These managed intake policies ALWAYS come at the expense of the animal's well-being. It's unacceptable and is adding the burden to the smaller rescues who are already overwhelmed and have no money. Or even worse, the public, who many times let the animal end up in horrific situations such as heing dumped in the desert, given to homeless drug addicts to use to get money for drugs, and on and on. When will animal welfare leaders actually start caring about animals?
Thank you, Tina! You’ve raised an important point about how managed intake policies can shift the burden onto smaller rescues and the public, often with heartbreaking consequences for animals. It’s clear that these policies need to be carefully balanced to ensure they don’t compromise animal welfare or overwhelm already stretched resources.
Your passion for this issue is evident, and I truly appreciate your engagement in this conversation. Together, let's continue to advocate for policies that prioritize the well-being of animals and the communities that care for them.
No-kill is a commendable goal, but it will NEVER be achieved without robust, ongoing spay and neuter programs. So why have all the Big Boys, the well-funded organizations and foundations, stopped promoting and supporting spay and neuter? What's in it for them to have more animals on the streets, more animals in shelters, and more animals being euthanized in shelters?
I visited BFAS in 2018 and was surprised that there were no tours or volunteer opportunities in their (previously) much-touted spay and neuter clinic. When I asked for a tour, the response I received made me feel that I'd crossed a line. When I finally received an answer a day or two later, and visited the clinic (on a weekday), I was surprised that nobody was there. No people, no animals. It was a beautiful, well-equipped facility that was eerily silent. No animals were being served, despite the fact that the need for affordable spaying and neutering in their own community is huge.
Going on their website just now, I see that their spay and neuter clinic is "temporarily closed." What a terrible waste.
Thank you, Jennifer, for sharing your experience and insights—it is concerning to hear about the apparent decline in spay/neuter efforts, especially given their critical role in addressing overpopulation. Your visit to BFAS in 2018 and the situation you described at their clinic really highlights the disconnect between their public messaging and on-the-ground impact.
I completely agree that robust, ongoing spay/neuter programs are essential to achieving any meaningful progress in animal welfare. It’s frustrating to see such well-equipped facilities underutilized when the need is so great, especially in their own communities.
Thank you for taking the time to share your observations—it’s voices like yours that help keep these important conversations going. I’m grateful for your engagement and look forward to continuing this dialogue!
Heaven forbid that a shelter should log intake requests! That would make it possible to determine the true need for sheltering in a community and it would shine a light on the number of animals being turned away.
Good point, Jennifer! Employee turnover is an important factor to consider when evaluating the overall impact of the changes implemented. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to this information at this time, but it may be available through public records or directly from IACS.
You might consider submitting a public records request to IACS or the City of Indianapolis. Such requests can often provide insights into staffing trends and other operational data. If I come across any relevant information regarding this, I’ll be sure to share it in a future update.
Thank you for engaging with this topic and for your interest in understanding the broader implications of these changes. Your curiosity helps drive meaningful conversations!
I've studied quite a bit. I have a group on Nextdoor, Stop TNR and Roaming Cats. I post studies, articles and examples of how TNR is ineffective.
The typical mission creep of TNR. Sold as a way to reduce populations of feral cats being fed. That changes to stabilizing those populations being fed. That later changes to helping community cats people feed. It's a bait and switch con!
Now they openly talk about the welfare of the cats but not about reducing populations.
TNR policy is to always have populations of feral cats so more don't appear because cats keep other cats away. That is a lie. New cats readily join for the limitless food. Limitless food = limitless population growth.
Hi Mark, thank you for sharing your perspective and the work you’re doing to highlight concerns about TNR programs. Your point about “mission creep” in TNR initiatives—from population reduction to indefinite colony maintenance—raises important questions about the long-term effectiveness of these strategies. The tension between animal welfare goals and ecological/community impacts is a complex issue that deserves rigorous, data-driven evaluation.
Your observation about food availability and population growth underscores a critical challenge in managing community cat programs. While some studies suggest TNR can stabilize colonies under specific conditions, vigorous colony management is prerequisite to success.
Your voice adds an important dimension to this discussion. I encourage you to continue advocating for evidence-based approaches that balance animal welfare with community needs. Let’s keep pushing for policies that prioritize both compassion and practicality.
I've lived next to TNR cat colonies 2X, neighborhood of my elderly parents had a huge 100 cat, cat colony for 20 years. They are horrible! Constant dead and dying cats, kittens everywhere. Constant flea bites, rats everywhere due to all the pet food, (great for the pet food business), rabies reservoir skunks and racoons. Baits in coyotes. Constant smell of urines and feces. Wormy diseases feces.
