Residents of Sonoma and Napa who are looking for a pet please e-mail me the name , breed and color of your pet.
I will post on this website along with your phone number . contact me at [email protected]
FOUND: Male in tact BOXER near Coffee Park Animal Care Center 707-584-4343. FOUND: Gray Cat w/ green eyes
FOUND: Black and White Border Collie Status: Reunited YAY! ( see site)
MISSING: Black and White long haired cat, white nose, "Lucky" Lost near Coffee Park 707-623-6780
FOUND: Male BULL Terrier ( Bennet Valley) Held at Calistoga Police Department
MISSING: Great Pyreneese ( Cream/ White) Lost at Fountain Grove 559-936-8661
MISSING: TWO creamy Golden Retrievers Lost near Petaluma ( Stage Gulch Rd.) 707-782-3309
FOUND: Femail Pit Bull Mix ( Black? White) with collar Call Healdsburg Center 707-431-3386
FOUND: Jack Russel Terrier "Sammie" 707-782-3081
MISSING: Rat Terrier and Poodle 707-217-9629
MISSING: LeeLoo Pit Bull White Cream 707-484-7673
FOUND: Male Tabby Cat , Found near Sutter Hospital 707-542-0882
FOUND; Gray Large Poodle ( Fountain Grove in Pool) Angie Duplicki Facebook Page or contact ME
LOST: Black and White cat "Pu" Steph Gediman Facebook page or contact ME
FOUND: Orange cat ( near San Marcos) Taken To Rhonert Park Animal Care Steph Gediman FB page

Inland Empire Pet Advocate Coalition 

Click here to edit subtitle

Articles Relating to Target Spay and Neuter Strategy

General Consensus among animal welfare advocates who are serious about reducing pet overpopulation is that target spay and neuter programs, ones which target low income households, will reduce shelter intake numbers significantly.  The state of New Hampshire actually has a government subsidized spay and neuter program for low income families. They have seen their intakes reduce by a third. First Coast No More homeless pets in Jacksonville Florida practices target spay and neuter and they have witnessed over the course of just four years a large decrease in shelter in takes. These examples tell us something very important about what  kind of plan of action we need to take in areas where euthanasia and pet overpopulation is off the charts.


by Peter Marsh

We've finally turned the tide in the century-long struggle against pet overpopulation. Only thirty years ago, one family dog and cat in five lost his or her life in a shelter every year. Now it's one in twenty.

Our mission, however, isn't to reduce overpopulation. It's to end it. But how can we get any further ahead when most of us are already working flat out, running only on adrenaline much of the time?

The answer lies in working smarter, not harder.

Part of working smart is to build on the work of comrades of the heart who have come before us. Most of their progress came from the dramatic increase in pet sterilization rates driven by an aggressive Legislation--Education--Sterilization strategy. To go further, however, we need to create a Second Generation LES program that builds on past successes and all that we have learned in recent years.


Desperation drove shelters to the LES strategy. The tide of homeless and abandoned animals rose relentlessly until by 1970 more than twenty per cent of the household dog and cat populations entered shelters every year. Shelters recognized that they couldn't stem this flood alone and turned to legislators for help.

Neutering incentives became a staple of the LES program in the form of licensing surcharges or "differentials" for intact pets. By now, the fairness and effectiveness of differential licensing fees is widely accepted. But two changes must be made to update these laws.

First, the amount of the surcharge--about $10 on average--is now too low. It needs to be increased to reflect the true costs shouldered by taxpayers in controlling and impounding intact pets. Recent studies have consistently shown that while intact pets make up an increasingly smaller minority of household pets, they still account for about two-thirds of all animal control expenses. This comes out to be about $35.00 a year for each intact dog compared to about $11.00 a year for each sterilized one. Licensing surcharges should be increased to about $25.00 to reflect the public expenses caused by intact pets, a type of user fee.

