As the owner of three long haired dogs, I’m blessed with dog hair tumbleweeds (of a size which could trip an elderly relative) rolling across my floor and collecting in corners, under sofas and in shoes (what’s that about?).

In an effort to reduce this during our spring ‘coat blowing’ season, my guys get an annual haircut done by yours truly (with dog wrangling assistance from dear husband). Cisco the golden gets just his fluffy bits trimmed, while Sophie and Ajax the two cavaliers get a full clipper and foot trim. The end result are three dogs I’m embarrassed to be seen with (yes, the dog groomer did look like he was on drugs… thanks for commenting!) and a lovely big wad of soft, itchy dog hair.

This year I stuffed it in an old orange bag and hung it in a tree. The birds have been helping themselves (check out all the little stray hairs pulled through the bag) and bunches of tiny little birds keep coming back which is sweet.

I know it’s strange, but it makes me happy to know that around the neighbourhood, the bird’s nests are lined with Cisco’s butt hair.

When pet lovers heard about a tortured puppy whose ears and tail were cut off with scissors in a brutal attack, they were horrified. The public outcry created a media storm across Victoria, Australia and then the world.  And people flocked with donations and supplies to help ‘Buckley’ get a second chance at a happy life.

Without a shadow of a doubt, Buckley’s story has been the biggest story that The Lost Dogs’ Home has been involved in over the past 25 years. It was covered by all the TV stations, the Herald Sun, The Age and Leader press and shook hundreds of thousands of people around the world to the very core.

Our phones rang off the hook; we were receiving hundreds of emails a day and the number of visits to our web site, dogshome.com, crashed the server. People who had never had contact with us before were driving from the other side of Melbourne to donate money or blankets, coats or food for Buckley.

Graeme Smith: The Lost Dogs’ Home Spring Newsletter

The public condemnation of this abuse and the unprecedented flood of support should have heralded a ‘new dawn’ at The Lost Dogs Home; after all, if the saving of one small life could engage such enormous community compassion and see the nation opening their hearts and wallets, surely this was a clear message that pet lovers want to see pets saved, not killed.

But not even a month later, The Lost Dogs Home called for “pit bull type” dogs to be declared dangerous. Advocating that while a little black and white puppy like Buckley should get a second chance, the little black and white puppy in the image above (and all those like him), should be killed without question as a restricted breed x.

While his own organisation kills in excess of 10,000 pets annually, The Lost Dogs Home Director Graeme Smith, championed to expand the bureaucracy powers of animal services to impound and kill dogs,  reduce the accountability of animal services (allowing them to kill lost pets on sight) and reducing owners rights to protect their pets through normal legal appeal channels. A drive which has put every blocky-headed and bully breed in Victoria in jeopardy, regardless of whether the animal had ever displayed aggression in its life.

Cats have fared little better; of the nearly 8,500 unclaimed cats The Lost Dogs Home processes annually, over 7,500 are killed (nearly 90%). Despite this systematic killing and the almost guaranteed death of any cat entering the pound system, The Lost Dogs Home advocated that all ownerless cats be rounded up and impounded, leading them almost without fail to their deaths. The resulting 40% increase in cat impoundments was deemed a program success, while the increase in killing was blamed on global warming.

Its worth noting, that The Lost Dogs Home are not legally required to take in more pets than they can rehome – but they choose to.

With pets entering the shelter and not leaving alive, it would be assumed that any other community groups, private rescue or breed rescue would be welcomed with open arms. But the opposite is true. The Lost Dogs Home chooses to kill pets, rather than transfer them to any of the dozens of groups standing by with capacity. In addition, by taking on the major pound contracts and shutting out private rescue, they have made it impossible for the community of local rescue groups that are seen in other major capital cities to grow.

Without a foster care program for sick, injured or infant animals at the LDH, those pets who need extra TLC have no chance; euthanased for being infant or untreatable. By comparison, if these animals were lucky enough to enter most of the other shelters in Australia, they would be transferred to a caring foster home environment until they were strong enough to be rehomed and then placed with new, loving families. Again, they choose to kill in the face of alternatives.

LDH_New_Stats – The Lost Dogs Home Intake Statistics 2008

It’s not hard to see the hypocrisy of an organisation who take public funds given by a compassionate community who want to see animals lives saved, to lobby for legislation that, not only doesn’t serve the pets they claim to protect, but actually seeks to increase their capacity to kill them. An organisation who fails to implement the community based programs that could save lives, or offer their supporters the kind of transparency they deserve.

