From Pet Connection blog this week;

Shelters are seeing drop-offs increase, but instead of acting like shelters — a place of last resort to care for those in need — the organizations and people running them are too often condemning the very people who cared enough to bring their pets in hopes of their animals being rehomed. (As opposed to leaving them in abandoned houses or simply turning them loose to fend for themselves.)

Christie wrote about the problem, in her SFGate.com column, “Your Whole Pet“:

Pet owners who don’t want to abandon their pets to an uncertain fate seek help at their local shelter. But rather than being offered assistance, they sometimes are lectured about their “irresponsibility.” Some are simply told that their pets will be put down. This harsh scenario exposes a weakness in this country’s reigning animal-shelter philosophy, which may not be serving the unwitting animal victims of the foreclosure crisis well. [...] The sheltering philosophy that has dominated animal control policy in this country since at least the 1970s is one that lays the blame for every pet problem, including large numbers of animals being killed in shelters every day, squarely at the feet of irresponsible pet owners. [...] Proponents of this approach believe that high kill rates in shelters are simply their best attempt at cleaning up after an uncaring and careless public.

I can’t tell you how many times I have listened to people in rescue or sheltering talk about pet-lovers sobbing as they gave up their pets, only to have the folks who are supposed to be helping dismiss the pet-owner’s tears as being “just for show,” make a dramatic point of stressing how quickly the pet would be killed in the “shelter” and offer contemptuous diatribes on how “if they really cared, they’d …. ” [fill in the blank with some unrealistic solution].

Think it doesn’t happen here in Oz? That our rescues wouldn’t be so heartless as to label those in the misery of financial crisis as ‘irresponsible’ when they have only done what we’ve asked them to; bring the pet to us rather than dump it in a park? That instead of being offered sympathy, people in crisis are belligerently lectured and told that they are worthless human beings for daring to need our help?


Sadly however, it seems we are no more charitable than the Yanks. From the Canberra Times

Owners using financial crisis as excuse to dump pets

Dog rescue and foster charities are facing a busy lead-up to Christmas with some owners using the economic crisis as an excuse to dump their pets, according to two organisations.

Foster carer Maree said she saw a man surrendering his dog, saying he was unable to afford to feed it.

”I said, ‘Do you drink and smoke?’ And he just turned away from me. He wouldn’t look at me after that,” she said.

”To say you can’t afford to feed the dog is ridiculous. You don’t give away your children.”

Rescuer Wendy said it was a bad excuse.

”It’s terrible, because if you take on an animal, you take on a commitment,” she said.

but goes on to say

… increasingly there were owners who could not afford to keep up mortgage repayments and were seeking out rental accommodation which often didn’t allow pets.

Since when is losing your home ‘just an excuse’ to surrender an animal? At what point is someone ‘eligible’ to be offered a little empathy for the situation they’re in? Does their house need to burn down, say? How about if their child is sick and they have huge hospital bills? Or what if they’ve died – should we feel sorry for them then?


Is it really ok for us to beat these people when they’re already down? This credit crunch has, and will have many, many families in strife. How about a little more help and a little less contempt; people are losing their jobs, their houses and their superannuation. And unlike in the past where people could get credit cards to save themselves in event of a crisis such as a big vet bill, banks aren’t lending to just anyone anymore.


Does this mean that they have been foolish with their money. Likely. Does this mean they have been living beyond their means? Probably. Does this mean they are evil? Hardly.


The truly evil ones are the ones who leave their pets behind and move away. This is really, really common amongst people who don’t care; for either their pet, or for the tongue lashing we’ll give them. We should be thanking our lucky stars they care enough to give us the chance to help.

“There, but for the grace of God, go I.”

We night think haughtily ‘I’d never give up MY pet. No matter what‘, but simply, unless you’ve been in the situation you have no idea what things you might have to do to keep a roof over your head, your family together and food on the table. Obviously, we can all do what we like when these people come to us; we don’t have to be nice to them. But the easiest way to keep people from bringing you pets, is not to open a shelter!