The second change that needs to be made is to earmark the revenue from differential license surcharges to pay for programs to curb overpopulation, not to just deposit it in the public treasury, as we have in the past. Using the money raised through differentials to pay for solutions multiplies their impact. The most effective programs use the revenue from differentials to provide neutering subsidies to low-income pet guardians, like a program in New Jersey. This reaches two major sources of pet over-breeding at the same time--those who can afford to have their pets neutered (but won't) and those who want to but can't afford it. This way those who won't neuter their pets at least help those who can't. Even at the low rate that people now license their dogs, a $10 increase in the differential licensing fee would generate enough revenue to fully fund a neutering assistance program for low income families.


The educational message of the original LES program could be easily summarized: "The Problem is Pet Overpopulation. The Solution is Spay/Neuter." It has been remarkably effective. By 1990, more than 60% of all dogs kept by Americans and more than 80% of their cats had been sterilized. Only twenty years earlier, only 10% of each had been.

As with legislation, the most effective way to take advantage of the success of the LES educational program is to build upon it. Both the message and the targets of future educational initiatives need to be updated, however, to take into account the changes that have taken place in the last 30 years and the findings from recent research.

By now, the critical issue for many pet caretakers is not WHETHER to neuter their pets by WHEN. Recent surveys have consistently found that upwards of 85% of all household cat litters are not planned. Fully a third of these accidental litters are "oops" litters that could have been avoided if the pet's guardian realized how early cats become sexually mature. Moving beyond the traditional "Prevent A Litter" campaigns to incorporate a "Prevent A First Litter" message should become a top priority of our spay/neuter community outreach initiatives.

We must also update our spay/neuter educational programs to take into account the changing profile of pets now entering shelters. The success of birth reduction programs has meant that relinquished adolescent or adult pets have come to make up an increasing share of shelter admissions, especially for dogs. Recent research has shown that intact pets make up a disproportionately high percentage of the adult cats and dogs who are surrendered to shelters, often due to troublesome behaviors resulting from their intact status. Updated community educational programs need to be broadened beyond their traditional emphasis on the health benefits of sterilization to emphasize the behavioral benefits, too.

Just as the content of our education programs must be updated, our approach must, too. We need to get the message to pet owners that behavioral problems are often correctable. Recent relinquishment studies are greatly encouraging because they show that behavioral issues and other risk factors that lead to relinquishment can often be effectively addressed.

We need to broaden the sources of our educational message as well as the message itself. It is unrealistic to expect many shelters to be able to provide ongoing behavioral counseling to all pet caretakers in the community and by the time a pet reaches a shelter it is often too late. Veterinarians are well suited and well situated to help provide timely behavioral counseling programs. Their participation is critical to other important components of our updated community education campaign, such as the "Kittens Have Kittens" campaign and counseling pet caregivers about the importance of providing permanent identification for their pets as an essential part of responsible pet care. The ultimate success of our educational efforts will depend on more effectively engaging community veterinarians in our work so that they use their skills and training to take a leading role in ending shelter overpopulation, as they have with all other epidemic-scale threats to companion animals.

While veterinarians are the most important partners in the needed education coalition, others are in a position to make great contributions, too. Pet behavioral experts and dog trainers must be enlisted to help with preventive and remedial programs. Breeders and pet shop owners must be part of the coalition, too, so they can help with microchipping initiatives and behavior training programs. One of the coalition's major goals should be to provide all new pet guardians in the community with a comprehensive, up-to-date package of information about proper companion animal care and local behavioral and neutering assistance programs.

The development of community coalitions is not only vital to the success of our community outreach efforts, it's the only way to achieve a century-long goal: to transform small local humane groups into a community-wide Humane Society.


Sterilization dominated the original LES strategy. While times now require a more comprehensive approach, as described above, sterilization programs still deserve to play a primary role. As with legislation and education, the best way to maximize the impact of future sterilization programs is to build on earlier successes. In the same way and for the same reasons, we also need to update our approach to neutering programs.