The supporters of The Lost Dogs Home, the same people who wanted Buckley to have a second chance, want each and every healthy, friendly, adoptable pet to be given the same chance. People expect their local shelter to reflect their values, and every single person who donates to The Lost Dogs Home, does so with the intention that their money is being used to save the lives of animals. But even now as these same animal lovers who have donated millions of dollars ask for an explanation as to why these funds sit untouched in bank accounts, the group has chosen to shut down communications, banning anyone from social networking sites who dares to question their policies.

The leaders of this organisation must now recognise the enormous outrage felt by a community who has had its trust broken. This is not the time to put out positive spin or try and quell discontent, but open their gates and give the community access to this service they helped to build. And we as pet lovers and supporters of The Lost Dogs Home must now demand it; we are in a position to dictate the direction of this organisation and we will not settle for anything less than a lifesaving focus.

What we’re asking for aren’t unreasonable requests; they’re not complicated or magic. They’re what shelters were created to do. In fact, this is what they community have always thought The Lost Dogs Home were doing. Now they’ve found out this organisation is hardly more than a ‘garbage’ processing plant – pets go in – dead bodies come out in barrels. And the pet loving public won’t stand for it.

Mandatory programs. No ifs or buts

- A compassionate director with a focus on saving lives

- High volume, low cost (free) desexing programs

- A comprehensive fostering program for infant, elderly and rehabilitation

- Offsite adoption programs, with a focus on promoting cats as great pets

- PR, marketing and community outreach

- Working with rescue rather than killing adoptable pets

- Volunteer programs that allow community involvement

- Transparent reporting of performance including; intakes, rehoming stats and kill rates/reasons

- An ongoing call to the community to help with ‘at risk’ pets (notification of which adoptable pets will be killed and when – fostering, rescue and adoption options).

- Proactive redemption/stray collection strategies including a website which allow people who’ve lost a pet to search for their pet online

These are the basic programs, that need to be implemented to bring about change. The Lost Dogs Home have enormous resources and unimaginable potential to act as a safety net for animals. However, each day they delay implementing programs that save lives, they move further out of touch with public sentiment. Each time they promote antiquated and regressive policies seeking even more powers to kill, they become more despised by those who truly love animals. We will no longer accept the systematic killing of companion animals because it’s easier than putting in the programs required to stop it.

Enough is enough.

When a the heavy pendulum of the law swings too far in one direction, it can’t do so without causing extreme repercussions to the community. Announced in the Mercury today, Australia’s most anti-cat legislation to date.

All domestic cats in Tasmania will have to be microchipped and desexed under new laws tabled in Parliament yesterday.

The contentious Cat Management Bill 2009 requires that the owners of Tasmania’s estimated 92,000 pet cats compulsorily microchip and desex them if they are older than six months.

Only registered breeders of pedigree cats will not be required to spay or desex their animals.

No cats or kittens will be able to be advertised or legally sold until they are at least eight weeks old and have been neutered and microchipped to individually identify each cat and its owner.

The fine for selling a cat that has not been neutered will be as high as $6000, while owners of cats without identification microchips implanted under their skin will face a $2400 penalty.
……
The draconian new legislation also proposes that any cat left unclaimed by its owners at a cat management facility such as a council pound or the Hobart Cat Centre for more than five days can be euthanased without its owner’s permission.

Local councils, Forestry Tasmania and the Environment Department also will be able to declare any area of land such as a council park, reserve or national park as a prohibited cat zone where any cat can be legally trapped, seized and humanely destroyed.

Farmers also will be able to destroy any cat caught on their property if it is found more than one kilometre from any nearby homes.

The new laws, which are likely to be passed by both houses of Parliament before December, are designed to control the estimated 150,000 feral and stray cats living across the state.

The aim is to limit environmental devastation caused by feral cats that eat Tasmania’s unique small native animals in the wild, threatening the survival of some species.

The laws follow a discussion paper released by the Government last August about the best way to introduce new controls on pet cats. Much of the legislation focuses on who can kill unwanted cats, how they are to be killed humanely and limiting the timeframe over which owners can claim a stray or lost cat.

Currently animal welfare centres in Tasmania such as the Hobart Cat Centre and RSPCA homes in Launceston and the North-West of the state euthanase more than 40 cats a week as stray and feral feline numbers continue to escalate.

