The No Kill Nation blog has today an excellent piece on the history of HSUS and how its back flip from considering the best outcome for feral cats to be death;

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Feral cats should be humanely euthanized if they cannot be [adopted]. For feral cats, this traditional approach remains the only practical and humane solution.
Shelter Sense, Volume 15, Number 5, May 1992

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

To their position today;

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Effective strategies for permanently reducing the homeless cat population are essential and Trap-Neuter-Return, when properly implemented, offers such a solution.
Feral Cats: Frequently Asked Questions: 2008

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

May be about to be mirrored in changes in their position towards ‘fighting’ and ‘dangerous’ dogs, following the backlash they received after defending the killing 150 dogs and puppies earlier in the month.

So why would a group like the HSUS be flipping their position on so many hot topics?

Profitable Change

No matter what the subject matter, there is one thing that is nearly always the same amongst groups advocating for change they’re poor.

A new idea is often unpopular simply because it’s new. No matter what science you have to back it up, when you present a new idea to the public they roll it around in their heads and feel perturbed – then reject it because it challenges what they know, they know.

Groups advocating for genuine change usually find themselves slogging away, beating their drum on a shoestring and only supported only by similarly minded people. Then, one day they grow big enough that they crack it, or they get some break like the media jumping on board or the issue becoming particularly topical.

That’s when the idea suddenly becomes ‘Profitable Change’. Those groups who until this point have been waiting in the wings either actively or passively resisting, now ’see the light’ and suddenly jump into action.

They champion this ‘new’ idea. Rewrite the history books and begin to advocate on its behalf. The public, having ‘heard the idea somewhere before’ are emboldened and congratulate the revolutionary thinking. And that’s when the $$$ start really rolling in.

The Lesson? There’s no money in bringing change to market; but there’s plenty to be made if you’re the group that’s second in line.

The HSUS gave the term ‘No Kill’ a whirl earlier in the year because it was getting a lot of media and industry interest. Feral cat supporters became so numerous that they could no longer be ignored. Puppy mills = Oprah. Now, pit bulls are getting their turn in the spotlight simply because the backlash to their position has been so severe that the HSUS had no choice but to review it.

Advocacy groups make their money from following popular opinion, not creating it.

So how do you make YOUR idea into a Profitable Change?

Keep beating your drum. It’s hard to think that eventually the very groups working against you now, will turn tide and profit handsomely for doing so, but that’s ok. In fact, make it easy for them when the time comes.

Because we’re working for the animals and results are results are results.

The SAFE rescue group are one of the genuine good guys of the pet rescue world. They are innovative, modern and make great matches between pets and owners. They convert enquiries into adoptions and turn adopters into evangelists. And it has been my absolute pleasure to watch them go from strength to strength.

So when they told me they’d been targeted by a convicted fraudster who took advantage of their good hearts and homeless pets I was stunned.

The story has now been featured on Perth’s Today Tonight;

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Her real name is Lisa McKay, a mother of two and con artist, who scams money from unsuspecting victims.

You might remember Lisa McKay. She’s been jailed for fraud after telling the world she had terminal, vaginal cancer that had spread to her lungs, liver, kidney and spine. There were fundraising pleas in two newspapers.

Helen Hall handed over $2000 and organised an appeal that raised a lot more.

In an on-line medical newsletter, Lisa wrote about her so-called terminal illness.

“I have approximately 6 months remaining of my life to enjoy my two beautiful children.”

“I have been told that I will soon lose the ability to walk.”

That was written four years ago. Lisa’s husband stood by her when she faced court two years ago, but the problem is, Lisa McKay never had cancer. She cut her hair, forged hospital records and conned kind hearted people out of their hard earned money.

In 2007, Lisa McKay pleaded guilty to 25 fraud charges and spent 18 months in jail. Unbelievably, she’s out of jail, on parole and at it again. This time she’s turned her attention to animal rescue groups. Volunteers who save cats and dogs from the pound and foster them out to loving families. Like the other volunteers, Lisa sells the cats for $100 each, but instead of giving that money back to the animal group to cover costs, they say Lisa has been pocketing the cash. Thousands of dollars, they can’t afford to lose.

