Ask Me Anything #5: Rescue vs. Prevention
The Hidden Disconnect Undermining Animal Welfare Progress
Animal welfare thrives on the tireless dedication of rescuers—those who foster, adopt, and save lives every day. Their work is the engine of daily lifesaving. But no matter how heroic, rescue alone cannot end animal homelessness. Without an equal investment in prevention, the movement risks stalling—or worse, backsliding.
In this fifth edition of Ask Me Anything, a reader asks why the animal welfare movement often emphasizes feel-good rescues while neglecting life-saving prevention. It's a question that cuts to the heart of one of our most dangerous blind spots—and one we ignore at our peril.
Q: Why do rescuers often focus on immediate actions like fostering and adoption rather than preventive measures like spay/neuter?
Rescue work delivers immediate emotional rewards. Saving an animal in crisis or placing one in a loving home is a powerful, visible act of compassion. It’s deeply human to be drawn to that kind of tangible impact. Prevention, by contrast, is quiet. Its victories are statistical—animals who never suffer, never enter a shelter, are never born, never need saving. That kind of success can feel distant, even invisible.
But make no mistake: rescuers are the first responders of the no-kill movement. They are the tactical solution to the crises we face today. Prevention—especially robust spay/neuter programs—is the strategic solution to the crises we can still avoid tomorrow. We don’t need to choose between them. We need to recognize them as the one-two punch of true no-kill success.
Q: How can we discuss prevention without alienating rescuers who form the backbone of animal welfare?
The answer lies in reframing—not as either/or, but as both/and. Prevention isn’t a competing priority; it’s rescue at scale. A single spay/neuter surgery can prevent dozens, sometimes hundreds, of future animals from being born into suffering. That’s not just rescue—it’s exponential rescue.
The most powerful message we can send is this: prevention doesn't diminish the role of rescuers; it amplifies it. When rescuers advocate for spay/neuter, they expand their impact from saving one life to saving generations. Fostering, adopting, and advocating prevention aren't separate missions—they are a united front in the fight to end animal homelessness.
Q: Why do so many animal advocates tolerate national organizations deprioritizing spay/neuter programs?
This reflects a troubling combination of psychological blind spots and systemic incentives. While rescuers and donors often focus on emotionally gratifying actions—like adoptions or transport—national organizations have quietly deprioritized spay/neuter, despite its unmatched power to reduce shelter intake and euthanasia.
One reason may be financial. In a rare moment of candor, the CEO of a major national organization reportedly admitted, “We just haven’t learned how to monetize spay/neuter yet.” That confession says the quiet part out loud: prevention doesn’t easily lend itself to crisis marketing. Unlike rescue campaigns, which feature visible animals and urgent appeals, spay/neuter lacks the emotional hook—and with it, the fundraising punch.
But this marketing logic comes at a devastating cost. Without robust spay/neuter programs, shelters remain overwhelmed. The pipeline never stops. No amount of rescue or adoption can outpace unchecked reproduction. By focusing on optics over outcomes, national organizations sustain the very crisis they claim to be solving.
Advocates and donors must demand better. This isn’t about undermining rescue—it’s about reinforcing it with the only strategy proven to reduce intake at scale. Prevention is not glamorous, but it is essential. Without it, we’re not solving the crisis—we’re managing its symptoms, while countless animals continue to pay the price.
Q: How do we encourage rescuers to embrace prevention without diminishing their immediate lifesaving efforts?
Start by recognizing the obvious: rescuers are overwhelmed. They’re in the trenches, saving lives daily—often with limited time or support. Most already understand the value of spay/neuter, but the nonstop urgency of rescue work leaves little room to reflect on how prevention has been quietly sidelined by national organizations.
That’s why the shift must come from the top down and the ground up. We need national leadership that prioritizes prevention, and we need rescuers, donors, and advocates demanding it. When organizations focus only on visible efforts—like adoptions and transports—they reinforce a system that feels good in the moment but fails to address the root causes of shelter crowding and euthanasia.
The goal is not to ask rescuers to do more—it’s to help them do less in the future by preventing the crisis before it starts. Rescue and prevention aren’t competing missions. Together, they form the only sustainable path to no-kill.
Q: What psychological barriers make it difficult for some rescuers to prioritize prevention?
It’s not a lack of concern—rescuers care deeply about prevention. But several hardwired psychological dynamics make it harder to prioritize.
