California’s $30 Million Spay-Neuter Fund: A Critical Test for Animal Welfare Accountability
Why This Proposal Must Succeed—And How to Make It Work
California spends over $400 million annually managing animals after they enter shelters—yet invests less than 1% of that amount in preventative spay-neuter services. The result? The second-highest euthanasia rate in the nation, behind only Texas.
A recent white paper titled "California Needs a Spay Neuter Fund," proposes an annual $30 million investment to help address this misalignment by funding widespread sterilization efforts. While this initiative presents a compelling case for prevention, its success will depend on strict oversight, strategic targeting, and effective implementation.
The Case for Prevention: What the White Paper Gets Right
The white paper, authored by Partners in Animal Care & Compassion, correctly identifies spay-neuter as the most humane and cost-effective solution to reducing shelter overcrowding and euthanasia rates. Successful models from other states demonstrate the impact of proactive investment:
New Hampshire Spay-Neuter Program: Launched in 1994, this initiative reduced shelter euthanasia by 77%. It continues to operate today, offering $25 spay-neuter services to low-income pet owners, funded by a $2 surcharge on dog licenses.
Maryland Spay-Neuter Program: Since its 2014 launch, this program has funded over 119,565 sterilizations, cutting euthanasia rates nearly in half. It is financed through pet food industry fees, ensuring sustained funding.
These examples underscore the white paper's core argument: prevention is not only more humane but also more cost-effective than reactive shelter management.
Examining the Numbers: Are They Enough?
The white paper claims that $30 million could fund 178,827 spay-neuter surgeries annually—enough to halt population growth among dogs, cats, and feral cats statewide. This estimate is based on formulas from the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and Peter Marsh’s Getting to Zero.
However, Merritt Clifton, editor of Animals 24-7, argues that the "70% Rule," is a more reliable benchmark. Based on epidemiological principles dating back to Leonardo Fibonacci and Louis Pasteur, this model suggests that sterilizing at least 70% of the intact animal population is necessary to prevent continued overpopulation. If Clifton’s higher threshold holds true, California may need to revise its spay-neuter goals to achieve meaningful reductions in shelter intake and euthanasia rates.
While these numbers provide useful targets, real-world factors—such as veterinarian availability, administrative efficiency, and public engagement—will ultimately determine success.
Learning From Past Failures: A Necessary Caution
Funding alone does not guarantee success. Without proper oversight, well-intended programs can fail, as seen in recent initiatives:
"California for All Animals" (2021-Present): This $50 million initiative, managed by UC Davis' Koret Shelter Medicine Program, fell short due to poor resource allocation. Despite shelters requesting nearly $46 million for spay-neuter services, only $8.67 million was granted, while an excessive portion went to administrative costs and unnecessary equipment purchases.
Los Angeles’ Voucher Program: While successful for many years, this initiative eventually failed due to a lack of targeted funding in high-need areas and administrative inefficiencies.
Maine’s "Help Fix ME" Program Collapse: Once effective, this low-income spay-neuter program deteriorated due to administrative neglect, unanswered hotline calls, delayed vouchers, and declining veterinarian participation.
These failures underscore a crucial lesson: funding alone is not enough. Without robust oversight and strategic planning, even well-intended initiatives can fall short.
Recommendations for Ensuring Success
To avoid repeating past mistakes, California’s proposed Spay-Neuter Fund must incorporate the following safeguards:
Independent Oversight and Transparency: Establish a committee of veterinarians, animal welfare experts, and community advocates to monitor fund allocation and issue regular public reports.
Clear Administrative Accountability: Ensure rapid voucher processing (days, not weeks); provide a staffed, responsive hotline with reliable voicemail systems; budget for competitive veterinarian reimbursement rates to incentivize widespread participation.
Targeted Distribution: Prioritize funding in high-need communities with elevated shelter intake and euthanasia rates, avoiding disproportionate allocation to wealthier regions or well-funded organizations.
Adopt Proven Models: Indiana’s Pet Friendly Services program operates efficiently with minimal staffing while maintaining high transparency and effectiveness. California should model its approach on such success stories.
A Humane Investment We Must Get Right
The proposed $30 million Spay-Neuter Fund is a necessary investment—but it must be designed for long-term effectiveness. By ensuring independent oversight, transparent public reporting, rapid voucher distribution, competitive veterinarian incentives, and strategic resource allocation, California can prevent unnecessary shelter deaths while maximizing taxpayer investment.