The worst part is dealing with mean crazy feral cat hobbyists. When you ask them to stop they dump more cats, let cats reproduce more and dump more pet food. That escalates to vandalizing the "cat haters" property. Then stalking, doxing, threating anonymous phone calls. Told, "Your picture is being passed around and we've alerted the police, DA, Park Rangers (Made false police reports, swatting). "We know your dentist and medical provider and where you work". This is the biggest reason to stop TNR and no kill policies but city and county governments don't want to be harassed also. The unleashes crazy, vindictive dishonest feral cat hobbyists on neighborhoods as the local governments are too scared to deal with them.
The beauty of a can is the target defends it to the end.
Mark, thank you for weighing in with your perspective! What you are describing is not only NOT TNR, it's the antithesis of TNR. TNR is meant to address and "fix" the very situations you describe. What you seem to be describing is some dystopian version of "community cats", or community cat programs gove very wrong, such as what we are hearing now in communities that have adopted Consortium policies. I encourage you to investigate TNR further to better understand how much alignment you probably have with this methodology.
I know that Best Friends was here in Roswell, NM as well as El Paso, Texas but left before their year term was up. It is hard to find out why, but there was a lot of controversy around it, and upset communities; I wish Best Friends were transparent and proactive publishing a summary of what went well and what didn’t and how things need to change to make the community a better place for animals.
If the big animal welfare organizations took even a small portion of their donations/revenue, say $100 million*, and put it toward spay and neuter, not covering just a portion of the spay neuter cost but the full cost they could fix approx 600,000 animals each year. Multiply that by 7 and we are solving the problem in our county quickly and then they could move on to other countries and really end suffering! Wouldn’t this be a dream!
Unfortunately there isn’t enough money or understanding of the need in poor areas for small groups/nonprofits to easily raise funds for enough spay neuter to be effective. I’ve been in charge of fundraising for a group in a very poor county where the euthanasia rate is 50% or greater for years. Filling the gap after Bissell’s contribution toward a portion of the spay neuter cost doesn’t work. I hope they come to understand this and change their policy to cover the full cost in areas where the need is the greatest. It would be a great help, and hopefully other big org’s decide to follow suit!
*Here’s where my thinking comes from, feedback welcome if numbers are not correct: $100 million of the approximately $700 million received from donations each year from the big groups would give each state enough money to fix approximately 13,000 animals at average cost of $150/per dog or cat, for a total of approximately 600,000 animals each year.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Sharon! You raise an important point about transparency—if Best Friends (or any large organization) were truly committed to progress, an honest assessment of what worked and what didn’t in places like Roswell and El Paso would be invaluable for future efforts. The lack of clarity only fuels skepticism.
Your breakdown of spay/neuter funding is compelling. If just a fraction of these massive budgets were allocated toward fully covering the cost in the most underserved areas, the impact could be game-changing. As you pointed out, small local groups struggle to raise enough to bridge the gap, and without sustained, large-scale investment in prevention, shelters will remain overwhelmed.
I completely agree—shifting priorities to fully fund high-impact spay/neuter efforts in the hardest-hit areas could create real, lasting change. Hopefully, more people push for accountability and policy shifts to make this happen! Thanks for your insights.
The big orgs have abandoned spay/neuter, the original bedrock of No Kill, to exploit the fundraising gold of distressed homeless pets and develop a commercial-complex around pet overpopulation. Maddies Fund, Best Friends are marketing software based programs for pet overpopulation. Maddies Fund originator Dave Duffield is a software billionaire with programs like PeopleSoft. And now Best Friends "No Kill 2025" is about linking up majority of shelters and non-profits submitting their data regularly in their private data system.
As most every national system has been financialized, now animal welfare is too and reliant on overpopulation of animals.
Thanks Ed, for posting related article links at bottom of articles.
Thank you, Carmen, for sharing your thoughtful insights! You’ve raised some important points about how the focus in animal welfare seems to have shifted from foundational efforts like spay/neuter programs toward more marketable initiatives. The financialization of animal welfare, as you noted, is a growing concern, especially when it prioritizes data aggregation and fundraising over sustainable, community-based solutions.
I appreciate your perspective on Maddie’s Fund and Best Friends’ "No Kill 2025" initiative—it’s critical for us to examine how these large organizations are shaping the future of animal welfare. Transparency and accountability are key to ensuring that these efforts truly benefit animals and communities alike.
Thank you also for your kind words about the related article links—I’m glad they’re helpful! I look forward to continuing this dialogue with engaged readers like you.
These managed intake policies ALWAYS come at the expense of the animal's well-being. It's unacceptable and is adding the burden to the smaller rescues who are already overwhelmed and have no money. Or even worse, the public, who many times let the animal end up in horrific situations such as heing dumped in the desert, given to homeless drug addicts to use to get money for drugs, and on and on. When will animal welfare leaders actually start caring about animals?