The original LES program promoted the establishment of discount neutering clinics open to all pet owners, often subsidized with public funds. When pet sterilization rates were much lower, open access programs were necessary to popularize neutering. With the current high sterilization rates, however, more than 75 cents of every dollar spent on untargeted subsidies is wasted to help pay for sterilizations that would have been done without them.

To be effective, neutering programs must reach pets in the breeding population and result in sterilizations that wouldn't have been occurred otherwise. Because they are not cost effective, untargeted programs are prohibitively expensive.

Not only are untargeted programs expensive and ineffective, they understandably alienate veterinarians, who deserve to be our main partners in this struggle. Experience across the country has shown that the veterinary community will actively support neutering assistance programs if subsidies are provided only to those who truly need them.

Two unavoidable facts placed a ceiling on the effectiveness of the combined education-and-discount-neutering strategy of the original LES program: sterilization procedures necessarily involve significant expense and low income pet guardians usually cannot afford them without subsidies of 80% or more. As a result, fewer dogs and cats kept by low-income caretakers are now sterilized. This is especially true for cats. A 1994 study found that cats living in low income households were more than twice as likely to be sexually intact as those living in a middle and upper-income households.

It has become increasingly clear that our failure to develop affordable neutering programs for low-income programs has put a brake on the effectiveness of first generation LES programs. The victims of pet overpopulation are increasingly from poor communities. In California, for instance, the shelter euthanasia rate in the 11 poorest countries in 1995 was almost three times higher than that of the 12 richest counties. In New Jersey, the disparity between rich and poor counties was even greater in 1998. Ending pet overpopulation will require making neutering procedures as affordable for low income pet guardians as they now are for all other people.

The importance of establishing affordable and accessible neutering subsidy programs can be seen in the dramatic impact they have once they are established. In New Hampshire, the shelter euthanasia rate dropped 75% in the first six years after an affordable neutering assistance program was established for low-income families. As a result of this program, New Hampshire has now achieved the lowest statewide shelter euthanasia rate in the country, less than 2.4 dogs and cats killed per thousand people.

Targeted neutering subsidy programs are so cost effective that they are presently affordable in every part of the country. The total yearly cost of the New Hampshire low-income program has been less than 15 cents per resident, including all administrative costs. Taking into account the moderate cost of living there and the low poverty rate, comparably effective programs can be established in any part of the country for 30 cents per person per year. Animal control, impoundment and sheltering expenses typically cost taxpayers about $3 per person every year, so a targeted neutering subsidy program could be established by reallocating about ten per cent of the amount now spent for reactive programs to impound and shelter the victims of overpopulation. Or, as mentioned earlier, the full cost of such a program could be paid for through a $10 increase in the differential for intact dog licenses.

These programs are a good investment. They more than pay for themselves. Every dollar spent on the New Hampshire low-income program, for instance, has saved $3.22 in reduced impoundment expenses.

Not only are proactive programs like this cost effective, in the end they are our only hope to end pet overpopulation. Bitter experience has shown that we cannot adopt our way out of pet overpopulation or build our way out. A system that continues to spend upwards of 95% of its resources on reactive programs is doomed to failure and frustration. On the other hand, effective preventive programs reverse this debilitating dynamic. Investing in proactive programs allows the increasing reallocation of resources to proactive programs, building momentum to the day when shelters will realize their century-long mission--to rescue and rehabilitate homeless animals and find a loving home for each and every one.

Peter Marsh
Solutions to Overpopulation of Pets
24 Montgomery Street
Concord, N.H. 03301

The Lesser of Two Evils

December 3, 2010, 3:13 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

The subject stings like an ice-cold gust of wind. Animal euthanasia is one of the most dynamic, controversial and sensitive subjects in the nation. A clear catch twenty-two, a no win situation.