First is emotional immediacy. Rescue offers instant, visible results: an animal pulled from danger, a life visibly saved. Prevention, by contrast, works quietly. Its success is invisible—animals who never enter the system. That’s powerful, but harder to see, celebrate, or emotionally connect with.
Then there’s identity. For many rescuers, saving lives is not just a task—it’s a calling. So the idea of fewer animals needing rescue can feel like a loss of purpose, even if it actually expands their impact over time.
Familiarity also plays a role. People tend to gravitate toward what they know—fostering, adoption, transport—even when prevention might be more effective at scale.
And finally, there’s the identifiable victim effect: we’re more emotionally moved by a single, visible animal than by the abstract idea of preventing suffering. That emotional pull makes rescue feel more urgent and compelling—even when prevention is equally, if not more, critical. National organizations understand this dynamic well; they’ve built entire fundraising strategies around it. By centering campaigns on dramatic saves and individual stories, they tap into powerful emotions that drive donations—often at the expense of less visible but more impactful prevention efforts.
These barriers are human, not moral—and they’re not insurmountable. By acknowledging how emotion shapes our actions and how it’s often harnessed to favor short-term optics, we can begin to reframe prevention as a force multiplier for rescue. When rescue and prevention are seen as partners, not competitors, we can build a more balanced, effective movement—one that saves lives both today and in the future.
Q: Have you implemented successful programs that bridge rescue and prevention?
Absolutely. Throughout my career, I’ve had the privilege of developing programs that demonstrate how rescue and prevention, working together, can drive real, measurable change. Two of the most impactful were The Big Fix and Operation FELIX.
The Big Fix offered low- and no-cost spay/neuter services to pet owners who otherwise couldn’t afford them. The concept was simple: eliminate financial barriers so families could do the right thing. By expanding access to spay/neuter, we prevented countless unwanted litters—and in turn, dramatically reduced shelter intake. But it wasn’t just a numbers game. It was about empowering people to be part of the solution.
Operation FELIX—Feral Education and Love Instead of X-termination—took a humane, community-based approach to feral cat management. Through trap-neuter-return (TNR), trained volunteers sterilized and returned cats to managed colonies instead of opting for lethal control. The long-term results were striking: reduced feral populations and improved neighborhood relations. In some cases, these colonies even outperformed city pest control in rat abatement.
These programs weren’t standalone—they were part of a broader strategy that included efforts like Safety Net (keeping pets with families in crisis), Seniors for Seniors (pairing older pets with senior citizens), and Pets for Vets (supporting both animals and veterans through adoption). Each initiative reflected the same philosophy: save lives now, and prevent future suffering before it starts.
When rescue and prevention operate in tandem, the impact isn’t just added—it’s multiplied. That’s how we build lasting change. Not by choosing one approach over the other, but by aligning both in service of a future where fewer animals ever need to be rescued in the first place.
Q: How can organizations ensure they don’t alienate rescuers when emphasizing prevention?
Start with empathy and transparency. Rescuers are the first responders of animal welfare—rushing in when animals are in crisis. Their work is urgent, visible, and emotionally powerful. It deserves recognition and deep respect.
But just as first responders rely on disaster preparedness to reduce emergencies, rescuers benefit from prevention strategies—especially robust spay/neuter programs that reduce shelter intake and animal suffering before it begins. Rescue addresses immediate needs; prevention ensures fewer animals need to be rescued in the first place. They are not competing approaches—they are complementary.
The key is clear communication: organizations must frame prevention as a force multiplier for rescue, not a replacement. That means celebrating both rescue and prevention equally, signaling that each plays a vital role in saving lives. This balance builds trust, avoids alienation, and fosters a unified movement.
At the same time, we must ask why national organizations so heavily promote adoption, foster, and transport metrics—while rarely championing prevention. The answer may lie in optics. Feel-good, high-visibility outcomes support the crisis narrative that drives fundraising. Prevention, by contrast, works quietly in the background—delivering results without the same emotional appeal.
That’s a problem. When prevention is sidelined to maintain a constant state of emergency, we trade long-term solutions for short-term wins. Organizations committed to real change must challenge that cycle—and invite rescuers to help lead the shift.
Q: Why is uniting rescue and prevention so critical for animal welfare?
