No Kill will only NOT work is if there are not enough homes to rehome impounded animals.
Many assume that there are fewer homes than animals; that is, the demand for new pets is fixed.
As Mike Arms and Winograd both say, it is a matter of marketing. A good salesman can sell snow to an Eskimo.
I think I heard an estimate that there are 300,000 dogs in LA City and 400,000 cats. Assuming a lifespan of 12 years, that means each year the death rate creates 25,000 openings for dogs and 33,000 for cats. That is 63,000 animals that could be placed. In addition, the population of LA is growing by 100,000 a year. This is another 3%.
What presents them all from being adopted? Old age, illness, behavior prolems.
A good salesman could raise that 63,000 to 75,000 or better. Of the 45,000 animals impounded each year, 10%, or about 5,000 cannot be places due to disease, injury, old age, or behavior, leaving 40,000 adoptable.
If “sales” could be made easier through “retail” non-shelter storefront locations, better employee attitude, behaviors on the part of employees, and marketing, I see no reason that 100% of the treatable animals, theoretically, cannot be adopted. To assume that it cannot work because it has not worked is not a valid argument against no kill, but only a voicing of convinced opponents.
Even if all proponents of no kill are liars, sociopaths and charlatans, that does not mean no kill cannot work.
What is stopping no kill from working are three things: lack of resources, poor management, and the attitude that no kill cannot work. A lot of people who leaves comments on this site believe the latter. They have been disappointed by the failure of gurus, therefore they attack any and all who think no kill possible.
Beside adoptions, the return to owner category can be greatly improved through chipping and licensing.
Regarding Stray Cat Alliance, of the 40 live cats rescued, one died in treatment, or 2.5%. Already 16 have been adopted and 24 are with fosters. Knowing Cristi, these will not be killed. A save and placement rate of 2.5% means no kill is achievable, 4 X better than Nathan’s definition of no-kill—at least for cats. These are not cherry-picked cats; they are hoarder rescues with limited resources.
San Francisco SPCA claims a 94% save rate and between the muni shelter run by Carl Friedman, and the SPCA, there is a combined 87% save rate. The doubters save this is not possible and they are lying. Maybe, maybe not; but the doubters have done no homework to prove them liars as we did with Boks.
It takes a lot of research to find statistics wrong—a lot. The Naysayers need to make the case rather than us proving their case. They are so convince of no kills failure they do not allow evidence to the contrary impact them.
Winograd is the prophet; we are looking for local Messiahs.
Given good management, adequate resources, I see no kill as an easy goal. Prove me wrong. Offer a bit of proof it is not possible. Don’t lerave it ot me to prove the naysays are right. The burden of proof is on them.