Like virtually all living things, they will suffer any hardship, endure any insult, for a moment’s additional existence.

Life, in short, just wants to be.”

Bill Bryson

As rescuers, working to save the lives of pets, you would expect that we’d be driving the charge to overhaul the animal sheltering process should it be failing and causing unnecessary death.


However, rather than find it abhorrent that we’re are damaging the very pets we purport to care for, it seems we’ve become apologists; excusing killing and poor performance with the defeatist rhetoric that not only is a certain level of killing acceptable, but that killing should be considered a viable alternative to the ‘trauma’ of being impounded.

For dogs who come into pounds what being in a pound does to them, mentally, is much crueler than euthanasia. Some dogs just do not deal well with impoundment and become either difficult or impossible to rehome due to the behaviours they exhibit when people visit the pound looking for a dog. For those dogs being PTS on day 1 would be preferable – sad but true.
Rescuer

I work every day with animals that sit in concrete runs waiting to die, they are scared, defensive, no doubt confused, some of them get rehomed, one would hope to a better place, but we know that is not always the case. Most die, but they die after sitting in those cage scared. A quick painless death before that, is preferable.
Rescuer

Rather than demand an environment that cares for the animals unlucky enough to find themselves impounded; rather than implore that we operate in ways that make an animals’ stay as least behaviourally challenging as possible; rather than insist on policies that increase a pets chance of adoption, and pressing to get pets off site via foster carers and rescue… we simply proclaim that quick death is preferable to being given a chance at life.

My pound is now at the all surrenders are PTS on surrender stage. We can cry, beat our breasts and stamp our feet and say it is unfair, but there is no where for these animals to go, a very lucky few will be pulled out and saved. I know for a fact that many dogs that are pulled from the pound go to homes that are less than desirable, is that good just because they are alive, I don’t think so.
Rescuer

This is the language of certain failure. When animals are coming out worse than when they went in; when the way they’re treated causes them to lose their chance to become a pet again; when the way they’re presented to the public causes the adopter to reconsider rescue because the dog has lost it’s marbles; then we’ve failed in our duty of care. And failure is not something we should be proud to defend.


When we believe that a pet is better off dead, than with us;

The animal has no idea whats going on. Its better to be PTS at the vets than dumped in a shelter where it spends 8 days in a tiny pen and is then PTS anyway.
Rescuer

Then we’ve absolutely failed. And we must recognise it as failure if we’re ever to move towards success.

Whenever a shelter kills a homeless animal entrusted to its care, it has profoundly failed. And animal shelters fail, as a general rule, fifty to eighty percent of the time. Put another way, animal sheltering is an industry whose leadership mostly fails. Unlike any other industry, however, these directors still retain their positions, are pillars of their communities, and are tapped as ‘experts’ by the large national groups. That credibility, and esteem, has been seriously threatened by the No Kill movement. In other words animal control directors, fearful of being held accountable for failure, are putting their own interests ahead of the lives of the animals.

Nathan Winograd – Itchmo.com

An animal should never, ever be better off dead than in our care. And when it is, then we’re doing something completely and indefensibly wrong.

For us here in Oz trying to turn the tide of consumer behaviour and get puppies and kittens out of stores, the idea that one day customer compassion would stretch to ‘pocket pets’ seems too good to be true. But proving it’s not only good for pets, but good for business is PETCO’s announcement this month that it will it will stop selling rabbits by early 2009 in favour of working with adoption groups.

“Moving to an all-adoption approach with rabbits is the right thing to do. We believe it’s good for the animals, good for our business and is consistent with our Think Adoption First philosophy in which we encourage prospective pet parents to consider adopting an animal rather than purchasing one,” PETCO CEO Jim Myers said. “Rabbits are great companion animals, and we believe PETCO can play a pivotal role in partnering with animal-welfare groups to connect responsible pet parents with happy, healthy neutered rabbits through in-store adoptions nationwide.”

PETCO is the second-largest specialty pet supplies retailer in the US and with rabbits *ahem* breeding like rabbits, it’s vital that people have access to desexed family pets. This new initiative sees only sterilised bunnies offered for adoption.