California has an opportunity—and an obligation—to get this right. The time for bold, transparent action is now.
Take Action Now
The success of California’s Spay-Neuter Fund depends on public support. Add your voice to the movement—sign the petition and demand responsible implementation:
Petition for California’s Spay-Neuter Fund
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.
Stay Informed
For more analysis and updates on the evolving landscape of animal welfare policy, visit Animal Politics with Ed Boks.
This is exciting to read about. This was always, and is still, the only reasonable approach to curb overpopulation. Especially since reckless breeding has been allowed to flourish by the Koret models. All CA advocates need to support this in a big way.
Thanks, Ed, for the mention of Fibonacci and the "70% solution," also known as "Get 70% or flunk." This is based on the concept that sterilization is in effect vaccinating animals against conception. 70% is the minimum number required to successfully vaccinate a population of any sort of animal against any contagious disease (it is easily possible to demonstrate why with a pair of dice), but more is always better. The late physics professor Robert Lewis Plumb of Chico State University, who doubled as president of the Progressive Animal Welfare Society in Chico, tipped me off to this in 1992, citing Fibonacci, & I have been speaking & writing about it ever since, often with Peter Marsh, in the context of approaching an animal population of unknown size, age stratification, and previous sterilization status.
In that situation, whether dealing with feral cats, as we usually are here in the U.S., or street dogs, the typical case abroad, the first step in planning an effective sterilization program is to count the numbers of cats or dogs. Then sterilize 70% within the first breeding season, and thereafter keep the sterilization ratio at 70% plus, for females essentially and for males preferentially.
Peter's disagreement with the "70% solution" is technical & usually inapplicable to real-life situations, but if you do happen to be able to identify the population of cats or dogs at large by age, he cites these considerations:
"The average age at which dogs or cats are sterilized greatly affects reproductive rates, too. A study of owned dogs in an Italian province found that if dogs were spayed at three years of age, 55% of the females would have to be sterilized to keep a stable population, but if the average age of sterilization was reduced to less than a year old, a sterilization rate as low as 26% could halt population growth."
Note that the above depends on also maintaining the mortality of dogs at the level found in that unnamed Italian province. Normally, though, an increase in the sterilization rate is accompanied by a decrease in mortality. Thus with no decrease in mortality, it might be possible to get away with sterilizing only 55% of the females, but reality is that in real life it is necessary to get the sterilization rate up to 70%.
Continues Marsh: "Another study found that 91% of the females in a feral cat population
would need to be sterilized to keep a stable population if cats were spayed when they were a year old but if females younger than that were spayed, too, a sterilization rate of about 71% would stabilize the population."
The error in that calculation is that if you wait until the cats your cohort are all a year old, of course you end up with more cats to fix to get ahead of population growth, whereas if you fix them all when you can catch them, at five or six months of age, "71% would stabilize the population."
As mentioned above, an easy demonstration of the need to vaccinate and sterilize 70% of a street dog and/or feral cat population can be done with dice, & I have often done it to conference audiences.
Throwing a pair of dice gives you 19 possible number combinations adding up to 11 possible totals. Designate the combinations adding up to 2-7 and 12 as immune or sterile (68%) and the rest as vulnerable to either disease or pregnancy.
Explain to your audience that you are now going to show them how far rabies can spread and how large the street dog and/or feral cat population can grow if 70% of the dogs are vaccinated. Ask for 10 volunteers to pretend to be 10 of the community s dogs and/or cats, to act out the demonstration as a skit.
Throw the dice 10 times, once for each person, to represent any random group of 10 dogs or cats who may be attacked by a rabid animal or may become pregnant.
If the dice show 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 12, the dog or cat is sterilized and vaccinated. She will neither get rabies nor become pregnant. Have those volunteers step back.
If the dice show 8, 9, 10, or 11, the dog or cat has a litter, gets rabies, and can spread it.
Each time you get 8, 9, 10, or 11, ask for another volunteer to step forward from the audience, to represent the surviving offspring from the litter who may also breed and/or get rabies, and throw the dice again. Continue until all of your volunteers have stepped back.
Results will vary, but almost always you will end dog and cat reproduction and halt the rabies outbreak within fewer than 10 throws after your initial 10, which at the normal rate of street dog or feral cat mortality would be the replacement population level.
To check the results, you can decrease the numbers of immune combinations.
The importance of reaching 70% should soon manifest itself.
Dice. Don't leave home on a humane education mission without them.