I’m not saying all people are good, there are asshats everywhere. But…

…as Nathan Winograd points out in his public presentations on creating no kill communities across America, irresponsible people will always be with us. They’ll fail to pay child support, drive drunk, cheat on their spouses, and not help their kids with their homework. They’ll also be irresponsible with their pets.

That’s what shelters are for. That’s what they should be for. ref

And being The economy is going to get worse before it gets better and being hostile to the public doesn’t change this. But it certainly harms our relationship with them. Doesn’t endear us to them. Doesn’t make them want to support our xmas appeals. And it certainly doesn’t help them be better pet people because when things are better and they are financially secure again, they will get a new pet, but they’ll certainly not be contacting us for guidance.


We owe it to the animals we serve to stop punishing and start helping people, whether we personally think their particular need is ‘worthy’ of our help or not. If you work in a shelter or rescue and you are caught in the cycle if anger, negativity and blame – quit or get help. Wallowing in frustration, anger and being filled with a hateful attitude is not a frame of mind that will allow you to accomplish amazing things.

The RSPCA now includes an information page advising of the dangers of puppy mills. From their site;

Many of the puppies are sold through pet shops, the internet, newspaper ads, or at the puppy farm itself. Some puppy farms actually operate the pet shops in addition to their farm where they then sell their puppies to an unsuspecting public.

The breeders and pet shops rely on the public “falling in love” with the cute little puppy in the window and buying it on a whim.

The RSPCA will continue to lobby government to amend laws to have these puppy farms banned. We also conduct campaigns to encourage the public not to purchase puppies or other pets from pet shops and instead consider adopting animals from animal shelters or responsible breeders.

To check out the full information visit the RSPCA ACT website.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL5_fMlKv6w]

Nathan Winograd speaks at the No More Homeless Pets Conference in October. Check out the blogs here for all the conference information.

When we speak to the media, it’s often about the reason de jour that people are giving when surrendering their animals. Obviously the latest trend is ‘the economy’ and you don’t have to search very hard to find a rescue group lamenting that financial issues are causing people to hand over their pets.

SYDNEY (Reuters Life!) – They’re man’s best friends, but apparently not in times of financial stress, as hundreds of people in Australia are abandoning their pet dogs and cats, often because they cost too much.

Coming up to the xmas holiday period, the rescue media blitz is on owners who surrender because they couldn’t find a boarding kennel or because they wanted to go on holidays. And the old chestnuts, allergies or moving house never really seem to go out of style.

So what would you say if I told you that by promoting these reasons for pet relinquishment, we’re actually encouraging people to surrender their pets? Would you reconsider your next media release?

People do what other people are doing

‘Social proof’ is a psychological phenomenon described by Robert Cialdini in his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Call it the ‘herd mentality’. If unsure of what to do, people will look to others and just… do what they do.

It’s the reason teenagers all dress alike and why advertisers use slogans like ‘1000 happy customers can’t be wrong’. Because we care a great deal about what others think of us, we work hard to fit in and avoid being criticised. We are highly susceptible to ‘popular opinion’, as when we’re not sure, we assume others know more than us and just fall into line.

Social proof can be an extremely powerful tool in marketing. If convinced that ‘everyone else is doing it’, people often overcome any reservations and comply. Also, the more people that engage in a particular behaviour, the more acceptable this behaviour becomes. Think rubber bracelets, recycling or Red Nose Day.

In the case of social proof bringing about accepted social change, anyone who falls outside the new ‘trend’ will be ostracised and the community will essentially self-regulate. As anyone who’s watered the lawn outside of their non-allocated day will tell you!

Testimonials are a very powerful form of social proof and your adopters are by far your best advertisement. By including the stories of other happy adopters we say ‘Look! They’ve done it and they’re really happy’, and help to alleviate any reservations people might be having about taking home a rescue.

So what’s this got to do with surrenders?

