Regarding the Feb. 28 guest column “ Virginia poised to become largest no-kill state ,” words are powerful, especially the word “kill.” Who wouldn’t want to support “no-kill” policies at animal shelters? But what does that term actually mean?

Many Virginia shelters whose annual statistics reflect the random “90%” metric recognize that the term “no-kill” is misleading, inaccurate and divisive, and they reject its use. It is a marketing gimmick, not an operational policy that helps animals or advances their welfare. Release rates are only one measure of a shelter. How many animals did the shelter turn away? Did it include animals transferred among organizations, not actually finding them permanent homes? Are the resources of all shelters the same? Were dangerous animals adopted out to keep the metric?

A few of the “no-kill” designated shelters may accept most animals in need, but a majority turn animals away regularly. The animals rejected are deemed unadoptable, old, ill, injured or are just simply a risk that will damage the shelter’s “no-kill’ statistic.

Owners are further discouraged from surrendering animals by costly admission fees and long waiting lists. It’s called “managed intake,” another marketing gimmick. After all, if you don’t take them in, you don’t have to count them or report the outcome.

Animals rejected don’t just disappear. Many are abandoned to fend for themselves on the street or suffer neglect, abuse and even violence. Animals abandoned to roam neighborhoods often freeze to death, are hit by cars, starve and suffer other traumas and disease. The American Veterinary Medical Association reports that the No. 1 cause of death for outdoor cats is trauma. We don’t count these deaths, so they really don’t count either.

Pet owners who make the decision to end the life of their beloved pets at their vet are not called killers, nor are the veterinarians performing euthanasia. Yet, shelters acting out of compassion and expertise have to make the very same decision and are vilified. A pet owner who is struggling with the rising cost of veterinary care, including euthanasia, brings the animal to a shelter which may also have limited resources. Then shelter workers are bullied and called names for performing a humane service.

Animal shelters were created to serve unwanted animals, but “no-kill” policies and the rabid focus on statistics instead of actual welfare has taken the opposite direction. Calling organizations that accept all animals “kill shelters” isn’t just bullying behavior, it discourages support of and even adoption from those same shelters which further impacts their outcomes.

We do not need the Best Friends Animal Society to demean shelters in Virginia that have fewer resources. This very wealthy Utah-based organization should not be setting benchmarks for Virginia. Perhaps it should focus on serving all the animals in need of shelter in Utah?

Animal welfare is about preventing, alleviating and ending suffering, as well as partnership and compassion. No one should break down one shelter in order to build up another. “No kill” is nothing more than a term that is used heavily in fundraising, and a cover for avoiding the most difficult work. It ignores animals that are deemed unadoptable and encourages adoptions of animals that are dangerous just to achieve a random target.

We are all in this incredibly difficult profession together, and we maintain a commitment to strengthening our profession and the people who dedicate their lives to it and to the animals who are depending on us.