Natalie Baldock is a volunteer with SAFE – Saving Animals From Euthanasia.

“She’s just used us. We were easy pickings. We try so hard but you don’t have time to do police checks or things like that. You take people in because of their hearts and because they care about animals.”

Today Tonight has confirmed Lisa McKay has approached three animal rescue groups and the RSPCA, trying to pull off the same scam. She also uses various names including Lisa Burch, Lisa Burton and Lisa Fraser.

Lisa McKay’s victims say she has to be stopped before she fleeces anyone else.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Consider yourselves warned.

From the West Australian today;

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Joondalup Cat Law Vindictive

The City of Joondalup has done no research, has no statistics and has ignored cat laws outside WA.

Compared to Darwin’s enlightened cat law, Joondalup is poorly framed, and vindictive.

It is opposed by the city’s own officers, the rangers and the Australian Veterinary Association.

Most written submissions opposed the law and the council was sharply divided. Compulsory sterilisation has failed in Canberra, where after five years more cats than ever are being put down.

In the US, it has also failed and many states are now repealing their cat laws.

The Joondalup cat owner register will be open to the public and cats will be effectively confined for their entire lives.

Cruelty to cats will increase, as cat haters feel emboldened be the law, and trivial cat complaints will spark neighbourhood confrontation.

With the threat of fines, many owners will not even identify their cat, let alone register (cat registration is typically around 24 per cent).

This cat law will be counter productive, and many owners will simply ignore it, or dump their cats and add to the stray cat population.

A more sensible approach would include subsidised voluntary sterilisation, a strong education program, pet shops to only sell sterilised cats and a cooling off period for pet shop sales.

Charles Page – Iluka

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

A quick google on this chappy reveals he was a thorn in the side of Joondalup Council back when laws that made no sense were being debated by Councillors that made no sense.  From the Joondalup Public Question Time at the Council meeting on 28 October 2008;

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Mr Charles Page: Iluka:

Q1 With regard to the draft Cats Local Law, does the City realise that without any research or statistics on the cat population, sterilisation rates etc., it has no base line to gauge the requirement for a cat law, no base line to gauge the outcome of that law and no base line for future review?

A1 The City consulted with the community to gain its views on the proposed Local Law.

Q2 Does the City realise that the community consultation on the draft Cat Law is not a substitute for research which would normally be undertaken in accordance with good governance procedures?

A2 Policies and legislation are often based on a mix of evidence and belief. Evidence can be gained in a variety of ways.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

We must find this man and make him our new king.

Hey remember that report on the cats in Rome, where they had recorded the results of TNR programs from 1991 onwards and found they lead to reduced cat numbers and healthy cat populations that became a tourist attraction?

Well, ABC (US) have done a special on these cats which delves further into the details of how the cats live and what these programs mean to the cats and their caretakers;

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Roman Ruins a Haven for Cats: Felines Find a Sanctuary Set in the Heart of Ancient Roman Temples

My search for the felines began after seeing some calendars and postcards of Roman cats posing at the Coliseum, lounging near the colossal marble foot of Constantine, and napping atop a fallen Corinthian capital.

When Egypt became part of the Roman Empire, the cult of cat-headed goddess Bastet crossed the Mediterranean. Its worship became so popular, overshadowing the reverence of the emperor, that eventually an imperial decree banned all cats.

But some survived. The idea that a few of the descendants still live within the imperial ruins aroused my curiosity.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

So even in Egyptian times when there were no such things as animal welfare laws to be considered, cats still gave government ordered ‘eradicators’ the two fingered salute and went on living their lives. Funny how we’ve not learned terribly much since then.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Helpers who live in Rome handle the administration, conduct free guided tours of the ruins, and care for sick or injured cats. Other volunteers come from all over the world, some for a few days, some for weeks. They help with whatever needs doing around the no-kill facility and assist visitors.

New cats arrive at the sanctuary almost daily. Each is given a name, then photographed, registered, medically treated if needed, vaccinated, and spayed or neutered. If it has a right demeanor, it’s put up for adoption.

Additionally, the sanctuary supports 40 other smaller cat colonies in Rome with food and medical needs.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

The rest of the story is just gorgeous and really worth a read.