Social proof isn’t all good news. This ‘monkey see – monkey do’ also extends to unfortunate events and leads to negative ‘copycat’ behaviour. If a celebrity commits suicide for example, mass media coverage soon leads to more suicides. The simple explanation being that they feel validated by the suicide of another, so they act.

From Copyblogger;

In other words, social proof also tells us it’s okay to do what we already want to do. This isn’t all bad, especially when it involves the acceptance of your message. But it can also result in negative social proof, in that it motivates people to do the opposite of what you want because you’re trying to change behavior already supported by social proof.

Take a look at these well-intended messages:

• This year Americans will produce more litter and pollution than ever before. ~U.S. Forest Service
• 4 years ago, 22 million single women did not vote. ~Women Vote
• 42% of college graduates never read a book again. ~Dan Poynter’s ParaPublishing

These messages point out important problems. But what are some people really hearing?

• Everyone litters, it’s not just me.
• Voting is a hassle, and others like me think so too.
• I don’t enjoy reading, and I’m in a lot of good company.

These are all examples of negative social proof. Instead of prompting people to change, it encourages people to stick with the crowd that hasn’t changed (especially if the change is inconvenient or undesired). It can even lead people to engage in behavior they otherwise wouldn’t, once they know others are doing it.

So social proof can actually backfire completely and increase peoples bad behaviour because they have proof that lots of others also engage in the behaviour.

If we say people are surrendering because of the economy, voila! People will dump their pets citing the economy as their reason;

Australia’s animal welfare agency, the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA), said “can’t afford it” was now the fourth most cited reason for people dropping off pets at the shelter, up from number 8 last year. ref

Avoiding negative social proof

Copyblogger offers these tips for avoiding negative social proof.

1. Focus on the desired action, not the action you want people to avoid.
   ‘Rescues say; book your boarding kennel now‘, not ‘Pets flood shelters as kennels fill‘




2. Reframe negative social proof to highlight those who are on board rather than those who are not.
   ‘Dog training schools a haven for happy pets‘ not, ‘Most Australians lazy; untrained pets rife‘




3. Characterize the undesirable action as isolated, out of touch, uncool, aberrant, etc.
   (isolating and stigmatizing) The Bogan Breeder phenomenon

Understanding that people need other people’s approval to feel they’re making the right decision will go a long way to using language that supports this process. We can change the community by harnessing the power of social proof, but we must ensure that we focus on the positive behaviour we’re trying to promote and choose what we say carefully so our message has only the desired effect.

Going from strength to strength and proving the power of No Kill.


The AWL’s New Website

The Animal Welfare League exists to:

• Find safe and happy homes with responsible guardians for as many abandoned cats and dogs as possible
• Achieve zero euthanasia of all healthy & treatable cats and dogs
• Prevent the birth of unwanted kittens and puppies
• Improve humans’ attitudes toward all animals through education
• Improve the living conditions and treatment of animals in shelters and pounds
• Find a positive solution for unowned cats
• Raise the value of animals in society so that the intrinsic needs of each species are recognized, respected and met

We Believe:

• Each and every life is valuable
• Zero euthanasia of healthy and treatable companion animals is achievable
• Cruelty is unacceptable
• All animals deserve kind treatment
• Every cat and dog born has a right to live happily in a loving, responsible home

If they can do it, why are we still supporting those who chose not to?

Victoria’s animal welfare organisations top the states in hard-line campaigning for increasingly powerful animal welfare legislation, under the guise of keeping pets safe from ‘irresponsible owners’. So when asked why they are killing tens of thousands of pets annually, they always have plenty of reasons on hand to blame ‘an irresponsible public’.


In 2001, the reason for the killing was ‘irresponsible owners’ dumping their untrained pets;

Victorians are among the world’s worst pet dumpers with almost 30,000 animals being put down each year. And a hard core of ’serial dumpers’ is throwing its animals on the streets year after year, according to animal welfare campaigner Dr Graeme Smith.