Six to eight million animals enter shelters every year. Fewer than half of those animals are placed back into homes. Over four million of those animals are euthanized. Many of them were not necessarily considered “sick” or “vicious,” according to the Humane Society of the United States.

Kim Campbell Thornton, an MSN journalist wrote, “The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals estimated that approximately 60 percent of dogs and 70 percent of cats entering shelters are euthanized each year, mostly due to a lack of space or resources to care for them.” On the other hand, life is no brighter for animals living in overcrowded shelters.

“Overcrowding and long-term incarceration create anxiety, severe depression, personality disorders and aggression in many animals, eventually making them unadoptable,” said Joey Curtin, a journalist at the Register Guard and president of Stop Pet Overpopulation Today. “Disease runs rampant in crowded facilities; many experience mass internal epidemics, losing most or the entire population to contagious and deadly diseases,” Curtin continued.

Euthanizing healthy, adoptable animals is a process that many shelters are forced to perform in order to avoid overcrowding.  However, overcrowding can lead to sick, aggressive and unadoptable animals. Thus, the question remains, should the Oregon Legislation ban euthanasia in animal shelters due to overcrowding?

Euthanasia in animal shelters cannot be banned without the proper means to control overcrowding. If euthanasia is banned and overcrowding is not dealt with properly, then animals would have a higher chance of developing aggressive behavior, diseases and death. However, there are numerous options that eliminate euthanasia to healthy and adoptable animals by controlling overcrowding.

In relation to other states in the nation, Oregon does not have a high dog overpopulation rate. In order to avoid euthanasia to millions of dogs in states like California, organizations have been known to create transfer programs.  These transfer programs help aid the process of dogs relocation to a state that has the means to take care of them. Janet Zimmerman, a reporter at The Press-Enterprise shares the story of Oregon Friends of Shelter Animals, an organization that transports dogs from California to shelters in other states that have the resources for them.

“Hundreds of dogs have been moved to Canada, New York, Oregon and other states for adoption,” Zimmerman writes,“Oregon Friends of Shelter Animals made its third trip this year to San Bernardino to pick up 67 dogs. Most of them were small breeds such as Chihuahuas and terrier mixes that were taken to a humane society in Vancouver, Wash. The 36-hour trip involved more than 1,000 miles of driving and the birth of seven puppies,” said Zimmerman.

According to Kim Sill, coordinator of Last Chance for Animals, the transfer programs are working and the euthanasia rate is lowering. Small dogs are much more likely to find a home in Oregon than in California because of the abundance of small breeds in the southern part of the state.

In an article written by Carol Reiter of the Merced Sun-Star, Sharon Lohman, head of New Beginning for Animals Merced, shares a story about her rescue program and the miracles it can perform.

“One of the mother dogs had come from Gustine to be euthanized at Merced shelter. Instead, she and her puppies were getting another chance. Lohman said the dogs going to Portland had a good chance of being adopted because of the work of the Oregon Humane Society,” Reiter writes,“Along with the 40 dogs that were leaving the shelter Wednesday, another 40 will be leaving Monday, also to Portland,” Reiter continued.

Clearly the transportation of animals can lead to fewer shelters becoming overcrowded, reducing the euthanasia rates. Spay and neutering animals is another solution to avoiding euthanasia in animal shelters. Spaying and neutering reduces the number of animals in the population, thus, reduces the number of animals in the shelter. If the number of animals in a shelter reduces, so will euthanasia rates.

Research shows that kittens and puppies can be spayed or neutered younger than ever before. Six to eight weeks or two pounds, as long as extra precautions are taken, according to Janet M. Scarlett, DVM and head of the Maddie’s Shelter Medicine Program at Cornell University. Scarlett also agrees that early spay and neutering is one of the most efficient ways that veterinarians can help avoid over population.

