Is It Time for El Paso to Reconsider Its No Kill Shelter Stance?

El Paso Animal Services (EPAS) is officially a no kill shelter, meaning it aims to save at least 90% of incoming animals and only euthanizes pets that are terminally ill, severely injured, or a risk to public safety. They currently save around 80 to 86% of animals that enter their care (elpasoanimalservices.org). Unfortunately, overwhelmed animal rescue advocates are saying that a no kill shelter may actually be more inhumane than culling the cities population of diseased, starving, and dying dogs.

The Current Situation in El Paso

EPAS handles approximately 17,000 to 20,000 intakes per year, with a best historic live release rate near 86 to 87% in early 2018 (kvia.com).

In 2016, the city formally committed to reaching no kill status, but as of now, with limited resources and intake surging again, they remain below the 90% threshold (en.wikipedia.org).

A post on the El Paso reddit page of a stray, convulsing dog went viral. The video was of a seizing dog that was forced to wait outside of the facility due to the current "wait your turn" rule system. With many advocates in the comments claiming the stray dog situation in the city is in dire need of a huge overhaul, that may require overturning the 'no-kill' shelter rules.

When kennels are full or animals become medically ill or behaviorally unsound, EPAS will euthanize to preserve space and safety, especially for animals labeled as “at risk” (elpasoanimalservices.org).

Why El Paso’s Volunteers Are Concerned

Local shelters and volunteers describe caring for strays like a full time job, with overcrowding, disease, and behavioral decline putting pets in distress. Many volunteers argue unchecked breeding and overwhelming intake are making the current system unsustainable and potentially inhumane for neglected animals.

How Other Texas Cities Handle Resistance and Overcrowding

Harris County Pets in the Houston area maintains a 90% plus live release rate, but often euthanizes animals for space reasons, especially when rescue partners collapse or overcrowding spikes (houstonchronicle.com).

Fort Worth shelter euthanized over 3,200 animals from January to September 2023, including many healthy ones due to capacity limits. Their live release rate has dropped into the high 70s (star-telegram.com).

Midland has recently achieved true no kill status with a save rate above 90%, focusing on sterilization, fosters, and partnerships (ourmidland.com).

The Humane Balance: Euthanasia vs. Suffering

No kill shelters generally allow up to 10% euthanasia for cases of terminal illness, danger, or severe suffering. Eliminating all euthanasia can leave animals to suffer outdoors or in decline (en.wikipedia.org, houstonchronicle.com).

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Tori (@tkeene14)

There is mounting concern that leaving strays uncared for in the harsh desert environment can be worse than humane euthanasia, particularly for animals with injuries, disease, or starvation in roving packs.

Key Points to Consider for El Paso

Ethical Options and Community Questions

Residents and decision makers need to ask:

• Should El Paso raise euthanasia rates to reduce suffering when capacity collapses?

• Or should the community invest significantly more in spay neuter, TNR (trap neuter release), rescue partnerships and public education?

• What weight do we place on individual animal welfare when comparing a quality life outdoors versus medical euthanasia?

• Is conditioning humane policy on reducing intake via breeder regulation realistic and enforceable?

The no kill ideal is compelling, but El Paso remains below the 90% threshold and regularly faces overcrowding and volunteer burnout. Advocates point out that small-scale, local breeders and unsterilized pets are overwhelming the shelter system, while volunteers warn that suffering in the streets may eclipse the harm of humane euthanasia.

This isn't simply a yes or no choice. It’s a question of what mixture of policy, enforcement, funding, and pragmatism best protects these animals. Clearly, El Paso needs to start having a hard discussion on how humane a no kill policy is when the streets are filled with starving, sick, and dying dogs.