More than 22,000 cats and 7000 dogs are destroyed at Melbourne’s three biggest animal shelters every year and about 750,000 pets were dumped in Victoria in the last 10 years.

Dr Smith, managing director of the Lost Dogs’ Home and Cat Shelter in North Melbourne, said it was sickening that some people treated their animals like disposable toys that they could turn on and off. He said winter was the worst time for the dumping of dogs when people who had bought on impulse grew tired of their untrained, adolescent pet bringing mud into the house or becoming too boisterous.
Pet dumping our shame – The Sunday Herald, 17 June 2001

In 2002, the reason for the killing was ‘irresponsible owners’ not registering their pets;

The Lost Dogs’ Home is now doorknocking all homes in select streets in the municipalities of Melbourne, Hobsons Bay and Greater Bendigo. Frankston and Darebin residents face blitzes next month.

Mr Shelton said owners were putting the lives of their pets in jeopardy for the sake of fees of only $22 for most dogs and $14 for most cats.

About 70 per cent of stray animals taken to the council pound are not reclaimed and four in five are destroyed, he said.
Councils collar pet problems – The Herald Sun, 14 June 2002

By 2006, the reason for the killing was ‘irresponsible owners’ not desexing their pets;

The pressure is on Victorian councils to impose mandatory desexing of dogs and cats to reduce the tens of thousands being destroyed each year. The state’s biggest animal welfare organisations The Lost Dogs Home and RSPCA killed almost 9000 unwanted dogs and 19,000 cats last financial year. This is equivalent to 75 a day. The organisations are lobbying councils to introduce new powers forcing pet owners to desex their dogs and cats.
Make desexing a must – Melton Moorabool Leader, 30 May 2006

And in 2008, it’s the failing economy and rental crisis that’s got ‘irresponsible owners’ surrendering their animals.

RSPCA shelters across Victoria received 17,870 cats in the past financial year. Two-thirds had to be put down. The number of cats euthanised at the Burwood East shelter alone increased by more than 80 per cent.

“The current situation is appalling, unethical and unacceptable and the community needs to come to the party and help solve this problem,” Ms Mercurio said.

Economic hard times and stiff competition for rental properties had led to more pets being dumped, Ms Mercurio said.
Cats crisis ’sickening’ – The Age, September 26, 2008

So to force people be ‘responsible pet owners’ these groups lobby the government for laws which make people register and microchip. They push for laws to make owners desex. And to save lives when so many pets are flooding shelters, you’d think they’d also be doing everything they could to help people become reunited with their animals.

But you’d be wrong.

According to the Lost Dogs Home news report on Channel 10, thanks to all these lovely new laws, it’s now council fees that are keeping owners from collecting their pets;


[youtube=http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=jtkdwuf5d18]

Reporter: There’s currently 39 dogs looking for a new home – more than 10 times the average. Staff are blaming pressure on family budgets for the increase, for some it’s just too expensive to collect their precious pooch.

Sue Conroy: If the dog’s going to cost them fines for being out with the council, or microchipping fees and desexing fees, then maybe they’ll opt not to take the dog back home again.

So while rescue groups have been blaming an ‘irresponsible public’ for high impound and low reclaim rates, at the same time they have been killing pets who have homes and families.


In an effort to ‘punish irresponsible owners’ shelters are killing pets whose owners have made an error, had their pet escape and been collected by one of these ‘refuges’ and who now can’t afford to pay the very same fines championed by rescue groups as a way to reduce the killing.

Super backfire!

How can groups kill pets who have families, yet still purport they exist to save lives? How can they claim to be leading the way on animal care and compassion, taking donations from a pet-loving public to shelter and protect animals, while they busy themselves killing the pets of disadvantaged and struggling families?


But undeterred these groups continue, ignoring the contradiction and championing even more draconian laws, greater penalties and putting even more pets in danger of being seized and killed should their owners be in violation or unable to pay. And as people don’t get their new pet from those people who killed their old pet (or their neighbour’s, or their friend’s pet) they cement the divide between themselves and the public and move even further away from being the number 1 source of pets for adopters.