The Hobart Cat Centre last year received 2500 unwanted cats and of these 20 per cent went to new homes. The rest were put down.

The draft cat management legislation was tabled in Parliament yesterday by Primary Industries Minister David Llewellyn. It has the broad support of the Greens and the Liberals and is expected to be debated and passed in the Lower House next week.

But Liberal primary industries spokesman Rene Hidding said he still had concerns about the lack of additional funding to accompany the Bill.
The Mercury

If you were to design legislation to pander to a cat hater, you couldn’t do much better than this; compulsory desexing and microchipping, increased powers for animal services to impound, shorter impound times before cats can be killed and the ability for cats found away from home to be trapped and destroyed.

Despite the fact that ‘cat welfare’ groups are already killing 4 out of 5 of the cats they take in, they’ve lobbied to be given more power seize and impound cats who are not sterilised and microchipped. Diverting resources from programs which save lives, they are proposing more comprehensive registration systems, more fines written, more officers, more stray animal collections and more animals killed.

Instead of legislating to protect these pets from harm, these groups are looking to expand the public’s right to trap and kill strays and reduce owners claim over lost pets. They are working to give any cat-hating thugs a free pass when it comes to killing pets who may or may not have owners. How can they possibly reconcile this contradiction with their claimed mission of ‘lobbying for the humane treatment of animals’?

While rolling out increasing powers of the catch and kill bureaucracy; absolute no resources are being directed towards initiatives that support owners. Ignoring data which has shown time and time again that free and cheap desexing clinics lead to increased community compliance and international recommendations that people who fall below a certain level of income should be given a ‘free desexing’ voucher in lieu of a fine (eg. anyone on any type of income support, or pension should be given support, not have their pet targeted for impoundment), this state is bringing in legislation while doing precious little to actually promote desexing or save lives.

Animal activists who have supported this legislation need to spend some time considering where these laws are about to take them – head first into making 2010 the worst year for cat killing ever seen in the state. While defending poorly performing shelters, they’ve lobbied to boost intakes and alienate and threaten cats and their owners, by supporting legislation that will virtually guarantee the death of thousands of animals.

Shelters exist to be a safety net for animals. The fact they’re lobbying to increase their powers to kill, speaks of a lack of ethics and a defeatist mentality grounded in killing. While shelters tell people not to treat animals as disposable, they themselves refuse to implement the programs that would save their lives. Most people find killing abhorrent. Most people will do the right thing if given support and the right information. Most people aren’t only not the problem, but are part of the solution. Laws targeting owners focus the blame in the wrong direction and seek only to offer political cover for a broken animal welfare system which fails to protect pets.

While it’s easy to demonstrate a pound model that isn’t working (see yesterday’s post), I’d like to take the time to investigate a model that does work for comparison. As they say, you can’t argue with results.

Below an image that represents the City of Calgary in Canada’s intake/return/rehome rate for dogs (click to download .pdf)

Calgary has a 90-95% dog licensing compliance rate (most of the Victorian councils examined yesterday sit around 50-60%) and 94% of the cats and dogs who enter their system come out alive. They also saw in 2008, the lowest number of aggressive dog incidents they’ve had in over 25 years.

So just how do they do it? Breed bans? Pet limit laws? Compulsory desexing?

None of the above.

As live blogged by Pet Connection at the No More Homeless Pets Conference:

Calgary Animal Control Director Bill Bruce: Understand we are dealing with a community problem that will take the collaborative resources of the community to solve.

First thing we did is boil down 4 principles of responsible pet ownership:

- License and provide permanent ID. Return to owner without even going to shelter; ride home.

- Increase spay/neuter (desexing) but do not mandate it.

- Training, physical care, socialization, medical care.

- Do not allow pet to become threat or nuisance.

Our feeling was that if we could have this, we’d be by definition a responsible pet owner community.
………….
What’s working in Calgary:

- Marketing. Educate and market.

- Partnerships; working together. Money devoted to fighting should go to animals. May need to bring in outside mediator. I found some of conflict was around things that happened 25 years ago. The people who had that fight are dead. Let’s move on.