Please watch the video about the launch here;

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfTxKd_URuo&eurl=http://www.thenokillnation.com/?p=153&feature=player_embedded]

Source: No Kill Nation blog

The backlash from rescuers to our xmas adoption campaign wasn’t entirely unexpected; it seems some old ideas die hard.

There’s no way I’ll be fielding calls at xmas; I don’t want anyone getting one of my dogs as a present.

Pets bought at xmas just end up surrendered.

You’re encouraging people to be irresponsible.

People are busy at xmas; the pets will be stressed.

While the idea of a ‘xmas rush, shelters at capacity and killing’ is accepted; the thought of a ‘rush of holiday adoptions’ sends us into a spin. Why are we so threatened by the concept of saving more lives?

Without a push for holiday adoptions, pets are certain to die. However many groups don’t push, they put the breaks on; actively dissuading people from adopting through December, for fear that the adoption will be jinxed.

So what do the public say about a xmas adoption drive?

Hey this is great. I myself have been looking for that “right dog” for xmas.

That’s right; the community wants to adopt a pet during the holidays. But wanting a pet for xmas doesn’t automatically make them evil or bad owners – it just makes them normal. Most people get their pets when they’re on holidays, with Dec, Jan and Feb being the most popular time of the year. People have time over the holidays to spend and bond with their new pets. And yet we’re shutting up shop and sending people away!

Rather than reject owners we’ve never met on the chance they might be acting impulsively or emotionally, we could be helping them to make an informed decision and matching them with the pet that fits their lifestyle. As we will still be screening for suitability (the same screening procedure we use in April, May and June) we have no reason to believe pets adopted at this time are more likely to be surrendered. That’s simply a myth.

Today on Nathan’s Winograd’s blog he describes the phenomenon, but in relation to the launch nine years ago of one of America’s most successful adoption initiatives; the Iams ‘Home for the Holidays‘ campaign, who this year are aiming for 1 million adoptions!

… shelters and national groups opposed innovation that obviated the perceived ‘need’ to kill and instead encouraged or promulgated policies to stop adopting out animals for reasons that were incomprehensible, irreconcilably contradictory, and nothing short of ludicrous.

A kitten or puppy under the tree in December would end up in the shelter in January, was the dogma of the times and many shelters across the country actually refused to adopt out animals during this time of year. Taken to its logical conclusion, the argument is nothing more than “shelters should not do holiday adoptions because the animals may end up back at the shelter. This, the thinking goes, is bad because shelters are bad places where animals are killed. The problem should be immediately obvious: the animals are already in the shelter! Stopping adoptions which would get them out of the shelter because they might end up back in it was bad enough. But not adopting them out ensures that the harm they claim to fear is all but assured the animals will be killed, exacerbating shelter death rates.

And the common shelter mantra that a pets will be ’stressed’ during the xmas period seems unreasonable when you ask;

But what is more stressful than sitting in a cage at a shelter? What is more stressful than facing death? What is more stressful than what is often the shelter animal’s experience of poor, neglectful and even hostile or abusive treatment from uncaring shelter bureaucrats?

If a new cat is ’stressed out at home’ and that is a big IF the new cat can be locked in a bedroom to sleep it off on a warm, cozy bed (rather than a cold stainless steel cage in a shelter, or being ‘put to sleep’, the abominable HSUS euphemism for being killed). And many dogs (and kittens) would not only find the situation not stressful, they would thrive.

And stretching the boundaries of ‘fair use’ I’ll leave you with these final words;

In the end, however, the campaign against holiday adoptions was and is nothing more than another manifestation of the sheltering community and HSUS distrust of the American public, a distrust that created the very paradigm of killing we live with today. The one that makes it very easy to surrender an animal, but very difficult to adopt one. The one which never worries about all the animals killed, but does worry about the ones which can be saved.

Read the full blog here.

Image courtesy of the No Kill Nation blog

I’m pleased to report the ‘everyone who adopts at xmas is irresponsible’ mentality is rapidly being dispelled and replaced by the life saving idea that the xmas holidays are an opportunity.

If people are going to buy a pet we’d should encourage them to come, speak to us and get good advice; instead of walking into a pet store. We should promote ourselves the loudest during the holidays!

Rescue groups have policies and procedures that help people make good decisions. It’s an excellent place to get a pet at xmas.

