This story was originally published in the GenZeal feature of LNP on Sunday, January 18, 2026.
By Audrey Dickerson ‘26
Approximately 920,000 to 2.7 million animals are euthanized annually in U.S. shelters. The concept of shelters euthanizing animals is a difficult and controversial topic.
Some people think that euthanasia is bad because it means ending a life, which many people find difficult or wrong. But it can also be seen as good in some instances, because it helps stop pain and suffering when there’s no chance of recovery, offering the animal a peaceful way to end the pain.
I believe that euthanasia in shelters is wrong except in cases of illness, disease and serious injury.
Overcrowding in shelters is a major reason why shelters use euthanasia.
In a 2013 blog post, Scott Weese of the Ontario Veterinary College’s Centre for Public Health and Zoonoses wrote: “Overcrowding leads to many problems such as increased disease risk, decreased quality of care, decreased human contact and increased shelter operation costs.”
Although that is true, there are multiple other ways that shelters can lessen overcrowding. They could spay and neuter animals to stop reproduction. Raising money and putting together a campaign could help the shelter gain more money to provide for the animals. And shelters could do foster care and have people temporarily take care of the animals until they can find permanent families to adopt them.
Cherry-picking is also another factor when it comes to some shelters. This may involve a shelter refusing to take in an animal due to its condition and presumed worthiness to be adopted.
“One way to keep euthanasia rates low is to refuse to admit animals that are not likely to be adopted,” Weese wrote.
However, when shelters turn animals away, it often results in more animals suffering, starving and being homeless. Moving away from cherry-picking requires shelters to commit to caring for all animals, regardless of their adoptability, and to give every animal a fair chance.
Shelters also euthanize some animals that are healthy, but have behavioral issues.
In a 2016 column for The Telegraph, Pete Wedderburn of the British Veterinary Association wrote: “Healthy euthanasia for behavioral reasons could be minimized by wider appreciation of the importance of adequate socialization of animals at an early age.”
This is a valid point because if an animal is younger, it gives professionals time to train and help the animal. Addressing behavioral issues with patience and consistency can help more animals become adoptable and find forever homes.
Many healthy animals are euthanized for reasons that have solutions. To prevent this, shelters need more donations, better behavioral classes, increased community support and more adoptions. If we help and advocate for animals, it could lower euthanasia rates.
Rethinking Euthanasia Policies in Animal Shelters
This story was originally published in the GenZeal feature of LNP on Sunday, January 18, 2026.
By Audrey Dickerson ‘26
Approximately 920,000 to 2.7 million animals are euthanized annually in U.S. shelters. The concept of shelters euthanizing animals is a difficult and controversial topic.
Some people think that euthanasia is bad because it means ending a life, which many people find difficult or wrong. But it can also be seen as good in some instances, because it helps stop pain and suffering when there’s no chance of recovery, offering the animal a peaceful way to end the pain.
I believe that euthanasia in shelters is wrong except in cases of illness, disease and serious injury.
Overcrowding in shelters is a major reason why shelters use euthanasia.
In a 2013 blog post, Scott Weese of the Ontario Veterinary College’s Centre for Public Health and Zoonoses wrote: “Overcrowding leads to many problems such as increased disease risk, decreased quality of care, decreased human contact and increased shelter operation costs.”
Although that is true, there are multiple other ways that shelters can lessen overcrowding. They could spay and neuter animals to stop reproduction. Raising money and putting together a campaign could help the shelter gain more money to provide for the animals. And shelters could do foster care and have people temporarily take care of the animals until they can find permanent families to adopt them.
Cherry-picking is also another factor when it comes to some shelters. This may involve a shelter refusing to take in an animal due to its condition and presumed worthiness to be adopted.
“One way to keep euthanasia rates low is to refuse to admit animals that are not likely to be adopted,” Weese wrote.
However, when shelters turn animals away, it often results in more animals suffering, starving and being homeless. Moving away from cherry-picking requires shelters to commit to caring for all animals, regardless of their adoptability, and to give every animal a fair chance.
Shelters also euthanize some animals that are healthy, but have behavioral issues.
In a 2016 column for The Telegraph, Pete Wedderburn of the British Veterinary Association wrote: “Healthy euthanasia for behavioral reasons could be minimized by wider appreciation of the importance of adequate socialization of animals at an early age.”
This is a valid point because if an animal is younger, it gives professionals time to train and help the animal. Addressing behavioral issues with patience and consistency can help more animals become adoptable and find forever homes.
Many healthy animals are euthanized for reasons that have solutions. To prevent this, shelters need more donations, better behavioral classes, increased community support and more adoptions. If we help and advocate for animals, it could lower euthanasia rates.
Sources:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pets/news-features/a-vets-most-difficult-task-euthanising-healthy-pets