Legislation is often thought of as a quick solution to the high rate of shelter killing. “If only we had a law,” the argument goes, “all the bad, irresponsible people would have to take care of their pets properly, and shelters wouldn’t have to kill so many animals.” If that were true, given the proliferation of punitive mandates nationwide, there should be many No Kill communities. There is not because experience has proven that legislation is far from a cure-all. In fact it often has the opposite effect.

Nathan Winograd – Redemption

We as a nation of pet lovers need to ask; if the pets are being surrendered because of a lack of training, being unregistered, being undesexed or any of the other ‘irresponsible’ reasons used by these groups to inspire sympathy in the pet-loving community, and not because they’re vicious or sick… why are they be being killed at all? Where is the accountability to these groups for their own performance in their mission “to save the lives of pets”? And should we be supporting groups with millions of dollars in donations annually, who are failing in that mission?


Until they can prove to be more than efficient killing machines, we need to halt the march of more laws, more fines and more powers for them to impound animals. Especially when those laws fail to return pets home and instead sees them killed.

Price is a signal, a story, a situational decision that is never absolute. It’s just part of what goes into making a decision, no matter what we’re buying.
Seth Godin

I’ve written before about why I think ‘bargain’ rescue pets are a bad idea, but today over at the No Kill Nation blog respected rescuer Sue Cosby has put together three essays on why we should not only allow discounts, but where necessary give pets away for free.

Discounted adoption fees can help dramatically boost attention for the shelter and the animals and help sustain higher rates of lifesaving.

I first read about discounted adoption fees when I saw a small story, years ago, about a little shelter.  When they were so overcrowded and were facing a mass killing they decided to do ‘free’ cat adoptions for one weekend.

What happened? They had an empty shelter by the end of the weekend. They were shocked and amazed. They never expected that sort of community support. They had never expected that much interest in their animals and they were relieved that the killing was abated for the time being.

What I’ve discovered is that instead of trying to compete with the breeder or pet store, we are often competing just as much with ‘free’ pets from friends and neighbors.

So what could be bad about such amazingly great results in the face of high kill rates? What’s bad, and why I respectfully disagree with Sue’s take on free pets, is that chasing the ‘FTGH’ market not only limits our operations by making every adoption a complete financial loss, but that free pets aren’t very attractive to the majority of the pet owning public.

Do we really think FTGH are underselling us?

People purchase pets for many different reasons, but the type of pet they purchase always comes back to one motivation; their perception of who they think they are.

Most people get a pet free because that’s how they’ve always done it. No amount of pet shop pizazz or purebred promises are going to attract them or change their world view on what pet ownership is about. Pets just aren’t something you pay for.

But here’s the kicker;

Even if you compete directly with these free pet ads and drop your price to $0.00 – you’re still not going to get them to adopt from you. Why? Because you have to see yourself as ’someone who would own a rescue pet’ before you’ll adopt. And that has nothing to do with price and everything to do with perception of self.

You can’t be everything to everyone (or why people buy from rescue groups)

People adopt a rescue because they want to feel good about saving a life. Because the prices are cheaper than pet shops and breeders. Because they’ve had adopted in the past and would like to do so again. Because it’s a trendy thing to do that they can tell their friends about. Because they’ve heard about rescues on the internet and are intrigued. Because their friends have adopted and they’d like to follow suit. And/or because they don’t want to raise a baby pet.

Very, very, very rarely – maybe so rarely as to happen nearly never at all – would the reason be ‘because rescue pets are free’.

So what happens to the ‘pet shop set’ when we give our pets away FTGH?For every FTGH pet purchaser, there a dozen people who can both afford to pay for their pet and who would never consider a free to good home ad. They might adopt from us if we made them our target, told a story that appealed to their world view. Except the story we’ve chosen to tell is that our pets are free! And what does this potential adopter think?