Rescue alone cannot solve the problem of pet overpopulation—it’s like bailing water out of a sinking boat without fixing the leak. Prevention addresses root causes by reducing shelter intake before it happens, making rescue efforts more effective overall.
But not all “prevention” is created equal. True prevention means reducing intake through responsible strategies—like spay/neuter, accessible veterinary care, and public education. What it does not mean is managed intake, release-to-community, or redefining the shelter as “everywhere and nowhere.” These deflection tactics don’t prevent suffering—they just shift it out of public view. Rescuers know the difference, and it’s time organizations stop conflating deflection with prevention.
By uniting behind both immediate rescue and long-term, responsible prevention, we can create a future where every animal has a chance—not just at survival, but at a life free from suffering.
This isn’t just about saving lives today; it’s about laying the foundation for fewer emergencies tomorrow. And when rescuers, advocates, donors, and organizations come together to prioritize both approaches, we can achieve lasting change without alienating those who dedicate their lives to saving animals one at a time.
The dream of a no-kill nation won’t be realized by rescue alone—it will require the courage to fund, promote, and demand prevention that actually prevents.
Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, City of Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments, and a former Board Director of the National Animal Control Association. His work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, Newsweek, Real Clear Policy, Sentient Media, and now on Animal Politics with Ed Boks.
Do You Have a Question?
I want to hear from you! Whether you're a seasoned animal advocate or just starting to explore the world of animal welfare, I encourage you to submit your questions. Your input will help shape future editions of "Ask Me Anything" and ensure that we cover topics that matter most to you.
How to Participate:
Email Your Questions to animalpolitics8@gmail.com
Follow Us: Stay updated on new editions and topics by subscribing to Animal Politics with Ed Boks.
Share Your Thoughts: Engage with us on the Leave a Comment at the bottom of every article to discuss the topics covered in each edition.
Stay Informed
For more analysis and updates on the evolving landscape of animal welfare policy, visit Animal Politics with Ed Boks.
Right on Ed, Sean Tyson, Merritt and Beth Clifton, Speaking for Spot, Stacy Shores, Elyse Cregar, Renee W2, and all. Please see/share our research from Captain Rob Balsamo, Captain Dan Hanley, Amber Quitno, Prof. Tony Martin, Prof. Graeme MacQueen, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, and others and help us improve it if you can. Thank you!
https://michaelatkinson.substack.com/
Sincerely,
Michael
🦖
Every mention of "rescuer" in this excellent column could be replaced by "feeder" and be equally true––or even more so. Rescuers often begin as feeders of street animals, then escalate their activity to rescue. Some feeders also escalate into neuter/return, but too many don't, and many neuter/return practitioners retire into just feeding. Along the way, there seems to be no recognition whatever of an ecological reality: if an animal population exists somewhere, that population already has an adequate food source to sustain itself and sustain reproduction at least equivalent to mortality. Excessive food supply equals more successful reproduction and dispersal. This is all Ecology 1-A, but feeding seems to proceed from deep instinctive & emotional responses that are practically impossible to counter with appeals to intellect. Half a century has passed since Carol Haspell & Robert Calhoun documented that feeders habitually provide homeless cats with a third more food than they actually need, thereby stimulating reproduction & proliferation of the rodents the cats would otherwise control, but the importance of this finding has yet to be assimilated by the animal care & control community. Meanwhile, if anyone cares to look closely, practically every objection anyone raises to neuter/return has to do with feeding: attracting more cats & rodents, concentrated odors & poop, even killing birds, since unfed cats hunt nocturnal rodents by night, sleeping by day, while fed cats sleep at night and hunt relatively hard-to-catch birds for sport by day. The same dynamic applies to feeding street dogs in India: feeding tends to concentrate dogs in packs, who then become aggressive and dangerous to passers-by, instead of dispersing to hunt rats and scavenge, as dogs did harmlessly for thousands of years before increasing affluence and food abundance made dog-feeding a common pastime. Right around the world, most human conflicts with animals could be eliminated just by observing one simple rule: don't feed the wildlife. A person should feed the animals he/she takes full responsibility for; otherwise, don't habituate any animal to being fed instead of finding food as the animal otherwise would, whether cat, coyote, dog, pigeon, leopard or Bengal tiger, who by the way have in some Indian cities developed the habit of sneaking in to hunt the dogs concentrated in feeding locales, instead of hunting much harder to catch chital, blackbuck, and sambar.