Thank you, Tina! You’ve raised an important point about how managed intake policies can shift the burden onto smaller rescues and the public, often with heartbreaking consequences for animals. It’s clear that these policies need to be carefully balanced to ensure they don’t compromise animal welfare or overwhelm already stretched resources.
Your passion for this issue is evident, and I truly appreciate your engagement in this conversation. Together, let's continue to advocate for policies that prioritize the well-being of animals and the communities that care for them.
No-kill is a commendable goal, but it will NEVER be achieved without robust, ongoing spay and neuter programs. So why have all the Big Boys, the well-funded organizations and foundations, stopped promoting and supporting spay and neuter? What's in it for them to have more animals on the streets, more animals in shelters, and more animals being euthanized in shelters?
I visited BFAS in 2018 and was surprised that there were no tours or volunteer opportunities in their (previously) much-touted spay and neuter clinic. When I asked for a tour, the response I received made me feel that I'd crossed a line. When I finally received an answer a day or two later, and visited the clinic (on a weekday), I was surprised that nobody was there. No people, no animals. It was a beautiful, well-equipped facility that was eerily silent. No animals were being served, despite the fact that the need for affordable spaying and neutering in their own community is huge.
Going on their website just now, I see that their spay and neuter clinic is "temporarily closed." What a terrible waste.
Thank you, Jennifer, for sharing your experience and insights—it is concerning to hear about the apparent decline in spay/neuter efforts, especially given their critical role in addressing overpopulation. Your visit to BFAS in 2018 and the situation you described at their clinic really highlights the disconnect between their public messaging and on-the-ground impact.
I completely agree that robust, ongoing spay/neuter programs are essential to achieving any meaningful progress in animal welfare. It’s frustrating to see such well-equipped facilities underutilized when the need is so great, especially in their own communities.
Thank you for taking the time to share your observations—it’s voices like yours that help keep these important conversations going. I’m grateful for your engagement and look forward to continuing this dialogue!
Heaven forbid that a shelter should log intake requests! That would make it possible to determine the true need for sheltering in a community and it would shine a light on the number of animals being turned away.
I'm curious as to what IACS employee turnover rate was during this transition?
Good point, Jennifer! Employee turnover is an important factor to consider when evaluating the overall impact of the changes implemented. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to this information at this time, but it may be available through public records or directly from IACS.
You might consider submitting a public records request to IACS or the City of Indianapolis. Such requests can often provide insights into staffing trends and other operational data. If I come across any relevant information regarding this, I’ll be sure to share it in a future update.
Thank you for engaging with this topic and for your interest in understanding the broader implications of these changes. Your curiosity helps drive meaningful conversations!
I've studied quite a bit. I have a group on Nextdoor, Stop TNR and Roaming Cats. I post studies, articles and examples of how TNR is ineffective.
The typical mission creep of TNR. Sold as a way to reduce populations of feral cats being fed. That changes to stabilizing those populations being fed. That later changes to helping community cats people feed. It's a bait and switch con!
Now they openly talk about the welfare of the cats but not about reducing populations.
TNR policy is to always have populations of feral cats so more don't appear because cats keep other cats away. That is a lie. New cats readily join for the limitless food. Limitless food = limitless population growth.
Hi Mark, thank you for sharing your perspective and the work you’re doing to highlight concerns about TNR programs. Your point about “mission creep” in TNR initiatives—from population reduction to indefinite colony maintenance—raises important questions about the long-term effectiveness of these strategies. The tension between animal welfare goals and ecological/community impacts is a complex issue that deserves rigorous, data-driven evaluation.
Your observation about food availability and population growth underscores a critical challenge in managing community cat programs. While some studies suggest TNR can stabilize colonies under specific conditions, vigorous colony management is prerequisite to success.
Your voice adds an important dimension to this discussion. I encourage you to continue advocating for evidence-based approaches that balance animal welfare with community needs. Let’s keep pushing for policies that prioritize both compassion and practicality.
Thanks for engaging with this critical issue!
I've lived next to TNR cat colonies 2X, neighborhood of my elderly parents had a huge 100 cat, cat colony for 20 years. They are horrible! Constant dead and dying cats, kittens everywhere. Constant flea bites, rats everywhere due to all the pet food, (great for the pet food business), rabies reservoir skunks and racoons. Baits in coyotes. Constant smell of urines and feces. Wormy diseases feces.
The worst part is dealing with mean crazy feral cat hobbyists. When you ask them to stop they dump more cats, let cats reproduce more and dump more pet food. That escalates to vandalizing the "cat haters" property. Then stalking, doxing, threating anonymous phone calls. Told, "Your picture is being passed around and we've alerted the police, DA, Park Rangers (Made false police reports, swatting). "We know your dentist and medical provider and where you work". This is the biggest reason to stop TNR and no kill policies but city and county governments don't want to be harassed also. The unleashes crazy, vindictive dishonest feral cat hobbyists on neighborhoods as the local governments are too scared to deal with them.