These kinds of modern, humane TNR programs should be regarded as the only option for cats who aren’t suitable for domestic homes. It seems bizarre that we have well run and recorded examples of these available to us from all over the world, showing exactly how they benefit cats and communities alike, but our animal welfare groups still support what would seem the least animal friendly at all; a good old fashion Roman cull.

The sad irony in Australia is that the only people who get any voice on how to best manage domestic animals, are the ones who  take it upon themselves to kill thousands.

Which is kinda like someone who has had lots and lots of car accidents, being held up as an expert on road safety; “well, who knows better about things that cause crashes than I?”

So, with all the pulling-my-hair-out-by-the-roots frustrated blog topics I’ve been bombarding you with this week, please take a moment to enjoy some words of wisdom and hope from Maddie’s Fund, the United States largest foundation devoted to animal welfare.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Maddie’s Fund wants to support organizations whose mission is to cherish and protect all animals accepted into care.

When we adopt a dog or cat into our home, we become legally and morally responsible for that animal’s welfare. No one claims a right, much less an obligation, to take that animal’s life in order to make room for another. Animal shelters rightly insist that people who adopt from them make the commitment to cherish and protect the animals they take home. At Maddie’s Fund, we don’t see why this commitment should stop at the shelter door.

We are troubled by the notion that non-profit humane organizations must “accept” animals, when “accepting” them means they are likely to be killed. Instead, we feel that the first responsibility is to the animals already under care. And that’s why we choose to support organizations that have made this commitment their first priority.

Maddie’s Fund does not believe humane organizations have an obligation to kill animals.

Some traditional shelters believe humane organizations have an obligation to kill healthy dogs and cats – at least as long as there is a “surplus” population. It wouldn’t be fair, they say, to leave this job to government animal control agencies. But at Maddie’s Fund we don’t think charities are obliged to do the government’s job, particularly when that job could compromise their charitable purpose.

Government animal control agencies are charged, first and foremost, with protecting public health and safety. In many communities that has come to mean impounding stray and unwanted animals and killing the “surplus.” For humane organizations to take on this function, at the expense of saving the animals in their care, risks creating, at least in the public’s perception, a conflict with the humane mission and purpose.

Maddie’s Fund wants to support organizations that send a clear and consistent message that every animal’s life is valuable.

Humane organizations set an example in their communities, and we think actions often speak louder than words. When shelters kill adoptable and treatable animals, the message they want to send – that each animal’s life is precious – is put at risk. What the public hears instead may well be that animal lives are not that important, and that killing is an acceptable way to deal with unwanted dogs and cats: it is, after all, the way the humane organization deals with the problem. And, rather than educating the community about the value of animals’ lives and the commitment required when adopting a dog or cat, the organization may end up reinforcing the message that animals are disposable and killing is the answer whenever housing or cost become a problem.

This inconsistency between what the organization says and what it does risks undermining its credibility and effectiveness in advocating the animals’ cause. By reserving our support for organizations whose words and actions are consistent, Maddie’s Fund hopes to ensure that the message we send and the message the public receives are one and the same.

Maddie’s Fund believes that as more shelters embrace the no-kill approach, fewer animals will be abandoned and neglected.

Some argue that only by accepting all animals and then killing them when facilities become overcrowded can shelters work to prevent animal abandonment and neglect. We see it as just the opposite. When shelters kill, many people avoid them and are reluctant to surrender stray and unwanted animals, because they fear the animals will be put to death. Instead, many of these animals are neglected in backyards and garages or abandoned in neighborhoods and fields, to “give them a chance.” By the time these animals are finally picked up and taken to a shelter, they are often injured, ill, traumatized, and debilitated, and many have bred new generations of homeless animals. Most will now be beyond saving – candidates not for adoption, but for euthanasia. And these deaths will only add to the numbers killed, further fueling community fears that the shelter offers not a second chance at life but the likelihood of death.

When shelters commit to saving all adoptable and treatable animals in their care, they begin to break this cycle of abandonment and death, and pave the way for the entire community to achieve the no-kill goal.

Maddie’s Fund wants to invest in those organizations that use 100% of their resources to save lives and promote an ethic that affirms the value of each companion animal.

