The article cites some successes, including one here in Minneapolis where "socialized" puppies were far less likely to be returned after adoption. Another training program in New Hampshire cut the euthanasia rate in half, while in Ohio an aggressive spay/neuter program has helped cut euthanasia by 40 percent while reducing the number of abandoned dogs by 16 percent.

Still, I was left wondering if there are any real solutions, or if the ethically numbing reality of animal shelters is simply the way things are. As long as adoption is expensive, as long as people have unrealistic expectations of their animals, and as long as substantial numbers of people refuse to have their animals spayed, there will always be more abandoned animals than there are people to adopt them. That means there will always be disposition teams separating the lucky from the unlucky.

It strikes me that there is plenty of room for either states or private foundations to get involved here. I see a two-pronged approach.

1. A subsidy program to reduce the cost of adoption, thus broadening the base of potential adopters.

2. An aggressive education, subsidy and (perhaps) enforcement program to encourage widespread spaying/neutering of pets: working with vets, say, to offer pet owners a one-year discount on vet services if they get their pet neutered (with the state picking up most of the difference); or shelters requiring that anyone dropping off a litter of kittens or puppies must get the mother spayed; or cities requiring spaying as part of their licensing process except for licensed breeders.

The idea is to make spaying the default choice, so that it occurs unless the pet owner is highly motivated to avoid it. Then, perhaps, shelters can do more of the sheltering part of their job and less of the emotionally numbing work that comes from serving as a triage center for society's carelessness.