshold itself has shifted over time. It was previously set at 80%, then 85%, with no formal process governing the changes.
How shelters game the numbers
The lack of standardization creates opportunities for manipulation, according to multiple shelter operators. Some facilities only count "adoptable" animals in their statistics, excluding sick, elderly, or behaviorally challenged pets from the calculation entirely.
Others use "limited admission" policies, turning away animals likely to require euthanasia. These rejected animals often end up at open-admission municipal shelters, which must accept all animals by law and consequently report higher euthanasia rates.
"No-kill shelters are shifting the responsibility for euthanasia to shelters like ours by being able to select some pets and turn down others," San Francisco Animal Care and Control stated in its October 2025 statistical report. The open-admission facility refuses to use the no-kill label despite saving the vast majority of its animals.
The national picture falls short
Best Friends Animal Society had set an ambitious goal of making the entire country no-kill by 2025. That target required all shelters nationwide to reach the 90% save rate benchmark.
The effort fell short. According to the organization's own 2024 data, the national save rate reached only 82%, leaving roughly 1,400 shelters below the threshold. While the group celebrated that shelter killings had dropped 59% since 2016, critics noted the goal was explicitly missed.
Independent analysis from Animal Politics in December 2025 raised concerns about data reliability, noting that Best Friends' mid-year 2025 report relied on information from only 864 shelters out of an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 facilities nationwide.
Why some shelters reject the term
A growing number of animal welfare organizations have stopped using "no-kill" altogether, even when they technically qualify.
The Vanderburgh Humane Society in Indiana achieved a 91% save rate in 2020 but deliberately avoids the label. In an explanatory post, the organization called the term "primarily a marketing term designed to present an emotional appeal to the public" that can be "more damaging" than helpful.
Animal Humane Society has made the same choice. Despite meeting or approaching the 90% standard since 2015, the organization states it will not use the terminology "to describe ourselves or any other animal rescue agency."
The concern centers on public understanding. When donors and adopters hear "no-kill," many assume zero animals are euthanized, creating unrealistic expectations and potentially directing support away from open-admission facilities doing difficult but necessary work.
What's next
Animal welfare advocates are pushing for clearer terminology and standardized reporting. Some have called for replacing "no-kill" with specific save rate percentages that give adopters accurate information.
Best Friends maintains that the 90% benchmark represents meaningful progress, noting that euthanasia should be reserved for animals suffering from irremediable conditions or posing genuine safety risks. The organization continues working with shelters nationwide to improve outcomes.
For consumers considering adoption or donation, experts recommend looking beyond labels. Requesting specific save rate data, asking about admission policies, and understanding the difference between limited and open-admission facilities provides a clearer picture than any marketing term.
What’s Your Plant-Powered Archetype?
Ever wonder what your everyday habits say about your deeper purpose—and how they ripple out to impact the planet?
This 90-second quiz reveals the plant-powered role you’re here to play, and the tiny shift that makes it even more powerful.
12 fun questions. Instant results. Surprisingly accurate.