When private humane organizations take on the killing function, vital resources that could be used to save lives are diverted. Instead of expanding adoption, spay/neuter, and education programs, charitable dollars must now go to euthanizing animals and disposing of their remains. Staff morale may suffer as those who committed their careers to helping animals find themselves faced with the daily task of ending animal lives. And volunteer and community support can stagnate if the organization’s actions are perceived to be in conflict with community perceptions of its humane mission.

Rather than investing in this model, Maddie’s Fund wants its dollars to go to organizations where the resources at hand are focused on saving lives, and where the commitment to that goal can succeed in harnessing the energy and excitement of the entire community.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Maddie’s Fund might be American, but this is the future for the world of animal sheltering. Believe it.

It didn’t work in the ACT. It didn’t work in the NT. In fact, experts (experts!) say it won’t work anywhere in Australia.

Fuck them, said WA. We’ll give compulsory cat registration a go!

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Cat owners in the city of Joondalup will have to sterilise and register their pets, plus prevent them from straying, under a law passed by the city council last night.

The maximum penalty for the owner of a cat found in a prohibited area is $1000.

Cat owners can also be fined $500 if their cat is found on private property and the owner makes a complaint to the city. City officers will be able to issue on-the-spot infringement notices for up to 10 per cent of the maximum fines.

“There is a cat problem out there. We have to euthanise around 7000 cats per year, so we’re delighted the City of Joondalup has taken this issue up,” she said.

Cat Haven operations manager Roz Robinson described the law as a “visionary leap” and called on other councils to adopt similar laws. ref

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Okay, okay, okay – lets roll with this for a moment. If we are going to have new legislation coming at the cost of taxpayers, then we must demand real measurable effect.

We must have a set of aims that we want a achieve – these obviously would be;

• less kittens born
• less cats euthanased
• and movement towards less cats in the environment.

Also,

• less complaints to council about cats
• and an increased rate of return of lost cats.

We must be given the opportunity to measure if these aims are being achieved. Then also, we must compare the benefit of these aims vs the cost of the implementation of the program.

Joondalup council must make their impound figures public. And the public must be able to see whether the aims of this new legislation are being met. Not just ‘anecdotal’ reports from cat rescuers, pushing their agenda to make all owners do what they feel they should, but real comparable figures over the next few years to see the results of the new laws.

Terrorising elderly people, setting animals up to be at the mercy of vengeful neighbours and retarding TNR programs are the immediate costs of this program. If we’re going to do what others have tried and failed at, then we sure as hell better have more success than them.

People who are aggressive with their dogs, end up with aggressive dogs, says the results of a year long study by the University of Pennsylvania. The University surveyed 140 dog owners who sought behavioural advice and asked which methods they had previously used to treat aggressive behaviour, and whether they had proved successful.

The aversive methods used on the dogs by their owners included;

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

… “hit or kick dog for undesirable behavior” (43 percent), “growl at dog” (41 percent), “physically force the release of an item from a dog’s mouth” (39 percent), “alpha roll”physically — rolling the dog onto its back and holding it (31 percent), “stare at or stare down” (30 percent), “dominance down” —- physically forcing the dog down onto its side (29 percent) and “grab dog by jowls and shake” (26 percent)

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

But it was found these techniques “elicited an aggressive response from at least 25 percent of the dogs on which they were attempted”, meaning there’s a hell of a lot of people putting themselves in harms way in the name of ‘dog training’.

In addition the study found that dogs who had been brought in for displaying aggression towards family members were more likely to respond aggressively to some confrontational techniques than dogs brought in for other behavioral reasons. Just going to show that aggression only escalates aggression.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

“This study highlights the risk of dominance-based training, which has been made popular by TV, books and punishment-based training advocates,”Herron said. “These techniques are fear-eliciting and may lead to owner-directed aggression.”

Prior to seeking the counsel of a veterinary behaviorist, many dog owners attempt behavior-modification techniques suggested by a variety of sources.

