Choose wisely, as homeless animals have no choice.
Editor’s note: ANIMALS 24-7 guest columnist Ed Duvin began his long career in social justice movements in civil rights and anti-poverty work during the Lyndon Johnson presidential administration. He later advised animal advocacy organizations including the Humane Society of the U.S., the No-Kill Conference, and In Defense of Animals.
Often called “The Father of the No-Kill Movement” for his widely distributed 1989 essay In the Name of Mercy, Duvin wrote in that essay, “If our movement spent as much time soberly evaluating our policies and programs as we do polishing our public image, then no doubt the struggle for justice would be on higher ground.
“Surrounded by the deaths of millions of precious beings, this industry has demonstrated neither the concern nor competency to even validate the information upon which it bases life and death decisions.”
This remains among his foremost concerns.
________________________________________________________________
(Beth Clifton collage)
Does science carry no weight?
On January 13, 2026, as an ANIMALS 24-7 guest columnist, I presented empirical data on the accepted standard for population control—referred to as the 70% Rule.
(See “No kill”: Still stumbling in the dark after all these years, by Ed Duvin.)
This was no original insight on my part.
The late pioneering spay/neuter veterinarian Marvin Mackie explained it in detail more than two decades ago: see Pet Overpopulation and the 70% Rule.
Stated succinctly, it is well established––and has been for eight centuries––that reaching 70% sterilization creates a critical mass that permanently stabilizes a population of any sort of animal from microbes to megafauna.
But it seems science carries no more weight among animal advocacy movement leadership than with the current Donald Trump administration.
Are sterilization & live release rates mutually exclusive?
Since publication of “No kill”: still stumbling in the dark, some animal advocacy leaders have argued that sterilization and measuring success by live release data are not mutually exclusive.
I will respond to that shortly, but first allow me to address the state of animal advocacy movement leadership. I have had the privilege of participating in three movements and consulting for several others.
Each movement has its shortcomings, as they are merely subsets of our larger culture. However, in my experience, no movement is more plagued by leadership challenges than animal advocacy.
The reasons are many and varied, starting with the difficulty of attracting the “best and brightest” of available talent. These high performers have myriad career choices, and only a small percentage elect social causes. Among those, most are attracted to careers that benefit humans. They may support animal protection, but they perceive it as a lesser priority.
Lack of professionalism
This is compounded by a lack of professionalism, as few animal protection movement organizations utilize state-of-the-art succession plans to attract top talent.
A more subtle difference is that this movement has highly diverse activists and supporters, spanning the ideological continuum. There is also considerable diversity in other causes, but there is far more homogeneity in core values. Animal protection primarily attracts those with deep affection for animals, whereas social justice causes have a profound commitment to Lady Justice at their core.
Without question, there is richness in diversity—from thought to ethnicity—but it can be problematic in reaching consensus on critical issues.
As an illustration, I cannot imagine a social justice organization turning a blind eye to the loss of human lives. Yet, in this movement, leaders seem impervious to such a tragedy, with mounting casualties from dangerous dogs. Only those with shades of misanthropy would remain silent while innocent lives are needlessly lost. This is a regrettable form of selective morality, and yet many defend the indefensible. Justice is not divisible.
Animals cannot speak for themselves
Another challenge is that victims in virtually every cause have a voice. They speak out if those acting in their name fall short of their responsibilities.
Even in children’s causes, young people grow up and hold others accountable. They shared their poignant stories of life in substandard orphanages, and now we have foster and family-based care—not ideal, but a marked improvement. Animals never have a voice, and thus the movement is without accountability to those it professes to protect.
Thirty-seven years ago, I wrote an essay on the lamentable “killing them kindly” mantra of shelter leadership. It is obviously imperative to provide a humane death when health or behavior require it, but our foremost responsibility is to affirm life.
My essay was widely praised, but it is not false modesty to say the accolades were unwarranted. Every word I wrote was self-evident and should have been written before I was born.
No longer about no-kill, but what constitutes no-kill
All these years later, the debate is no longer about no-kill, but what constitutes no-kill. In the overpopulation and world hunger movements, it would be laughable if someone proposed to redefine success by the percentage of enfeebled leaving relief stations alive.
Analogies are never perfect, but the salient point is, this movement’s propensity to undermine its stated mission is unmatched.
I can already hear opposing voices saying, “We aren’t diminishing the importance of sterilization in favor of live release rates, as we prioritize both.”
That’s fine if you are flush with resources, but that is hardly the reality for most shelters. It is sheer nonsense for affluent organizations to redefine success and then claim it doesn’t cause shelters to primarily focus on live release rates.
Only those heavily invested in perpetuating the status quo would offer such a surreal assertion.
Why in the name of reason
Why in the name of reason, after shelters were finally on the right track, did movement leaders decide to change the metric by which success was measured?
Without a mandate, a select group took it upon themselves to redefine no-kill by a metric with no scientific support or history of success.
The Asilomar Accords became the norm for no rational reason, in part because a signatory of the accords represented the movement’s leading foundation. Their enormous influence played a significant role in institutionalizing live-release rates as the no-kill standard.
No one is questioning the major players’ intent, but they acted capriciously and with a manifest disregard for scholarship. A change of this magnitude requires considerable deliberation and research, not a self-appointed group of leaders meeting for a few days in California.
Diligence is a lonely stranger
If they had done their due diligence, they likely would have changed course. However, diligence is a lonely stranger in this movement.
None of this is written self-righteously, as though I descended from the mountaintop with great wisdom. All I am asking is that the signatories of the Asilomar Accords meet again, and find the humility and integrity to say, “We stand by the live release rate as a useful measure, but we erred in not acknowledging that sterilization is the only proven means of ending this tragedy.”
That does not seem like too much to ask of movement leaders, but I caution readers not to hold their breath.
When rapid growth is poorly managed
Why do organizations that experience extensive growth often lose their way?
When rapid growth is poorly managed, decisions are predicated more on self-interest than principle—severely diluting founding ideals.
Most leaders lack the training and professionalism to recognize the perils of growth, and any criticism directed their way is simply dismissed. They hold the widespread cultural view that big is better, and those with size and power are above accountability.
Some time ago, when directing an ethics center, I wrote these words before leaving this movement to serve another cause: “I have endeavored these past years to follow the Socratic tradition of raising thorny questions. As organizations grow, principles are often subordinated to self-interest, with expediency reigning supreme. Significant gains have occurred in public awareness and damage control, but not systemic approaches that reach the roots of exploitation.”
Here we are again
Now, many years later, here we are again. Our shared goal is to stabilize population at sustainable levels, and the only proven means of doing so is preventing births.
That is what science tells us; that is what has been successful with other animal populations; and that is what reason tells us.
By contrast, live release rates represent a metric without meaning in population control.
(Beth Clifton photo/collage)
Is your primary allegiance to movement leadership or those beings you serve?
Choose wisely, as homeless animals have no choice.
Please donate to help our work:
More related posts:
Discover more from Animals 24-7
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
