Ed Duvin: “I saw the best minds of animal advocacy destroyed by madness”

The no-kill movement is not yet old enough to be suffering from advanced dementia

This will be a different essay than I normally write, not carefully constructed and edited, but a stream of thoughts shared with fellow activists.

Why?  Issues that should elicit a sense of urgency in the movement,  from the rising bloodshed by dangerous dogs to the present state of no-kill,  are largely unaddressed.    ANIMALS 24-7 has long sought to correct this seeming paralysis,  but to no avail.

Rather than retracing old footsteps,  I’ll forthrightly and spontaneously “talk” to readers—sharing my frustration over the movement’s propensity to follow leadership without a modicum of independent thought.

Since this is a highly personal piece,  it will require one of my least favorite things:  talking about myself.  I joined the civil rights movement after my university years,  followed by the world hunger cause,  before making my way to animal advocacy in the mid-1970s.

Dissatisfied with the philosophy of the animal welfare movement

I was among a relatively small number of activists who were dissatisfied with the philosophy of the animal welfare movement. We had a larger vision of our responsibility to other beings,  which came to be known as animal rights.

We were a diverse group,  and in those pre-internet days our only communication across regions was through Ma Bell (Bell Telephone then had a national monopoly on landlines) and snail mail.

Small groups began to form,  with our first national demonstration at Regional Primate Centers in 1982.

I don’t want to paint an idyllic picture of those early days,  as there was considerable division and dysfunction.  However,  what distinguished this activist branch of the movement was depth of commitment.  Animal rights activism was not yet a career path for anyone because almost no one was paid yet,  except at dogs-and-cats humane societies,  which focused on animal care and control issues and avoided involvement in anything else.

“I had my eyes on the stars”

Over the years,  I played many roles interfacing with the animal rights movement as it grew,  from consulting to directing an ethics center,  but most came to know me through my essays printed on a mimeograph machine.  It was a very different era.

Like most of my animal rights movement colleagues,  I had my eyes on the stars.  There was little interest in animal shelters,  as that was the purview of the dog-and-cat set. We had mountains to climb,  and we didn’t look back at the homeless animals left behind.

In 1989,  I finally learned of what I later referred to as an “assembly line of slaughter,”  with an obscene kill percentage resulting in 18–20 million lives lost annually.

Following months of research and interviews with shelter staff,  I wrote an essay titled “In the Name of Mercy.”  I had written many such essays on varied subjects in this and other movements,  but the response to this one,  both here and across the pond in Europe,  was overwhelming.

It wasn’t the result of any magic on my part,  but “In the Name of Mercy” awakened a movement deep in slumber.  Accolades came my way for laying no-kill’s philosophical foundation,  but I felt only shame for not addressing this tragedy years earlier.  So many precious lives were lost due to leadership’s lack of critical analysis and course correction.

“Good soldiers” following the leaders

I left the animal advocacy movement in the mid-1990s,  serving other causes until retiring five years ago.  My wife and I relocated to a small community nestled in the foothills of the beautiful Blue Ridge Mountains,  and that’s when I became a regular reader of ANIMALS 24-7.

I soon realized that I no longer recognized the movement others credited me with “fathering.”  From my perspective, the present leadership had grievously lost its way.  They were aided by a sheltering community of “good soldiers” following the leaders, and the animal rights movement was once again silent. Only the principled voices of ANIMALS 24-7 and Ed Boks’ blog Animal Politics were heard.

I felt compelled to write again,  and in No Kill:  still stumbling in the dark after all these years,  I cited scientific studies substantiating sterilization as the proven method of stabilizing population.

My recent follow-up piece,  Is your allegiance to movement leadership or those you serve? addressed a handful of organizations and foundations flushing scientific evidence down the toilet and redefining what constitutes no-kill.

It’s their scholarship I question, not their intent.

Value in listening to dissenting voices

Some believe that critics of the Live Release Rate overstate the harm done by redefining no-kill,  and they also question my portrayal of movement leadership.

These concerns are fair and deserve a thoughtful response. I’ll reply to the latter concern first.

Years ago,  the most influential voice in the cause I was serving asked to meet with me.  I had been critical of his organization,  and was stunned when he presented me with a generous opportunity to touch lives.  I asked why he would make such an offer to a long-standing critic,  as he well knew that my criticism would continue unabated.

His reply is forever seared in my mind.  Give or take a word or two,  he said,  “I make important decisions every day that affect lives,  but there are so many factors to consider that the right thing to do gets lost.  My offer to you feels right,  and I wish that I felt that more often.”

