Incidentally the figures I found that came directly from san Mateo County (from a group opposing the ordinance!) indicate the figures now widely quoted in the anti spay/neuter campaigns are totally false. The *increase* in euthenasia in the incorporated county where the ordinance was enacted was actually only 3% going by the table here (and that is for a fiscal year including several months before the ordinance came in, meaning one could not really claim a direct relationship if the increase happened anyway); still the increase was only 3% and only meant 34 dogs, NOT 125%) and euthenasia figures dropped again the following two years (92-93: -5%, 93-94: -12%). One could argue fiscal year 92-93 would more accurately reflect the post-ordinance period and there was a 5% decline in pts rates that fiscal year. Unincorporated areas had a higher rate of pts but still that wouldn't add up to 125%.
I wonder where in the world the 125% increase in pts rates figure came from?
I'd be interested in seeing the statistics on non compliance with rabies as well. As far as I can tell, one website or blog posted this info and it was picked up everywhere as facts and examples of a failed ordinance.