“Spaying and neutering animals is critically important to preventing the birth of more homeless animals,” said SafeHaven Humane Society, a no-kill shelter located in Albany, Oregon. However, SafeHaven’s policy forces them to turn away animals. “SafeHaven is a limited admission shelter that remains committed to the philosophy of not using euthanasia to control population. Once the shelter is full, however, no new animals can be accepted, thus preventing our current residents from being euthanized to make room for newcomers,” said the SafeHaven Humane Society.

With no-kill shelters turning away animals to avoid euthanasia, those animals are forced to the streets or shelters that do euthanize due to overcrowding. In fact, many shelters have wait lists or foster care programs. Mostly cats are put on these lists; few dogs are turned away in Oregon unless they have behavioral issues.

Jacques Von Lunen of the Oregonian, shares information about the acceptance of cats at local shelters in Oregon, “All shelters, humane societies and rescue groups in the area put you (owner) on a wait list, unless they happen to not be at capacity that day,” Lunen wrote.

In her article, she interviewed Sharon Harmon, the executive director of the Oregon Humane Society (OHS), “Appointments to surrender an adult, spayed cat to OHS are about two months out right now,” Harmon said.

Finances are a determining factor in many households for surrendering an animal. According to Meg Coyle of King 5 News, the recessed economy is forcing owners to abandoned or surrender their animal to a shelter. Many of these animals have medical issues, or are not spayed or neutered, hence the reason for abandonment.

Many programs have attempted to avoid abandonment all together by providing resources for owners to keep their animals. These programs include, pet food banks, animal behavioral classes and low cost spay and neutering clinics.

“The only real long-term solution is truly effective local low-cost spay/neuter programs, including subsidized funding for those who still can’t afford the fees. The cost to low-income individuals is usually 50 to 75 percent less than regular veterinary clinics charge,” said Joey Curtin of the Register Guard and President of Stop Pet Over Population Today.

Overcrowded shelters are an inhumane way for animals to live. Yet, no-kill shelters seem like a haven for an animal in danger of euthanasia. The controversy remains, avoid euthanasia and induce overcrowding or euthanize healthy, adoptable animals for the sake of the population? No-kill shelters can exist as long as the community of that shelter can control overcrowding. Controlling overcrowding can be successful if the community has low cost spay and neuter programs, transfer programs, funding and animal shelters that are able to take in a vast amount of animals at once. If these factors can be achieved then that area will greatly reduce overcrowding and lower the euthanasia rates.


1. Kim Campbell Thornton is a journalist at MSN. Her article is relevant to my editorial because it helped provide reliable statistics of euthanasia rates in the United States. Thornton’s statics made my editorial more reliable.

Campbell Thornton, Kim. “No-kill Shelter Nation? Maybe in 5 Years – Health – Pet Health – Creature Comforts –” Breaking News, Weather, Business, Health, Entertainment, Sports, Politics, Travel, Science, Technology, Local, US & World News- 09 July 2010. Web. 08 Nov. 2010. <>.

2. Joey Curtin is a journalist at the Register Guard. He is also the President of Stop Pet Over Population Today. Curtin provided information about spay and neutering programs. Since he also works in the animal population field it makes him a very reliable source.

Curtin, Joey. “Spay/neuter Programs Only Way to Halt Pet Overpopulation.” The Register Guard. 1 Feb. 2010. Web. 3 Oct. 2010. < neuter-cats-low-clinic.csp>.

3. Janet Zimmerman is a journalist at The Press-Enterprise. Her article speaks about transfer programs. These programs transfer animals from southern California to Oregon, New York and other states. In this article she interviews Kim Sill. This is relevant to my topic because it provides an option to avoiding overcrowding.

Zimmerman, Janet. “Http:// 4481e7f.html.” | Southern California News | News for Inland Southern California. 09 July 2010. Web. 08 Nov. 2010. <>.

4. Kim Sill, coordinator for Last Chance for Animals runs a program that transfers animals from southern California to states that have the means to take care of them. Sill has run several successful missions, some even involving air transportation. Sill is important for my article because she speaks about a way for animals to avoid euthanasia and have a another chance.

