Read about the importance of Targeted Spay & Neuter!   This approach is the only method SNKC has followed and has proven successful right here in Kansas City.

I. UPDATING STERILIZATION - 
"THE ENORMOUS POTENTIAL OF TARGETED NEUTERING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Sterilization dominated the original LES strategy. While times now require a more comprehensive approach, as described above, sterilization programs still deserve to play a primary role. As with legislation and education, the best way to maximize the impact of future sterilization programs is to build on earlier successes. In the same way and for the same reasons, we also need to update our approach to neutering programs.

The original LES program promoted the establishment of discount neutering clinics open to all pet owners, often subsidized with public funds. When pet sterilization rates were much lower, open access programs were necessary to popularize neutering. With the current high sterilization rates, however, more than 75 cents of every dollar spent on untargeted subsidies is wasted to help pay for sterilizations that would have been done without them.

To be effective, neutering programs must reach pets in the breeding population and result in sterilizations that wouldn't have been occurred otherwise. Because they are not cost effective, untargeted programs are prohibitively expensive.

Not only are untargeted programs expensive and ineffective, they understandably alienate veterinarians, who deserve to be our main partners in this struggle. Experience across the country has shown that the veterinary community will actively support neutering assistance programs if subsidies are provided only to those who truly need them.

Two unavoidable facts placed a ceiling on the effectiveness of the combined education-and-discount-neutering strategy of the original LES program: sterilization procedures necessarily involve significant expense and low income pet guardians usually cannot afford them without subsidies of 80% or more. As a result, fewer dogs and cats kept by low-income caretakers are now sterilized. This is especially true for cats. A 1994 study found that cats living in low income households were more than twice as likely to be sexually intact as those living in a middle and upper-income households.

It has become increasingly clear that our failure to develop affordable neutering programs for low-income programs has put a brake on the effectiveness of first generation LES programs. The victims of pet overpopulation are increasingly from poor communities. In California, for instance, the shelter euthanasia rate in the 11 poorest countries in 1995 was almost three times higher than that of the 12 richest counties. In New Jersey, the disparity between rich and poor counties was even greater in 1998. Ending pet overpopulation will require making neutering procedures as affordable for low income pet guardians as they now are for all other people.

The importance of establishing affordable and accessible neutering subsidy programs can be seen in the dramatic impact they have once they are established. In New Hampshire, the shelter euthanasia rate dropped 75% in the first six years after an affordable neutering assistance program was established for low-income families. As a result of this program, New Hampshire has now achieved the lowest statewide shelter euthanasia rate in the country, less than 2.4 dogs and cats killed per thousand people.

Targeted neutering subsidy programs are so cost effective that they are presently affordable in every part of the country. The total yearly cost of the New Hampshire low-income program has been less than 15 cents per resident, including all administrative costs. Taking into account the moderate cost of living there and the low poverty rate, comparably effective programs can be established in any part of the country for 30 cents per person per year. Animal control, impoundment and sheltering expenses typically cost taxpayers about $3 per person every year, so a targeted neutering subsidy program could be established by reallocating about ten per cent of the amount now spent for reactive programs to impound and shelter the victims of overpopulation. Or, as mentioned earlier, the full cost of such a program could be paid for through a $10 increase in the differential for intact dog licenses.

These programs are a good investment. They more than pay for themselves. Every dollar spent on the New Hampshire low-income program, for instance, has saved $3.22 in reduced impoundment expenses.

Not only are proactive programs like this cost effective, in the end they are our only hope to end pet overpopulation. Bitter experience has shown that we cannot adopt our way out of pet overpopulation or build our way out. A system that continues to spend upwards of 95% of its resources on reactive programs is doomed to failure and frustration. On the other hand, effective preventive programs reverse this debilitating dynamic. Investing in proactive programs allows the increasing reallocation of resources to proactive programs, building momentum to the day when shelters will realize their century-long mission--to rescue and rehabilitate homeless animals and find a loving home for each and every one.

Peter Marsh
Solutions to Overpopulation of Pets
24 Montgomery Street
Concord, N.H. 03301