Recommendations often include the aversive-training techniques listed in the survey, all of which may provoke fearful or defensively aggressive behavior. Their common use may have grown from the idea that canine aggression is rooted in the need for social dominance or to a lack of dominance displayed by the owner. Advocates of this theory therefore suggest owners establish an “alpha” or pack-leader role.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

The lead author in the study Meghan E. Herron, reported “Nationwide, the number one reason why dog owners take their pet to a veterinary behaviorist is to manage aggressive behavior”, so it’s desperately important people are getting good information if they begin to have problems with their pet. Aversive techniques in the hands of novices can not only make behaviour problems worse, but can push dogs to cross boundaries that see them losing their homes and even their lives.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

“Our study demonstrated that many confrontational training methods, whether staring down dogs, striking them or intimidating them with physical manipulation does little to correct improper behavior and can elicit aggressive responses.”

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

The study, published in the current issue of Applied Animal Behavior Science, also showed that using non-aversive or neutral training methods such as additional exercise or rewards elicited very few aggressive responses.

Another day, another kid gets bitten in the face. As is usually the case, the dog involved isn’t one of those scary restricted breeds, but simply a dog. C’mon people! Why is this still happening?

KC Dog Blog as usual has it nailed;

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

UK Dangerous Dogs Act = Fail

For the better part of the last 15 years, the UK has been pointed to by people who support breed bans as a model that should be followed. They say, see, look, the UK did it — as if that is reason enough for other places to pass an ordinance.

I’ve dedicated a fair amount of time here talking about the UK Dangerous Dogs Act, noting that everyone over there is unhappy with the Act, calling it “Intellectually Ridiculous”, and noting that the UK has seen a 50% increase in serious dog bites since 1997, and Scotland, whic also is affected by the act, has seen a 150% increase in serious dog bites.

For those who aren’t familiar, the UK Dangerous Dogs Act essentially banned four breeds of dogs from the island: The American Pit Bull Terrier, the Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Braileiro. The law has been a major failure because it focused on breeds of dogs as being the problem, instead of focusing on irresponsible ownership practices.

The lack of acknowledging that it is poor ownership, poor training of dogs, poor recognition of canine behavior and poor supervision of children with dogs that leads to attacks, not breeds, has caused the UK Dangerous Dogs Act to fail.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

The Australian Veterinary Association bucked the trend in the early 2000’s of  ‘animal welfare advocates’  calling for a pit bull cull,  and now following the failure of NSW breed bans to do anything to curb the number of dog attacks on children, are very diplomatically not singing ‘I told you so’, but would be well within their right to do so;

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) is calling for more funding for responsible pet ownership education programs following a spate of dog bite incidents across Australia.

“Despite the calls for drastic measures we’re hearing in the media at the moment, educating people about responsible pet ownership is the most effective way of stopping these incidents,” Dr Mark Lawrie, AVA President said.

“Dogs can become highly excited when they are being hugged, kissed and teased by small children and high-pitched voices can further lift their agitation,” Dr Lawrie said.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

“Proper training and learning social skills are crucial for dogs, and we as owners must be the ones in charge of making sure our pets are taught to relate well to family, friends and strangers.

“It’s vital to make sure we never leave children, particularly those under five years of age, alone with any dog. Research indicates that there is a higher risk of dog bites in young children, especially toddlers, even with dogs that are well known to the family.

The answer to dog bites is education, not banning breeds

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

We could have many, many more years of angry people bawling for stronger legislation each time a kid gets mauled by the family dog, and innocent dogs being taken from their homes because of the way they look…  or we could stop using dog breeds as some sort of caste system and begin to support programs that actually work to help owners take better care of their pets.

Nathan’s all feisty today. And very relevant given we’re all watching Victoria realise that it’s going to be impossible to reunite bushfire pets with their families within current deadlines and start lobbying government to have the state’s nonsensical, pet-killing legislation changed.

Well, there is good legislation that could overnight, overhaul Victoria’s crippled animal welfare system. And it’s not about curbing ’irresponsible owners’ or punishing ‘an uncaring public’, but simply legislation that says pounds can’t kill animals when there is an alternative to killing them.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

While we have animal cruelty laws giving shelters the power to protect animals from abusive people, we don’t have good laws protecting animals from shelters. As a result, shelter directors often enjoy unfettered discretion to kill, to refuse putting in place programs that prevent killing, and to continue to demonstrate so little regard for animal life that they can take the lives of animals even when No Kill shelters and rescue groups are willing and able to save them.

