[6] Italy has outlawed the euthanasia of healthy companion animals since 1991[7] and controls stray populations through trap, neuter and return programs.
[8] Dog attacks on Italian citizens and tourists have been blamed on a lack of enforcement of animal control laws in the country.
[13][14] In Portugal, euthanasia is practiced at publicly owned kennels although several different associations actively shelter strays.
However, the shelter admits that during the holidays, it is so overwhelmed with unwanted and discarded animals that euthanasia is required for humane reasons.
[15] Pets Alive is an American no-kill shelter, based in Middletown, NY, who used to operate in Puerto Rico, rescuing canines from "Dead Dog Beach", where people leave their strays.
[18] The Scottish SPCA operate on a no kill basis unless given veterinary advice that an animal is so ill or in such pain that the kindest decision is to end their suffering, or if they are so dangerously aggressive that they could not be rehomed safely.
With the exception of veterinary recommendation, all animals within the charity's care are socialised with a view to either domestication or being homed in farming environments.
The San Francisco SPCA, led by President Richard Avanzino who would later become the President of Maddie's Fund, along with the San Francisco Department of Animal Care and Control guaranteed a home to every "adoptable" dog and cat who entered the shelter system.
[39] On February 13, 2019, Williamson County Regional Animal Shelter received a $900,000 grant from the Petco Foundation for its no-kill and community efforts.
With financial help from Maddie's Fund totaling over $9 million spread over five years, they led a coalition of rescue groups called "No More Homeless Pets in Utah".
This results in increased criticism of any shelter that is required to euthanize an animal that is suffering due to severe and untreatable stress or represents a danger to the community.
This has led to shelters being pressured to place riskier animals in the community to satisfy donors and the general public.
[45] Professor of Sociology and Anthropology Arnold Arluke has argued that "The no-kill perspective has damaged the community that long existed among shelter workers, changing how they think and feel about each other.
[48] In 2009, the Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada provincial government and the town of Stephenville began negotiations to close their no-kill animal shelter, claiming that upwards of 100 dogs and cats with diseases or behavioral problems were suffering severe neglect.
[52] Limited admission "no-kill" shelters screen all animals for health and behavior, selecting those which are considered adoptable and less likely to require euthanasia, as well as other strategies.
Dame Magazine's Carol Mithers wrote in 2019 that "another unfortunate reality of the 90 percent 'no kill' goal is that even when reached, it may be less real than it appears.
Shelters under public and political pressure to have 'good' euthanasia numbers also have the incentive to play good numbers games, whether that means adopting out sick or potentially dangerous animals to avoid having to put them down or conversely calling them 'untreatable' so they can be euthanized without marring the live release rate.
Mithers stated that "even when adoption efforts successfully move adorable puppies and apartment-friendly small 'fluffies' to new homes, legions of the less desirable—seniors, overbred pit bulls, middle-aged chihuahuas—are left behind.
This past June, TV station KVUE in 'no kill' Austin reported that the city's three shelters were at 'critical capacity' with nearly 800 dogs and cats, some of which had been held over 3 years.