Although there was an initial decrease in euthanasia from 85% to 50% between 1999 and 2001, after 2001 the AAC (the only open admission shelter in Austin, Texas) consistently took in over 23,000 animals and euthanized an average of 50 - 55% of the animals admitted each year.

In fact, AAC euthanized over 14,000 animals in 2007, which was a decade record and showed me that my efforts were not decreasing shelter intake or euthanasia like I had hoped.

Using Data to Identify and Fill in the Gaps

Using Data to Re-Assess and Fine-Tune Programs

The second strategy

Using Data to Develop Programs: Filling the Gaps

The first strategy

the medical help that I provided did not help the sheltered animals leave alive in any larger numbers.

off-site adoption programs

These were animals with mange or kennel cough, minor behavior issues like being scared, or animals with minor injuries. APA created a large-scale foster program to provide short-term foster for these animals as they overcame their minor problems.

neonatal nursery with all the supplies needed for around-the-clock kitten care

again built up a large-scale medical foster base for all the injured and ill animals.

large breed dogs with behavior problems.

The Austin community's demand for adopting a pet is higher than the supply from AAC

By bringing in animals from other shelters, APA is able to prevent adopters from becoming pet store pet buyers and thus save a whole lot more lives.

adult large breed dogs with behavior issues are adopted each year because of improved customer service,

pet-matching practices,

behavior modification

APA rescued over 5,000 animals last year. No cat, kitten, small breed dog, puppy of any breed, or large breed friendly dog, including pit bulls, died in the City of Austin in 2011 simply because it didn't have a home.

increase the number of adoption venues

additional exposure.

MSNL do not decrease the number of animals entering or being killed in shelters.

MSNL have resulted in more abandoned animals, higher shelter admissions, higher kill rates, lower compliance with licensing and rabies vaccination laws, and radically increased costs for animal control. 

People become afraid to get pet licenses because proof of sterilization is required. 

They are afraid to go to a veterinarian for rabies shots or medical care because veterinarians are required to report them

People abandon their pets because they fear fines and penalties.

Numerous studies have shown that the primary reason people do not sterilize their pets is costs

When the result of not sterilizing is an unaffordable fine or confiscation/impoundment of the pet, animals die.

more than 80 percent of owned cats in the US are already sterilized

This means that the majority of unsterilized cats are unowned strays.

MSNL would do nothing to increase the sterilization of unowned cats and would not reduce their deaths in shelters.

Also, MSNL are a nightmare to enforce.

hey burden already underfunded, understaffed animal control departments with more responsibilities.

Each community must hire more animal control officers to enforce them so an enormous amount of additional money is spent to enforce a draconian law when a much better use of those funds would be to provide low cost or free spay/neuter services.

immediately after passing MSNL, kill rates began to rise in L.A.

successful no kill shelters have stopped the killing without these laws.

Even though the author claimed that the economic downturn has caused kill rates to rise in L.A., clearly this isn’t the correct explanation.

All of these shelters dropped their kill rates without MSNL.

It is obvious that Mandatory Spay/Neuter laws are not a factor that helps to stop the killing in shelters. 

El CMMR Leviathan ha contribuido con la primera y hasta ahora única experiencia formal en Chile de formas de identificar, cuantificar y mitigar los efectos negativos de la actividad turística sobre los cetáceos.

Some animals entering a shelter are free-living cats. A No Kill shelter will spay/neuter and release those cats instead of kill them.  Likewise, injured animals will receive medical attention, and then go into foster homes, as will other sick animals, orphaned neonatals, and dogs with behavior issues that need rehabilitation. And, lastly, further reducing the number of animals a shelter has to find homes for are local rescue groups. These groups take some of the animals entering the shelter, and a well-run No Kill shelter considers such organizations valuable allies, and has a friendly, cooperative relationship with th

good adoption hours

offsite adoption venues,

the lack of programs, the lack of alternatives to killing.

the problem is not “pet overpopulation,” but a lack of imagination, commitment, and determination to treat each animal as an individual with distinct needs that must be met.

on the shoulders of the very shelter directors who find killing easier than doing what is necessary to stop it

on the local governments who continue to underfund their shelters

place them under the regressive oversight of health and police departments

and even under sanitation!

Putting the responsibility for shelter killing on the public makes working for no kill a discouraging and hopeless endeavor, because the public is not going to change.

For that reason, someone who believes that spay-neuter is the only solution to a pet overpopulation crisis is not going to be a very effective proponent of no kill.

We need to have a bright line between the myth that shelter killing is caused by the irresponsible public and the truth, which is that shelter killing is the responsibility of shelter management.