WHAT IS “NO KILL POLICY” FOR ANIMAL RESCUE CENTERS?

WHAT IS “NO KILL POLICY” FOR ANIMAL RESCUE CENTERS?

The term No Kill Policy may sound self-explanatory, but it carries profound ethical, legal, and practical implications—especially in the context of how we treat animals in shelters, pounds, and rescue centers. Simply put, a “no kill” animal rescue center commits to not euthanizing healthy or treatable animals, regardless of space, resources, or time. It’s a philosophy rooted in compassion, but also in accountability.

In principle, who could possibly object to that? But in practice, the question becomes: how do we know if an animal rescue center is really “no kill”?

Right now, there is no centralized system in the Philippines that tracks or rates animal shelters according to their no-kill behavior. No website, no public record, not even an annual report from the Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI), which regulates animal welfare facilities. But why not? Don’t we, as citizens and animal owners, deserve to know which shelters are truly safe for our pets? How do we know that the stray we bring to a “rescue center” will not be quietly euthanized, or worse—sold off to the still-thriving illegal dog meat market?

This is where definitions matter. Legally speaking, there’s a thin line between a dog pound and an animal rescue center. A dog pound, often managed by local government units (LGUs), serves primarily to impound stray animals—many of which are euthanized if not claimed after a certain period. Rescue centers, on the other hand, are ideally run by NGOs or private groups with a mandate to rehabilitate and rehome. But without strict oversight, the distinction can blur dangerously.

Some dog pounds may indeed operate as “kill centers,” not because they want to, but because they are underfunded, understaffed, and overwhelmed. I hope I’m wrong, but there are stories suggesting that some pounds even become sources of meat for underground dog traders. If true, this is not only inhumane—it’s criminal.

Under Republic Act 8485, or the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 (as amended by RA 10631), the unnecessary killing of animals is strictly prohibited. Euthanasia is only permitted in cases of irremediable suffering. The law also requires all facilities that breed, keep, or treat animals—including shelters and pounds—to be registered and inspected by the BAI. Yet, without transparent monitoring or a public scorecard, how do we know who complies and who doesn’t?

Let me put this bluntly: there should be a national animal shelter registry where every facility is rated according to humane standards. Each one should publicly disclose its “save rate”—the percentage of animals that survive and are adopted versus those that are euthanized. Globally, a 90% save rate is the benchmark for being classified as a no kill shelter.

In the Philippines, several NGOs are already modeling these principles. The Philippine Animal Welfare Society (PAWS), CARA Welfare Philippines, and the Animal Kingdom Foundation (AKF) have consistently advocated against cruelty, the dog meat trade, and irresponsible breeding. They have proven that compassion and professionalism can coexist in animal care.

Still, these organizations can’t shoulder the responsibility alone. Animal welfare is, and should remain, a public service obligation. The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) recently issued Memorandum Circular 2024-126, reminding LGUs to fully implement the Animal Welfare Act. That includes ensuring humane sheltering and avoiding unnecessary euthanasia.

This is a good start—but we can do better. I propose the following reforms:

1. Transparency and Recordkeeping. All animal rescue centers should publish monthly data on intakes, adoptions, and euthanasia cases. These reports should be accessible online.
   
   

2. Blockchain-based Monitoring. Yes, blockchain technology can be used to record shelter activity—creating a tamper-proof digital trail that can’t be erased or altered. It’s time to apply modern tools to protect voiceless beings.
   
   

3. Community Oversight. Each barangay could establish an Animal Welfare Oversight Board composed of volunteers, veterinarians, and civic groups. They would have inspection and reporting powers, ensuring that local shelters remain humane and transparent.
   
   

4. Citizen Education. A large part of the problem is ignorance. If more people practiced trap-neuter-return (TNR) for cats, adopted instead of buying pets, and reported animal abuse, the need for euthanasia would dramatically drop.
   
   

5. LGU-NGO Partnership. Local governments should not abandon their duty just because NGOs exist. Instead, they should partner with them, providing land, utilities, or subsidies while letting NGOs manage humane operations.
   
   

Globally, the no-kill movement is gaining ground. In the United States, hundreds of cities—from Austin, Texas, to Los Angeles—have achieved 90% or higher save rates through a combination of foster networks, public education, and government-NGO partnerships. In Asia, Taiwan became the first country to ban the euthanasia of stray animals entirely in 2017. Why not the Philippines next?

If we are to call ourselves a compassionate nation, then our treatment of animals must reflect that compassion. After all, how we treat those who cannot speak for themselves says everything about who we are as a society.

Until we have a system that truly enforces a No Kill Policy—with inspection, transparency, and accountability—we will continue to operate in the dark. And in that darkness, too many innocent animals will continue to die quietly, unnoticed, and uncounted.

So perhaps the question is not just “What is a No Kill Policy?” but rather—when will we have one that truly works?

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 03-16-2026