The beauty of a can is the target defends it to the end.
Mark, thank you for weighing in with your perspective! What you are describing is not only NOT TNR, it's the antithesis of TNR. TNR is meant to address and "fix" the very situations you describe. What you seem to be describing is some dystopian version of "community cats", or community cat programs gove very wrong, such as what we are hearing now in communities that have adopted Consortium policies. I encourage you to investigate TNR further to better understand how much alignment you probably have with this methodology.
I know that Best Friends was here in Roswell, NM as well as El Paso, Texas but left before their year term was up. It is hard to find out why, but there was a lot of controversy around it, and upset communities; I wish Best Friends were transparent and proactive publishing a summary of what went well and what didn’t and how things need to change to make the community a better place for animals.
If the big animal welfare organizations took even a small portion of their donations/revenue, say $100 million*, and put it toward spay and neuter, not covering just a portion of the spay neuter cost but the full cost they could fix approx 600,000 animals each year. Multiply that by 7 and we are solving the problem in our county quickly and then they could move on to other countries and really end suffering! Wouldn’t this be a dream!
Unfortunately there isn’t enough money or understanding of the need in poor areas for small groups/nonprofits to easily raise funds for enough spay neuter to be effective. I’ve been in charge of fundraising for a group in a very poor county where the euthanasia rate is 50% or greater for years. Filling the gap after Bissell’s contribution toward a portion of the spay neuter cost doesn’t work. I hope they come to understand this and change their policy to cover the full cost in areas where the need is the greatest. It would be a great help, and hopefully other big org’s decide to follow suit!
*Here’s where my thinking comes from, feedback welcome if numbers are not correct: $100 million of the approximately $700 million received from donations each year from the big groups would give each state enough money to fix approximately 13,000 animals at average cost of $150/per dog or cat, for a total of approximately 600,000 animals each year.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Sharon! You raise an important point about transparency—if Best Friends (or any large organization) were truly committed to progress, an honest assessment of what worked and what didn’t in places like Roswell and El Paso would be invaluable for future efforts. The lack of clarity only fuels skepticism.
Your breakdown of spay/neuter funding is compelling. If just a fraction of these massive budgets were allocated toward fully covering the cost in the most underserved areas, the impact could be game-changing. As you pointed out, small local groups struggle to raise enough to bridge the gap, and without sustained, large-scale investment in prevention, shelters will remain overwhelmed.
I completely agree—shifting priorities to fully fund high-impact spay/neuter efforts in the hardest-hit areas could create real, lasting change. Hopefully, more people push for accountability and policy shifts to make this happen! Thanks for your insights.
The big orgs have abandoned spay/neuter, the original bedrock of No Kill, to exploit the fundraising gold of distressed homeless pets and develop a commercial-complex around pet overpopulation. Maddies Fund, Best Friends are marketing software based programs for pet overpopulation. Maddies Fund originator Dave Duffield is a software billionaire with programs like PeopleSoft. And now Best Friends "No Kill 2025" is about linking up majority of shelters and non-profits submitting their data regularly in their private data system.
As most every national system has been financialized, now animal welfare is too and reliant on overpopulation of animals.
Thanks Ed, for posting related article links at bottom of articles.
Thank you, Carmen, for sharing your thoughtful insights! You’ve raised some important points about how the focus in animal welfare seems to have shifted from foundational efforts like spay/neuter programs toward more marketable initiatives. The financialization of animal welfare, as you noted, is a growing concern, especially when it prioritizes data aggregation and fundraising over sustainable, community-based solutions.
I appreciate your perspective on Maddie’s Fund and Best Friends’ "No Kill 2025" initiative—it’s critical for us to examine how these large organizations are shaping the future of animal welfare. Transparency and accountability are key to ensuring that these efforts truly benefit animals and communities alike.
Thank you also for your kind words about the related article links—I’m glad they’re helpful! I look forward to continuing this dialogue with engaged readers like you.
Stray, sick, injured and deceased animals everywhere. It is disturbing.
Can you write some articles about what is working?
Augusta,
Here are a few to get you started. Check out the Animal Politics Archive for more:
https://open.substack.com/pub/animalpolitics/p/cathy-bissell-revolutionizing-animal
https://open.substack.com/pub/animalpolitics/p/access-to-care-starts-here-why-spayneuter
https://open.substack.com/pub/animalpolitics/p/from-crisis-to-compassion-houston
https://open.substack.com/pub/animalpolitics/p/under-siege-the-harrowing-battle
https://open.substack.com/pub/animalpolitics/p/who-will-let-the-dogs-out-interview
https://open.substack.com/pub/animalpolitics/p/reviving-the-wild-the-astonishing