- Remove barriers to responsible pet owners. Mandatory spay/neuter is a barrier. Does not take us down path of no more homeless animals. It’s the wrong thing to do. Pet limits the same you end up alienating your most responsible pet owners, and decrease licensing. What is the problem you’re trying to solve, and how will this solve it? What problem will pet limits solve? No one can ever tell me. 93 percent of my dog owners have their dogs licensed. MSN also turns my responsible pet owners against me, interferes with licensing. People don’t like to do what they’re told to do it’s human nature. Make it clear to them the value of doing it, why it’s a good idea.

- Education, school programs.

- Drive-home program. Great licensing program, on board computers connected to central computer, looks up dog’s tag or chip, up comes info, gets on cell phone, calls you: I’ve got Buddy in my truck before most people realize the dog is gone. Over 30 percent go straight home, never go to the shelter.

- Clear, well-understood rules. Enforcement is your last step, not your first one.

- Licensing program; $5 million a year, don’t need tax dollars, don’t have to beg for money. Own revenue source, and community knows their money goes to help animals, so high compliance. License cats. People asked, where will money go? He said, free spay neuter. Public found out every penny would go to help cats. Also, wanted their cats to come back as quickly as possible. Saw value. Audience asked if this only works because they’re Canadian? Why isn’t this working in Los Angeles? He said Canadians are obstinate, will not be pushed even if polite. People comply when they feel CONSULTED and SEE THE VALUE, like the driving home. If dog or cat is hit by car in Calgary, vet will just start working on it because he knows animal control will pay the first $500 at least, doesn’t even have to ask, vet will never get stuck with the bill. If you know you’re investing in a Cadillac program like that, that will help your dog and your cat. 82 percent of cats are saved, 94 percent of dogs.

……….
If I impound an animal, that animal’s picture is on our website in 15 minutes.

We DO NOT charge fees to rescues to take dogs and cats.

Just amazing! Imagine having council animal services that recognise that people really do value their pets and act as a support network to help pets and their owners, rather than thinking up new ways to punish their communities.

So just how does one get a program like this off the ground?

From my ongoing favourite, KC Dog blog:

Calgary has a 90-95% dog licensing compliance rate. Calgary has done this by providing benefits to people for licensing their dogs….for animal control being a SERVICE instead of a pain in people’s butts.

Overall, they have about 95,000 licensed dogs (in a city with the population of about 1 million).  Licensing fees are $31 per year ($52 for an unaltered dog).

In 1990 they raised the fines for getting caught with an unlicensed dog from $30 to $250 – -Bruce said that fines should generally run about 10x the cost of actually obeying the law in the first place in order to encourage compliance with the law.  They also made it very easy to license your dog — online, via phone, at your vets office, and keosks at the animal control office, etc.

Every dollar that they raise from animal licensing (and fines for non-compliance) go back into funding animal control — not back into the city’s slush fund.  So with an operating budget of $3.5-4.0 million, they are able to really do some things right with their animal control department.

They strongly encourage all people who license their dogs to also have them microchipped (which allows the dogs to be scanned and the owner determined immediately).  Every animal control vehicle is equipped with a scanner — so if they find a stray dog, the animal control officer can instantly scan the dog for the chip, and deliver the dog home free of charge (although there are fines if your dog becomes a frequent flyer).

This home delivery a) is a service for people who obey the rules and b) saves money in animal control costs because stray dogs seldom even make it to their shelter.  They are returned home where the dog belongs. The city then doesn’t incur the costs of putting the dog in the shelter, maintaining the dog while it’s in the shelter, food etc. Bruce’s goal for next year is to get 50% of the dogs returned directly home without ever reaching the shelter.

If a dog does end up making it to the shelter, its photo is taken immediately and placed on their webpage within 15 minutes of the dog reaching the shelter.  All the dogs in the shelter are treated for the basic diseases – -and if a dog is found injured, animal control will take the dog to a vet. The vets treat the dogs because a) animal control is usually able to find the owner of the dog because they’re all licensed and b) if they don’t, animal control will cover the medical costs associated with treating that dog.  Wow.

Calgary built a new shelter for their animals about 5-8 years ago that is state of the art…and has never been filled to its capacity.

Calgary also focuses a lot of its energies on education and encouraging responsible dog ownership.  They have a full time staff member, that is trained in education, that puts together a public education program.  They have six specific programs that are part fof their public school’s curriculum that emphasizes respect for living things.

Calgary also has 140 dedicated off-leash areas for dogs — so that’s 140 “dog parks”.

……….