While shelters who kill in the face of alternatives are acting unethically, their actions should also be illegal as they are in California, where state law forbids shelters from killing an animal if a No Kill shelter or rescue group is willing to save that animal’s life. If rescue groups come forward and say they will save them, there should be no choice in the matter.

We must make it illegal for shelter directors to kill any savable animals until they have shown that:

(1) there are no empty cages, kennels, or other living environments in the shelter;
(2) the animal cannot share a cage or kennel with another animal;
(3) a foster home is not available;
(4) rescue organizations have been notified and are not willing to accept the animal;
(5) the animal is not a feral cat subject to sterilization and release;
(6) the director of the agency certifies in writing, and under penalty of perjury, that he or she has no other alternative.

But legislation of that sort is only a start. At the very least, we must also require shelter directors to comprehensively implement all the programs of the No Kill Equation including medical and behavior rehabilitation, foster care, and more. And the reality is that if they do comprehensively implement the programs, and if they do certify the preceding, there will be no savable animals facing death, as No Kill will be achieved.

For more information on shelter reform legislation, click here.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Why would anyone be against this kind of legislation? If there is a rescue group willing to take an animal, pay for its care and rehabilitation and rehome it, it’s criminal that a pound can decide to ignore their pleas and kill it instead. Why shouldn’t they be made to use the resources of the community, to contacting breed rescue and other private shelters? Why should they be allowed to choose to kill pets rather than put in the effort required to save them?

Worse, without this legislation pounds are holding animals hostage. If a rescue group speaks out about neglect, mistreatment or policies that cost animals their lives; then the pound can retailate by black-banning them, meaning they are unable to rescue from that pound in the future.

Around the country animals are dying, not because there aren’t rescuers to take them, but because pounds aren’t releasing them. And it must stop now.

Good oh! The RSPCA Victoria have realised that it’s going to be impossible to reunite bushfire pets with their families within current deadlines and have started lobbying government to have the state’s nonsensical, pet-killing legislation changed;

Call to ease rules on the killing of lost pets

The RSPCA has called for the easing of regulations which dictate that lost pets must be euthanased if they have not found a home within 28 days, as the animal world continues to reel from the Victorian bushfires.

Maria Mercurio, chief executive of RSPCA Victoria, said usually after eight days the ownership of a lost animal brought to the RSPCA reverted to the organisation.

And I was really pleased to see them taking such proactive action, but then they went and told a little fib;

If the pet was not claimed, or a new home not found, it was euthanased after 28 days in care. In the case of dogs especially, she said, this almost never happened, because they did usually find homes.

And I began to wonder if the rules they’re lobbying to change are the ones which will actually save lives (ie. the ones that would allow them to work with and transfer to, private rescue groups to ensure not only bush fire pets, but all pets have a chance to be rehomed rather than killed for space) or just the rules that allow them to keep the valuable needy bush fire pets for a bit longer to extend the donations help reunite them them with their families;

In the immediate aftermath of the fires, the organisation shifted the animals awaiting adoption from its shelters in Bendigo and Epping, nearest the fires, to the Burwood HQ – to prepare for the influx of stricken animals.

“We needed to free up the shelters for emergency accommodation,” Ms Mercurio said.

However, with this organisation not four months ago calling for compulsory desexing because they were full to capacity, where have all the existing animals gone? And if we’re going to keep all these extra animals, and with no allowances for shelter transfers to external groups, where are any new animals coming in, going to go?

“People are streaming in to the Whittlesea centre talking about the animals they have lost or left behind,” she said. “Others are coming in with animals they have found or have been looking after, or seek help for their animals that have suffered burns.”

“We’re watching people go through phases of grief over their animals.

“Some seem totally traumatised, not knowing where to go or how to begin finding them, desperately hanging on to the hope that their pets can be found.

Presently, there are Victorian rescue groups standing by with capacity, foster carers are banging down the doors and millions of dollars in donations are flooding in. There is no reason for any pet to be euthanased due to lack of resources now or in the coming months. If the RSPCA Victoria chooses to kill rather than save the lives of pets, then they are doing so out of convenience, rather than need.

Reference: Victorian Code of Practice for the management of dogs and cats in shelters and pounds