The Sebastian County Humane Society put an article out today that hit a perfect score. Check this out for ideas for your next media release!

Cute shot with kids - families are who buy pets!

Fort Smith shelter desperate for people to adopt pets

Then they focus on the efforts of the rescue.

FORT SMITH – Dozen of dogs may have to be put down in the coming months as the Sebastian County Humane Society struggles to save these abandoned animals.

5NEWS looks at what they need and how you can help make sure they survive and find a home.

Pointing out the situation in a factual, non-blaming manner (remember if you blame the public you’re speaking to for the problem, the won’t feel inspired to help you fix it)

The Sebastian County Humane Society is overwhelmed. The past few months they’ve had 150 more dogs each month than the average. Without a place to put them, this group whose mission is to rescue animals is being forced to euthanize some in order to save others.

“He is such a part of the family.”

Meet Dudley, or “Dud the Stud” as his owner Mary Cogbill likes to call him.  He’s just one of the shelter’s many success stories. The tiny little bright-eyed guy is the alpha male in a house with two other 90 plus pound puppies.

A sweet story about a happy pet that’s available for adoption. A focus on the good, the love and the benefits of rescuing (you get to save a life – you get to be the hero!)

“We have this soft spot for these poor little animals that are in these cages and all they want is a home and they’ll give you lots of love,” Cogbill said as Dudley licked her face.

And that only took one take…  Anyway, the shelter is busting at the seams and is being forced to use temporary housing.

“We normally have four to 500 animals here all the time but in recent months that number has risen to 650 every month,”

Again, rather than blaming a uncaring and irresponsible public, they’re promoting that they’re a service that is needed more and more. And that’s why we all need to help them! Just check out the breath of the service they provide. Everyone wants to be part of this amazing solution to pet killings!

From dogs and cats to a rabbit and a pair of doves, the Sebastian County Humane Society has a pet for you. But even if you can’t take another animal in, there’s a way to still be part of the solution.

Instead of waxing lyrical about pet overpopulation, irresponsible owners or hateful impluse buys, they’ve simply acknowledged the service they provide costs more and more each year. Genius!

“Where its hurting us is that people who donate are still donating but if we see a 20 percent increase in the animals and we’re not seeing a 20% increase in donations then we start getting in bad shape financially,” executive director JoAnn Barton told 5NEWS.

And finally, there’s Keota a playful pit bull with special needs. You see, he doesn’t have but about a year to live because of an untreatable disease. The staff simply hopes that someone will give him a happy home to live out the rest of his life being loved.

Oh Keota – if you were in Australia, you’d now be living at all of our places! They’ve chosen a special needs pet to highlight, but it’s not the psycho dog or the one who needs 24hr care. Its the simple-to-own, wouldn’t-even-know-he’s-there pet who just captures your heart. Oh, and he’s a pibble. Bless

The small dog’s adoption fee is eighty dollars currently. But right now the humane society is offering a special on the big dogs cutting the fee from eighty to fifty.

In case anyone is turned off by cost, they’re also showing they’re really, really flexible and want their pets to go into great homes. They’re saying; “If you’re a great owner but on a limited budget, please visit us and we’ll see what we can arrange”


And finally, a simple, and easy way to get involves as a final signoff’; even if you can’t adopt here’s a way you can help the pets.

Happy Tails in Fort Smith is asking their customers to buy an extra bag of dog food to donate to the humane society as they come through.

Article: http://www.kfsm.com/Global/story.asp?S=9414799

What a brilliant, engaging and positive way to speak to your public.

Sometimes a question rolls around and around in your head and you just can’t seem to crack it. This is how I’ve felt about pet shop purchases; why on earth in today’s information age, with all the recommendations from dog behaviour experts and more dog behaviour experts and even more dog behaviour experts do people still fall prey to the ‘puppy in the window’?


But then someone just comes along and spells it out.


An absolutely brilliant post by Raised by Wolves profiles the customers keeping the wheels turning and the puppies churning.

The retail puppymill industry depends on two rather different kinds of consumers to keep the misery factory’s gears greased. Without both, it will not survive. Without understanding both, advocates for animals — shelter and rescue workers, ethical breeders, trainers, vets, and other professionals — can’t combat the retail puppymill’s marketing strategies.