The net results of their efforts have been impressive.  Over the past 18 years, the city of Calgary has cut their number of dog bites and chases by more than 50% (all the while, the human and dog population of Calgary has doubled).  Last year calgary only had to euthenize 256 animals.  Almost all of the euthanizations came from dogs that had behavioral or health issues.  Bruce estimates that Calgary will become a true no-kill city within the next 3-5 years.

If you go back to that first slide, you’ll see that Calgary cared for just shy of 5,000 dogs. This would be comparable to any shelter in a large city of Australia. And they’re on the path to No Kill without mandatory desexing, microchipping, the banning of pit bulls (in fact, the population of pit bulls in Calgary has been increasing) and without pet limit laws. They did it by making people see the value in the service they are providing and then, in return providing good service. In fact, Calgary’s Annual Citizen Satisfaction Survey results show that over 91% of residents rated Animal Services as “good” or “very good.”(ref)

Calgary Holds Reckless Owners, Not Dogs, Responsible

“Everything goes back to responsible pet ownership,” says Bill Bruce, Director of Animal Bylaw Services in Calgary. In 2006 his team incorporated the bylaw which holds owners responsible for their dog’s behavior.

Bruce says there are four things that are absolutely essential to lowering dog bites:

1. Licensing and permanent pet ID.
2. Easily accessible spay/neuter programs.
3. Training, socialization, grooming and food; basic needs for a dog to feel safe and comfortable.
4. Proper supervision to prevent a pet becoming a nuisance in the community.

Calgary law has a provision that prohibits leaving a dog unattended. An unattended dog tied to a sign or bicycle rack can become scared and bite out of fear. Also, dogs are never allowed to be chained or tethered outside the house unless someone is home. The city doesn’t treat dog bites lightly a minor bite is a $350 fine and a serious offense is $1,500.
…

The city of Calgary organizes many public speaking programs to teach owners about their pets. These programs address how to properly socialize a dog and understand dog behaviors and needs.

Bruce says they spend a lot of time trying to understand animals. If a dog bites, for example, the team goes into the house and asks questions such as: Where did the dog come from? Are there children in the house? Where are the dog’s parents? What are the dog’s triggers?

Investigators even give the dog a medical exam to make sure it isn’t suffering from an underlying health problem. In addition, investigators will visit another home in the area with the same breed that hasn’t bitten and thoroughly investigate what that owner is doing right. Again, as Bruce says, it all comes down to responsible pet ownership. Incidentally, Bruce notes that one of their top biters is border collies and not ‘bully breeds’.

This type of investigation certainly entails high costs, but Bruce says those are all taken care of through licensing. Dog owners pay licensing fees (slightly higher rates for unaltered dogs) and those fees go toward the cost for the humane education and other services.

….

We take dog aggression very seriously, train postal workers, don’t let people tether dogs in city, heavy-handed on fines when owners let dangerous dogs out, fines in excess of 10K. But we don’t wait until the dog bites. It starts with lesser behavior. We have ordinance against teasing a dog. Someone calls, send officer to sit in backyard, catches kids, fines them and/or parents.
ref

…

“”We want to look at everything that led up to an aggressive dog attack,” said Bruce. “We’re hoping to find four to six common things that people do that causes dogs to bite. Our goal is not to have anyone bitten by a dog.”
ref

The Calgary example goes to show what can happen when a community is serious and diligent about safety instead of reactionary like so many of the organisations driving legislation here in Australia. When the community hold dog owners accountable for the management and care for their dogs, and animal services work with the pet lovers, rather than against them, a safe, humane community is the result.

The No More Homeless Pets Conference is presently underway in Las Vegas. I’m not there, but I am watching happily as hundred of people twitter and blog the conference in real time. It’s so wonderful to see the No Kill movement capturing people’s imagination like nothing in rescue ever has before.

Here’s a selection of my favourite broadcasts; with links if you’re interested.

Favourite tweets (http://twitter.com/09NMHP)

Amazing to see so many new faces at #09NMHP – So many people interested in how they can create a world with No More Homeless Pets!

#jon_dunn: Worried you’ll lose control if you let volunteer do social media for you? You’ve never had control.

RT @jbsibley: Nathan Winograd at #09NMHP conf: pet adoption screening should be thoughtful, not bureaucratic

#jbsibley Mike Arms: you’re selling used animals. Get good at it.

#CathyScott Judah Battista @ #09NMHP conf: If u had pets as a child, it doesn’t make any sense 2 not adopt 2 homes w/kids.

