More than a decade after Austin became the nation’s largest no-kill city for shelter animals, local leaders voted to revise the city’s no-kill policy, raising the ire of animal welfare advocates across the city.
The debate, played out last month at a city council meeting, exposed deep divisions that have simmered beneath the surface between Austin’s two leading shelters – the nonprofit Austin Pets Alive! and the city’s Austin Animal Center.
At issue is a fundamental question of how a fast-growth city with a national reputation for animal welfare balances compassion with pragmatism. Accusations and finger-pointing between animal-welfare factions at the Sept. 25 council meeting became so heated and ugly, they drew a rebuke from Mayor Kirk Watson.
“The vitriol with which people speak to each other is a real problem,” Watson said. “This has become almost partisan politics, and we’ve got to get past partisan politics or we’re not going to be making good decisions.”
The proposed no-kill revisions surprised many because they were approved in an August budget resolution. The proposed changes would grant Austin Animal Center’s veterinarians greater discretion to immediately perform spay-abort procedures on pregnant animals, eliminating spay-reporting requirements and a two-day notice period that allows APA! to pick up an animal before such procedures are performed. City officials said the changes would curb expenses and overcrowding. Animal welfare advocates warned that they would erode the partnerships that made no-kill possible.
The sponsor of the new policy, District 6 Council Member Krista Laine, said the changes streamline operations and costs. The city spent almost $279,000 to care for the 163 animals born at the Austin Animal Center in 2023, according to her office.
“Allowing universal spay reduces overpopulation and will allow our animal services department to remain funded and functioning,” Laine’s office said in a statement.
Ultimately, Watson stepped in with a compromise but not before divisions between the Animal Center and APA! publicly erupted. Some say that trust between the center and APA! has been eroded by the city’s lack of transparency.
City ditches partners
The city’s main no-kill partner, Austin Pets Alive!, first heard of the new proposal after it was posted for public comment. Observers said this left APA! in the dark.
APA! President and CEO Dr. Ellen Jefferson said the lack of collaboration undermines transparency as well as her group’s long-standing city partnership.
“Rescue access is critical to no-kill,” Jefferson said at the August council meeting. This policy “removes a level of transparency and a safety net that our organizations have worked together on for the last 15 years.”
Pet advocates say the city should not have bypassed another key partner in animal welfare – Austin’s Animal Advisory Commission – by initiating a major shift in animal welfare policy through the city budget process.
“This proposed change should have been brought before the commission to let commissioners and the public voice their positions on a literally life-changing proposal,” said commission member Nancy Nemer at the September council meeting. Nemer said she was “blindsided” by the budgetary change.
It should not have been “slipped in via the budget,” agreed David Page, a longtime volunteer with both the APA! and Austin Animal Center.
The current debate stems from Austin’s long-standing no-kill commitment.
In 2010, the city council adopted a plan to achieve a 90 percent live release rate. Raising that goal to 95 percent in 2019, it maintained that standard even as animal intake numbers increased. Austin Animal Control’s most recent report shows a 97.2 percent live-release rate.
“We are leaders in the world,” District 9 resident Julie Crenshaw said during an August budget meeting. “The way we approach no-kill matters — it ripples out.”
No-kill discord
Some animal welfare advocates dispute APA!’s criticism of the lack of transparency, saying the change won’t compromise the city’s no-kill statistics, which just measure outcomes for living animals.
“No-kill involves the live-release rate of living animals, not the required birthing of unborn fetuses,” said District 7 resident Catharine Chamblee. She said that Austin’s old policy was “effectively anti-abortion for pets and results in unnecessary mass production of baby animals for sale.”
Others accused APA! of resisting reforms to reduce overcrowding and financial strains.
“It makes no sense to add to Austin’s animal population,” said Sandra Mueller, a volunteer with both the animal center and APA!. “APA! Says they’ll take all the puppies and kittens because they’re easy to adopt. They make good marketing, and they sell for $250 a pop, or ‘pup,’ as it were.”
A 2023 city audit and independent evaluation found that Austin’s animal welfare priorities often conflict, leaving the city shelter unable to operate as an open-intake facility while maintaining humane care and consistent live-release rates.
“The reason the shelter is in its current distressed state is due to the erosion of trust between the shelter and its partners,” said former Animal Advisory Commission member Craig Nazor at the August budget meeting. The Austin Animal Center’s “past leadership did not understand what no-kill requires,” he said.
The commission passed a June 2022 vote of no confidence in then–chief animal services officer Don Bland, citing overcrowding, data problems, and mismanagement. Bland retired in May 2025. Rolando Fernandez took over as interim chief in April to help implement a March 2025 strategic plan to improve shelter conditions and strengthen collaboration.
Shelter volunteer Shelly Leibham said conditions remain strained. “Any given day, we’re housing animals in crates and intake is closed,” she said. “Dogs are living in kennels for a year or longer due to the lack of fosters or adopters.”
The city audit found that the center “houses animals in temporary crates and spaces not intended for them,” increasing stress and risks of disease. Intake remains limited.
Despite those issues, the auditors wrote that the shelter’s veterinary team “operated efficiently and met or exceeded municipal care standards.” It praised their euthanasia practices as “perhaps the best policy we have encountered.”
Watson’s compromise
Responding to public concerns, Watson introduced an amendment at the September council meeting. When city shelter animals are lactating — signifying that they are getting ready to give birth — that amendment directs the city to give APA! three hours to pick up the lactating animals and to seek homes for them before a spay-abort procedure is performed.
The amendment passed, 6-4, highlighting ongoing council divisions over animal welfare, costs, and capacity.
Jefferson praised Watson’s amendment, saying it “was a win for lifesaving … that allows APA! to continue our lifesaving work with our city’s shelter animals.”
But some council members pushed back.
Laine said that her original proposal sought to collect new data and to guide future decisions. “We should restore management authority to the highly skilled professionals we pay,” Laine said, explaining why she voted against Watson’s amendment.
“Our shelters are overcrowded,” said District 10 Council Member Marc Duchen, who also voted against the amendment. “Doing nothing doesn’t seem realistic or appropriate.”
City officials pledged to monitor how the new spay policy affects shelter births, costs, and live-release rates. They said the city’s new policy strikes the right balance.
“This ensures animals in the city’s care receive timely, professional medical attention, supports long-term health, reduces shelter stress, and helps prevent overcrowding,” said a city statement to Austin Free Press. “Spaying and neutering as soon as animals are medically ready is a widely recognized best practice across the U.S., helping control unwanted litters and improve overall animal welfare.”
“This leaves the ordinance largely intact,” Watson said of his amended policy. “It allows for continued partnership and greater collaboration with our rescue partners while ensuring we do the right thing for the animals.”
This article was originally published on Oct. 28, 2025 on www.austinfreepress.org.
Post a comment