Here was the leading figure in this movement acknowledging that leadership is a complex juggling act,  and that few have the training,  vision,  skills,  and temperament to do it well.  He understood the value of listening to dissenting voices,  not dismissing them.

Snow in Miami

Can anyone even imagine one of our affluent organizations embracing Merritt Clifton or Ed Boks in this manner?  It will snow in Miami before that occurs.

(Snow last fell in Miami on January 19,  1977,   the first and only time snow has ever been documented there.)

I am not suggesting that movement leaders are not caring and committed,  but enlightened leadership requires far more than a good heart.  I have observed the effects of power and influence during my years of consulting,  and the changes they bring are seldom positive.

I am generalizing,  of course,  but we see the deleterious effects of power on leaders not only in nonprofits, but in every walk of life.  Indeed, history is littered with such examples,  and we don’t have to look far to see some in this country.

Did shelters simply follow the money?

Now,  to my concern about the harm done by the present emphasis on Live Release Rates.

Putting science aside,  is it not obvious that the Live Release Rate is an artificial measure that defies reason and analytic logic?

Is it sensible to measure success by back-end data,  rather than by placing far greater emphasis on front-end prevention?

I am not a mind-reader.  Thus I can only surmise how such a faulty measure became the standard. One possibility is that if a key supporter of the Asilomar Accords had many millions of dollars to award in grants,  shelters simply followed the money.

As for leadership,  perhaps they recognize their error,  but cannot escape the hole they dug for themselves.

“Live Release Rate” is not the Holy Grail

The problem with that theory is that my last essay provided them with a solution. I suggested a compromise in which they stand by the Live Release Rate as a useful measure, but acknowledge that sterilization is the only proven means of ending this tragedy.

That would preserve the Live Release Rate as their standard,  but also convey the obvious:  sterilization is the most effective means of emptying shelters.

Their refusal to budge on the Live Release Rate as though it were sacred raises some interesting questions.

There was no supportable justification,  as the long-standing scientific standard is the 70% rule:  reaching 70% sterilization creates a critical mass that stabilizes population. My best guess as to why defenders of the Live Release Rate hold on so tightly to it is that emphasizing the Live Release Rate is an appealing marketing strategy,  easy to sell to shelters,  rescue groups,  and donors.

“The only proven solution to overpopulation is no longer the pre-eminent priority”

Unfortunately,  the message that use of the Live Release Rate conveys contains more holes than a punch card,  a now antiquated approach to computer programming that resembled a Swiss cheese slice made from box board.

For example,  no-kill leadership currently denies that spay/neuter is adversely affected by use of the Live Release Rate,  but does anyone believe this?

Especially when grant funding is tied to Live Release Rates rather than spay/neuter operations performed?

Although spay/neuter obviously continues to be a component of animal sheltering, the only proven solution to overpopulation is no longer the pre-eminent priority.

How could it be otherwise?  Even a basic understanding of behavioral dynamics tells us that if the Live Release Rate is now the measure of success,  shelters understandably want to cross the finish line.

“Aversion to systemic approaches”

It is instructive to reflect on the high-profile,  multi-year campaign waged by the Best Friends Animal Society to achieve a no-kill nation by 2025.

As of the end of 2025,  only four of fifty states qualified as no-kill,  with two more added in 2026.

Does this not strongly suggest that the Live Release Rate addresses the manifestations of dog and cat overpopulation rather than the root cause?

This movement seems to have an aversion to systemic approaches,  preferring to run in circles chasing their own tail.  So to doubters,  substantial harm is done by emphasizing Live Release Rates.  Activists and shelter boards who remain silent are complicit in that harm.

“Make your voice heard”

I derive no pleasure from criticizing colleagues,  many of whom I have known for years.  Indeed,  I endeavor to place principle above personality,  naming names only when essential,  a luxury of being an essayist that a journalist does not possess.

My criticism emanates not from malice,  but rather from opposition to a profoundly flawed policy.  I’m an old warrior,  not a sage;  however,  my views are not serving an organization,  but a course supported by an irrefutable body of scientific data.

In closing,  all I’m asking of readers is to think for yourselves,  as madness flourishes when independent thought ceases.  If you find my arguments compelling,  express your concerns to leadership and your local shelter.

Change will not come from ANIMALS 24-7,  Animal Politics,  or my writings,  but from you.  Make your voice heard,  as power only bends when it realizes the ground beneath it has shifted.

Please donate to help our work:

www.animals24-7.org/donate