She goes on to say that there are two types of pet shop buyers; the impulse control poor, ’see – want – buy consumer’ and the self-indulgent ‘puppy saviour’. Both types of purchaser lag behind, but for very different reasons; and the article is absolutely essential reading for anyone working to combat pet shop sales.

I must have it

The ’see – want – buy consumer’ is unaware that he is paying way more than market price for the animal, is easily duped by claims of ‘rare’ and ‘great family breed’ and knows little about dog genetics, health or behaviour. He purchases based on breed generalisations or popular opinion.

One wrinkle on this kind of buyer is the customer who has been conditioned by relentless consumptionist propaganda to equate breed with brand. After all — if I buy a new Honda-brand model of automobile, it’s going to be cosmetically and functionally identical to any other new Honda-brand same-model automobile.

This is not true of dogs. There is no German shepherd brand dog. There is no poodle brand dog.

These are lazy, unconsidered decisions. And the customer relies heavily on cues from the complicit pet store to help them feel secure in their purchasing decision.

The traditional storefront impulse buyer is ignorant about the puppymill industry. He may have vaguely heard of such things and even remember them being associated with pet stores just like the one he’s standing in now. But the sign says that the puppies come from “USDA-licensed breeders.” That’s good, right? This puppy has a government stamp of approval, like a steak. And Tammi and Cindee, the super-kyoot clerks, seem to just looove the puppies, and it’s all clean glass and chrome, with this thing on the wall that squirts cinnamon scent into the air every two minutes.

So how do we keep these people from making bad decisions? We simply share the truth;

we combat the traditional pet-shop purchaser’s big mistake by filling the gaps in his knowledge, in the not-unreasonable hopes that it will lead to impulse control when he’s confronted by the puppy in the window — and possibly the wails of the children. I don’t care whether he’s moved by an appeal to his humanity, or because he takes umbrage at being robbed, or because he (rightly) fears that the shivering little pup in the back corner of the cage will become a Big Liability in terms of vet bills, a decade of carpet-cleaning, or emergency room visits for the kiddies. I just wanna keep the Mastercard under wraps and stop the production line back in Missouri (Iowa, Holmes County, Lancaster, basement in Brooklyn).

Next, ‘the saviour’…

But he’s so helpless

An asinine and repeat purchaser ‘the saviour’ gets suckered by emotion and the feeling that ‘if she doesn’t rescue the poor puppy, no one will’. The more messed up the resulting dog the better, as it confirms her feeling that she is needed and the only one who cares.

Because she is going to walk into Petland (”Just to get goldfish food.”), see the most miserable, wretched, defective little product in the deli case, and ask to hold her.

And then she’s going to start the rationalization process that she will later present to her incensed husband, her eye-rolling vet, her disapproving sister, the trainer whose head is cracking repeatedly against the wall, the neighbor who volunteers fifteen hours a week at the shelter: “I had to save her from that place. I couldn’t leave her there. We bonded instantly.”

Indeed, in the past five years or so, this category of puppymill customer may have become the dominant one, and further, they have become perversely empowered; while previously a woman would answer my question about “Where did you get the puppy?” with a simpering “I know it was wrong, but …” preface to the story about the impulse buy at the mall, now it is more and more common to get a self-congratulatory “We rescued her from Petland!”

Pet shops prey on these people’s need to act as an animal saviours and worse – play on their emotions to keep buying time after time.

And the final thing that Petland marketers know about these Martyr Mommies: They are recidivist buyers. While an ignorant buyer will only return for a second pet-store puppy if he is extremely lucky (gets that really good ‘un the first time – and they do exist) and/or exceedingly dull, callous, and incurious (Paris Hilton, say), the buyer with the well-developed Savior Complex will do it again, no matter how much heartbreak she bought the first (second, third) time. It’s not the dog she’s buying — it’s her self-perception as a wonderful human who helps poor little animals (and just happens to help poor little animals that are currently trendy and exactly the color she likes best).

No more excuses


Because we bite our tongues and allow friends and family the excuse of ignorance, or the cover of being ‘too compassionate for their own good’, puppies continue to be churned through the system. These people are enablers and it has to stop.


