New study: neutering works, killing doesn’t
Dear Colleague:
A new literature review published in Preventive Veterinary Medicine examined the comparative effectiveness of rounding up and killing vs. neutering and release programs for managing free-roaming dogs and cats in developing nations around the world. The researchers reviewed 91 empirical studies and 18 modeling studies evaluating interventions across multiple outcomes, including animal welfare, population control, zoonotic disease prevention, public safety, ecological impacts, and cost-effectiveness. Their findings showed that birth control strategies were significantly more effective. Killing was generally ineffective, especially in mainland settings.
The review found that long-term, integrated birth control programs consistently produced better outcomes across nearly every category studied. Programs that achieved high sterilization coverage over multiple years were more likely to reduce animal populations, lower rabies incidence, decrease “shelter” intake and kill rates, and improve public attitudes toward free-roaming animals. By contrast, killing often failed because populations quickly rebounded through abandonment, migration of new animals into cleared areas, and continued uncontrolled breeding. In short, killing dogs did not produce intended outcomes.
This mirrors findings in U.S. cities that consistently show neutering feral cats, reduces killing, reduces the number of free roaming cats, reduces illness for those animals already in shelters, reduces “nuisance” complaints, saves money, and “allows staff and management to focus on other areas of the operation and pursue other welfare related strategies. The internal capacity of the organization to help other animals is increased without requiring more staff.” In other words, TNR also helps dogs, rabbits, and other animals, too.
The implications are substantial for governments, public health agencies, and animal welfare organizations. The evidence proves that humane management strategies are not only ethical but also more effective and sustainable.
Of course, dogs are better off in homes than they are living outside and the ultimate goal should be adoption. In the U.S., the choice between leaving dogs on the street and rounding them up to kill them is a false one. Open admission No Kill Equation communities are achieving 98%-99% placement rates. That is the approach we advocate and that is the approach responsible for a 95% decline in U.S. killing rates, before the movement was hijacked and derailed by those barring at-risk animals from entering shelters. But in the developing world, the choice between neutering or killing is a no-brainer: dogs are better off alive than dead.
The same is true for cats. When I ran open admission No Kill shelters, all cats who were social with people were guaranteed a home, while cats who were not social with people were sterilized and returned to their habitats. Unfortunately, that is not happening in too many communities. Instead, pound directors are turning away many friendly cats and kittens by telling people who find them to leave them or re-abandon them on the street.
Meanwhile, national organizations, like Best Friends and Austin Pets Alive, prop them up, legitimize them, and provide them political cover with euphemisms like “managed care,” “community sheltering,” and “Human Animal Support Services,” which in too many communities simply means “no entry.”
To learn more about these issues, download our No Kill Toolkit, a collection of over 30 free guides to creating a truly humane society; or, pick up a copy of The No Kill Companion, a reference manual for rescuers, shelter staff, legislators, policymakers, media, advocates, and other stakeholders.
Very truly yours,
Nathan J. Winograd
Executive Director
Together, not only will we save lives; we will create a future where every animal will be respected and cherished and where every individual life will be protected and revered.