Free? Only faulty things are free. Or common things. Things that nobody wants. I don’t want a free pet – I want a great pet. I’ll just pay for one thanks…

The story you tell about your pets is everything. These people don’t see themselves as someone who would get a pet for ‘free’. Their perception of what it is to be a pet owner includes ‘good things cost more’.

But it works! Doesn’t it?

Sure, if you have a giant, media-driven campaign promoting your ‘Free Pet Drive’ you’ll likely empty your shelter. But chances are if you had ANY giant media campaign, based on any promotion or open day you’ll see a surge in adoptions.

However, by offering our pets for free, our rescues fail to make any sort of profit on adoptions and see us out of pocket a couple of hundred of dollar each time we do ‘business’ (at least the cost of desexing). And those other pet owners; the ones who would have happily paid your adoption costs should you have told the right story? They’re completely turned off because you’ve not told a story that’s about their perceptions of themselves.

Better than free

We shouldn’t be looking to lower our cost – we should be working to increase our value. And we do that by focusing on the huge ancillary benefits of adopting. We need to tell the story that each and every adopter is a hero. We have to sell our rescues as a resource for pet owners, able to offer a personal appraisal and pet matchmaking service. We’re need to emphasise that our pets come temperament tested, vet checked and with a lifetime returns policy.

Sure, making our story about ‘free’ is much simpler, more immediate and takes much less effort. But if we’re truly interested in growing our industry then we have to do away with the crutch that is ‘the free pet’.

Considering the limited revenue available to non-profits and the incredibly limited resources available to animal rescue groups, should the many independent rescuers be working to consolidate their efforts and would we be more effective if we merged our operations?


Less groups = less duplication of services + less overheads and stronger organisations with conceivably more ‘clout’ in both fundraising and advocacy. Grant makers tend to favour groups effectively using resources and who appear to be above ‘turf wars’. And with more members from more backgrounds comes an expansion of knowledge and capacity.

So should we all become one?

Well, first we have to realise that not all duplication is bad. We live in a democracy where anyone can start a business, be it non-profit or commercial. This is great as it allows the consumer (or service beneficiary and financiers) to choose exactly whom they want to support. And groups live or die by their performance keeping everyone striving to be better, smarter and more efficient.


Its called healthy competition.


Sometimes, there are express reasons why groups can’t work together; from irreconcilable differences in ideology, to simple disharmony among certain personalities. This doesn’t mean each or any group is undeserving, but simply that life isn’t always neat, or people compatible.


Also, nuances between groups often allows for better coverage for a particular service. In rescue one group may specialise in rescuing small dogs, other groups have a policy of focusing on older pets and others may have capacity to help foster mums with newborns. In this case, consolidation to a ‘one size fits all’ approach may actually see special needs pets fall outside ’standard’ parameters and be disadvantaged.

So when SHOULD we work together?

In short: wherever possible!


Just because we don’t want to merge our identities, doesn’t mean we can’t help each other in our missions. In fact, as groups who use public funding we have an ethical obligation to use our resources as effectively and efficiently as possible, be aware of other groups working in similar areas and actively seek out compatible groups to engage in facilitated discussion about causes, rather than any operational differences.


Collaborating in a mature fashion with other groups with shared values, can lead to huge advances in innovation, capacity and make the industry as a whole more effective.

But isn’t it risky?

Looking outside your group and joining forces with another is a risk. But in today’s market not taking risks is a much bigger one;

There are the fear-mongers who find reasons not to make progress. They have an audience because they promise to lower risk. What they never mention is the monster of risk they create: stagnation. These are hard times. It may be that some nonprofits are going to fold in the coming months or years. I don’t know which ones those will be, but I can tell you which ones they won’t be: It won’t be the inventive, adventurous, full-speed-ahead organizations. Get rid of your fear-mongers and charge ahead.

While not always easy, the benefits of a symbiotic working relationship, based on mutual respect can be enormous. And very much worth the risk.