Dogs Victoria chief executive Elizabeth White;

“We need to do more in educating people that there are social implications in the choice of dog and where they buy them,” she said. “I relate it to the Fairtrade coffee movement or the anti-sweatshop campaign.

As soon as the community says no, and it becomes morally repugnant and socially unacceptable to buy pets from stores, the market will dry up. But we don’t have to take to the streets in protest; we don’t have to campaign for new laws, and we don’t even have to have an organisation lobbying on our behalf.


All we have to do is have a quiet word to the people we know and love who purchase pets from stores;

You’re a sucker. I will never support your decision.
And you are absolutely to blame.

From Dallas, Texas; animal shelter workers were threatened with a baseball bat when they refused to return a man’s cat to him after he was unable to afford the $132 impound fee.

The No Kill Nation blog asks; why on earth are we driving people to become criminals when all they want is to take their pet home?

Animal Sheltering: Doing it Wrong

Now I know that there are those of you who are thinking that, well if Roger can’t afford $132, he shouldn’t be owning a cat.  That is definitely one of the mantras of the animal welfare movement.  Let me clue you in on the fact that Roger is suffering from stage IV prostate cancer.  His money is currently stretched by hefty medical bills.

The working poor, the non-working persons on fixed income, the disabled, the elderly … these are people who need assistance not hinderance to reclaim or keep their pet.  A compassionate animal services organization can still have fees and recognize that fact.

We can’t kill pets and claim we have no choice… when we absolutely do.

Or are we just doing our job?

This morning I was on ABC radio with James Lush promoting PetRescue and holiday adoptions. And what a lovely bunch the people at the ABC are!

A huge thanks to James, Fiona and Paula and of course Daniel the pup from SAFE!

Some pics…

Yet another fantastic piece from Gina Spadafori at Pet Connection

I don’t know how many times and in how many ways we have to say this:

If you buy a puppy from a pet store, you are supporting a system of cruelty that has been well-documented again and again and again for more than 50 years. You, yes you, are making puppy mills possible.

Grow up. Take responsibility for your actions. And say NO to puppy mills by buying directly from a reputable, ethical breeder or adopting from a shelter or rescue group. There is no excuse for supporting cruelty with your puppy-mill retail outlet purchase.

This year’s first installment of No Christmas Puppies (click for all our past posts, going back for years), courtesy of MSNBC.com.

We write about this every year. Nothing will stop this sick and cruel mass-production of puppies except for customers to not support this industry. No reputable, ethical breeder sells through a third party. Not ever. And no reputable, ethical breeder ships from Internet sites to people who place an order with a few clicks and a credit card. Not ever.

So why is Gina so outraged? Because the HSUS have just announced that their 8-month investigation into America’s largest chain of puppy-selling pet stores found;

In the largest-ever puppy mill investigation, HSUS investigators visited 21 Petland stores—in Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio and elsewhere—and traced the origins of about 17,000 puppies shipped to the stores. They also visited many of Petland’s breeders and suppliers. Our findings contradict assurances by staff at Petland stores and on Petland’s corporate website that the company deals only with breeders who have “the highest standards of pet care.”

Watch the video to see how gormless staff at these stores assure customers that their puppies come from ‘nothing but the best breeders’.

It happens in the US. And it’s happening in Australia too.

And as Gina put it so brilliantly;

People who run puppy mills are heartless bastards. And they wouldn’t be in business without buyers.

If you’re one of those buyers, shame on you.

The overwhelming evidence from the Australian Institute of Animal Management Conference this year points to failing animal management, rather than an ‘irresponsible public’ for the hundreds of pets being killed in shelters around the country.

While rescue groups campaign for mandatory desexing as the ‘holy grail’ to ending shelter killing, presenter Michael Hayward of the Australian Veterinary Association and Centre for Companion Animals in the Community points out what would seem like the bleedin’ obvious;

Unfortunately it (mandatory desexing) is unlikely to be effective. The ACT introduced mandatory desexing in 2001. By 2007, it had made no significant difference to the number of cats entering, or being euthanased in the RSPCA ACT shelter.

