$75 Million Could Have Done What? A Critical Look at Animal Welfare Spending
Contributed by: Linda Chitwood
An article by Alyce McFadden in The New York Times on August 31, 2024, reported on a brand-
new animal shelter recently completed in Brooklyn, NY. Built at a cost of $75 million, the 55,000 square-foot facility was designed to hold 72 dogs and some cats. It opened in late July 2024, but was overrun within a month. The shelter now holds more than double its intended capacity, with dogs and cats crammed into divided cages meant for far fewer animals. Subsequent photographs of animals in overcrowded, squalid conditions sparked concern and outrage.
The article highlights a critical barrier to addressing pet overpopulation: the cost of spay/neuter surgery. In New York City, getting a dog fixed can cost $1,000 – a prohibitive expense for many residents. This cost deters spay/neuter, perpetuating cycles of relinquishment, abandonment, and unchecked reproduction that fuel the crisis of overpopulation.
One reader offered a sobering perspective: if the city had instead spent that $75 million on spay/neuter vouchers, the impact could have been transformative. At $1,000 per surgery, 75,000 dogs could have been fixed. At $500 each, that number doubles to 150,000. And at $250 per surgery – a rate the city likely could negotiate – 300,000 dogs could have been altered.
Which approach does more for animal welfare? A multi-million-dollar shelter overrun with dogs in one month, or a proactive investment in spay/neuter that prevents overpopulation at its source? The answer seems clear.
The Siren Song of Animal Rescue
A brand-new, state-of-the art shelter with airy adoption rooms and sparkling cages might seem like the solution to pet overpopulation. All the animals will live happily ever after, and everyone will be smiling and crying happy tears as the pets are adopted to forever homes, right?
The reality is far from the fairy tale. Nearly everyone in America who wants a dog or a cat already has one. No amount of shiny new facilities can solve the root cause of the problem: unchecked breeding.
Decades ago, Esther Mechler, a pioneer in the spay/neuter movement (and president and founder of United Spay Alliance), likened animal rescue to holding a cup under a running faucet. You can save a little water, but the rest continues to spill out. Only spay/neuter turns off the tap.
Transitioning from rescue to spay/neuter also requires facing hard truths. Humane euthanasia may sometimes be necessary for animals with little hope of adoption due to health, behavior, or sheer numbers. While heartbreaking, it spares these animals from spending months – or even years – in a cage, living in stress, noise, and overcrowded conditions. Hoping for a walk, wishing for a quiet nap in a soft spot, they endure homelessness in a deafening din, locked in a cage, and often living in a squalid or unhealthy environments.
Who is better equipped to face these difficult choices? The animals? Or their human custodians?
Choose Spay/Neuter
For the love of these precious creatures, we must focus our energy on stopping the source of their suffering. Spay/neuter is not only a humane solution but also a cost-effective one. By reducing the number of animals entering shelters, we free up resources to improve outcomes for the animals who truly need a second chance. Together, we can move closer to a world where every cat and dog has the opportunity to find a loving home.