Here is my point re allocation of resources; there are long term payoffs and short term.
Assuming ANY of Boks numbers are accurate, adoptions increased 2,600 since prior to when he started. That is significant. Fosters are up 800, that is significant. Died in shelter is up 600; that is significant.
These are short term gains/losses.
But what about TNR?
LAAS has had active spay/neuter programs for several years now with some mild reduction in impounds. However, we also speculate that Boks is refusing some animals and not taking ferals in at all. This could account for all the animals not taken in rather than spay/neuter.
Therefore if you put another $500,000 into TNR or spay/neuter to rescue groups, how many fewer will be impounded and how many fewer will die?
If you put $500,000 into spay neuter programs, how much will that drop impounds?
We'll never know how much impound numbers are corrupted by policies that refuse animals.
Everyone agrees TNR and spay/neuter are where its at, but this is just speculation. Studies of TNR are inconclusive. The effect of spay/neuter certifcates and those done in the shelter also are not knowable.
So long term we don't know what will reduce impounds and eithanasia.
Long term we do not know the impact of mandatory spay/neuter either.
Short term, we do: adoptions; fosters.
I am just saying money spent short term may have a big effect two years from now, but we don't know. Money given to rescues may have a big impact two years from now.
If you measure the success of a program in the short term rather than the long, thinks like storefront adoption centers, better advertsing and PR will probably have the biggest impact.