Zimmerman, Janet. “Http:// 4481e7f.html.” | Southern California News | News for Inland Southern California. 09 July 2010. Web. 08 Nov. 2010. <>.

5. Carol Reiter is a journalist at Merced Sun-Star. Reiter’s article examines the benefits of transporting animals. She provides information about organizations that transfer animals. This article is relevant to my information because it is an option to controlling overcrowding. She also interviews Sharon Lohman in this article.

REITER, Carol. “New Leash on Life: 20 Dogs Facing Euthanasia in Merced County Are Headed to Oregon – Carol Reiter –” Merced News, Sports, Business, Weather | Merced Sun-Star. 24 Dec. 2009. Web. 03 Oct. 2010. < facing.html>.

6. Sharon Lohman, the head of New Beginnings for Animals Merced tells us a story of dozens of cats and dogs being transfer to Oregon. Her organization does this everyday. Lohman is involved with transferring animals first hand, so her information is both reliable and relevant.

REITER, Carol. “New Leash on Life: 20 Dogs Facing Euthanasia in Merced County Are Headed to Oregon – Carol Reiter –” Merced News, Sports, Business, Weather | Merced Sun-Star. 24 Dec. 2009. Web. 03 Oct. 2010. < facing.html>.           

7. Janet M. Scarlett is a DVM and head of the Maddie’s Shelter Medicine Program at Cornell University. I found Scarlett in an article written by John Loffin. She speaks about the importance of spaying and neutering. Scarlett also says that animals can have the operation younger than ever before. 

Lofflin, John. ”Promote and          Perform Early Spaying and         Neutering   -­‐ Veterinary Medicine.” Veterinary           Medicine -­‐  -­‐ The All-­‐inclusive Clinical Resource for Veterinary Professionals. 1 Oct.            2007. Web. 10 Nov. 2010. < e/detail/463623>.

8.  SafeHaven Humane Society is a no-kill animal shelter in Albany, Oregon. SafeHaven does not euthanize due to overcrowding, but they are forced to turn away animals. They are an important piece to my article because they show that no-kill shelters turn away animals, which leads to other overpopulation issues.      

9. Jacques Von Lunen is a journalist for the Oregonian. This article provides information about many local shelters in Oregon and their overpopulation issues. It shares information about waiting lists and foster homes. This article is relevant to my issue because it gives me data on local animal shelters.

Von Lunen, Jacques. “Pet Talk: Multnomah County Animal Services Shelter Does What It’s Supposed to Do |” Oregon Local News, Breaking News, Sports & Weather – 6 July 2010. Web. 03 Oct. 2010. < tml>.

10.  Sharon Harmon the executive director of the Oregon Humane Society is interviewed in Jacques Von Lunen’s article. She provides the details of what it is like to surrender a cat at the Humane Society and their long waiting list. She is relevant to my article because her information is reliable because she is from a local shelter.

Von Lunen, Jacques. “Pet Talk: Multnomah County Animal Services Shelter Does What It’s Supposed to Do |” Oregon Local News, Breaking News, Sports & Weather – 6 July 2010. Web. 03 Oct. 2010. < tml>.

11. Meg Coyle, is a journalist at King 5 News. Coyle shares information about how the economy is forcing pet owners to abandon their pets. She also provides resource programs that are attempting to help owners keep their pet. Coyle is important in my editorial because she examines one of the reasons overpopulation is occurring.

Coyle, Meg. “No-kill Animal Shelters in No-win Situation | KING 5 TV | Seattle News, Local News, Breaking News, Weather | Pets and Animals.” KING 5 TV | Seattle News, Local News, Breaking News, Weather. 12 Oct. 2010. Web. 10 Nov. 2010. < 104819794.html>.

Members Area

Oops! This site has expired.

If you are the site owner, please renew your premium subscription or contact support.