Despite a lack of government enforcement, the evidence suggests there has been a high rate of compliance, so why didn’t it work? The most important reason is that, as Victorian studies have shown, 80% of cats entering Australian shelters are unowned. Such a cat does not have an owner who can be penalised for non-compliance. It is also very difficult to enforce mandatory desexing – you need permanent identification from a very early age and a system to track owners of undesexed cats to force them to comply. This probably means door-to-door inspections and inspecting (catching) every cat, which is clearly difficult in these days of tightening budgets, limited man-power and privacy legislation.

Mandatory desexing is an animal management solution to an animal welfare problem which is, unfortunately bound to fail.

While we continue to blame ‘an irresponsible public who need laws to make them change their behaviour’ as the reason for shelter killing, Tim Adams from the Petcare Information and Advisory Service confirmed that the majority of owned pets ARE being desexed and cared for, in his presentation on the The National People and Pets Survey 2006 which found;

that while attitudes to preparing for pet ownership by desexing and vaccinating were largely unchanged, owner behaviour had substantially improved. In both 1994 and 2006 over 80% of people believed that pets should be desexed unless specifically intended for breeding. So attititudes were unchanged. But owner behaviour had improved marketly. In 1994 only 61% of dogs had been desexed. By 2006 this had risen to 78%. The number of desexed cats had also risen slightly, from 91% in 1994 to 93%.

and

79% of owners have never had their pet go missing for long enough to cause concern

and

Less than 5% of dogs and cats ever need the services of a pound or shelter.

So why then, are we still killing?

The answer lays simply with our refusal to stop punishing an already compliant public and instead work on improving our failure to save the lives of these pets. Rather than support our community in their efforts to be compassionate, we bring in stick-not-carrot programs that turn the pet lovers who do something kind, like give a stray cat a little bit of food… into criminals. Ironic, given these are the exact same people could and would be the biggest supporters of any life saving programs should we chose to actually implement them.

From the presentation on the ‘Who’s For Cat’s Program’ by Neva Gladman of the Bureau of Animal Welfare, Department of Primary Industries, VIC;

The cat overpopulation problem can be attributed to a number of factors, such as supply exceeding demand, the high reproductive capacity of cats, and general attitudes towards the species which manifests in irresponsible cat ownership.

A Victorian study tracked the fate of 25,810 cats entering animal shelters over a 13 month period. It confirmed that the majority of cats admitted to shelters were unowned, and that most ended up being euthanased. Cats were primarily euthanased because they were wild or feral, due to poor health or because not enough homes could be found for them. Even more tragically, thousands of those euthanased victims were healthy, sociable kittens.

Various council pounds and animal shelters across Victoria have reported record numbers of cats being brought in for surrender since late last year. Some shelters have reported a 50% increase (since the launch of the Who’s for Cats Program)

We blame the market, the cats and the public. But we never blame ourselves for killing young, healthy, adoptable pets or implementing programs that increase shelter intakes.

Encouraging people to help us kill the unowned, was never a lifesaving initiative.

Imagine if the campaign focused, instead on forcing ownership, on encouraging these cat lovers to simply continue as they have been but with their neighbourhood cats desexed. They can desex more than one feral if they were really keen! Support them with condition free, low-cost desexing. And tell them to tell their friends and neighbours to help catch and desex their own community pusses. Make it a yearly event – the annual drive for cat lovers to desex their way to less cats.

Managing cats is not about mandatory desexing or forced ownership – it’s about compassion for these animals and respecting their right to live out their lives, regardless of their ownership status. Valuing only animals who have families is no longer acceptable to the community. Pet lovers in a modern society expect those people working in ‘animal welfare’ to offer these animals protection and want to see them saved.

They don’t donate to us for us to use the money to kill pets. They don’t donate to us to wring our hands and say ‘we have no choice’. And they certainly don’t donate to us so we can bring in programs that increase the numbers of pets we kill.

We have an already overwhelmingly supportive and compliant public, it’s time we started believing it, rejoicing and harnessing their power to save the lives of pets.

See also: The No Kill Equation

Challenging the myth that tabbies are ‘plain’ and that you can’t take a great photo of a black cat, Pets Without Partners in QLD shows the value of a great pic.

I mean, who wouldn’t want to adopt these guys – look at them!