#jbsibley Winograd: #1 killer of cats is shelters, not outdoor living. #09nmhp

#CathyScott Nathan Winograd @ #09NMHP conf: The most unethical thing we can do is kill an animal.

#jbsibley Legislation not the answer, makes shelters adversaries of the public. MSN esp driving up killing.

#jbsibley Shelters need new leadership that is interested in moving on from old methods.

#CathyScott Bonney Brown w/Nevada Humane Society @ #09NMHP conf: “No Kill is a community wide effort. No one does this alone.”

#katalbrecht I just presented “Think Lost, NOT Stray” http://tinyurl.com/yakn2yn workshop at BF Conference #09NMHP – Fantastic response to the concept!

Favourite blogs

No More Homeless Pets Conference Kicks Off

A really moving morning session kicking off Best Friends’ No More Homeless Pets Conference. Gregory Castle, interim CEO and a co-founder of Best Friends, had this to say:

The No Kill movement is a true movement,” he told the standing-room only attendees. “It’s a driving force. By now, many of you from rescues and shelters have joined us and believe it’s possible to reach a time when there are no more homeless pets. More and more people are joining us in this fight.”

“The writing is on the wall,” he continued, to applause. “It’s clear that great progress has been made and great progress can be made.”

Gregory ended the kick-off to the conference with these words: “Be brave. Be bold be courageous. Step into unknown territory. You know and I know it’s all for the animals. As we do this work we can all be proud that we’re moving together toward the time we envision, toward the time when there will be no more homeless pets.”

Saving Animals Takes A Village – Bonney Brown

Customer service is paramount, as are spay-neuter programs. And, she said, they had to let some programs go, because the problem was certain programs didn’t have immediate life-saving impacts.

Another key move is to make a public declaration of no kill. “Putting it out there is scary,” she said. “At the same time, it’s incredibly powerful. When you tell people what you need, people will come forward and help you. For animal lovers, this is a dream come true. It inspires people to step forward and do a little bit more. You want to let them know it’s achievable and you can only do it with them.”

Enthusiasm catches on. “When you’re enthusiastic about it, others are going to capture that enthusiasm. It really is contagious.”

Also looking forward to the National Desexing Network/AWL QLD releasing their conference “Getting to Zero” power point presentations on their website tomorrow. Stayed tuned to www.ndn.org.au for updates!

Does anyone feel something big happening here?

One of the interesting things about kill rates is that they don’t correlate in any way with a shelter’s budget. While some groups do amazing things on a shoe-string, others acquire enormous wealth while supporting policies and procedures that unnecessarily cost pets their lives.

Unlike the RSPCA, which releases its intake, rehoming and kill rate each year, The Lost Dogs Home has been notoriously cagey with its kill figures. Realising the community find high kill rates abhorrent and will tend to give support to those groups with a No Kill focus, the LDH has purposely failed to offer their community the same level of transparency as other groups.

Which has actually worked pretty well for them. According to their fundraising managers Pareto, The Lost Dogs Home have acquired a massive $12 million dollars surplus, thanks to their National Pet Registry donor database of more than half a million pet lovers. Presently, they run pound contracts for 11 local councils and claim to care for over 20,000 pets every year.

However, this year Victoria implemented a requirement that all of their pounds submit a ‘Domestic Animal Plan’ for public comment. This gives an interesting insight into how pounds in different areas of Victoria are working, or in some cases, not. And shows quite clearly that the size of a group’s intake, or its bank account, effects little how effective they are in saving lives.

The story of a small pound

The Stonningham local council use the Save-a-Dog Scheme shelter (who run under a No Kill Philosophy) to care for their impounded animals. With a focus on getting lost pets back to their owners and rehoming those left, their animal impound stats look like this:

Dogs impounded: 272

Returned to owners: 237

Rehomed: 33

Killed: 3

Now for comparison, we have the Melbourne City Council. They have a similar number of impounds for dogs, but they instead use the Lost Dogs Home to run their pound:

Dogs impounded: 168

Returned to owners: 90

Rehomed: 30

Killed: 40

So while a stray dog going into to Stonningham Council pound has a 99% chance of living. A dog impounded in Melbourne council pound and processed by The Lost Dogs Home has a 1 in 4 chance of being killed.

The story of a medium sized pound

Another council, Maroondah City, used Victorian Animal Aid to process their stray and abandoned pets during 07/08. With extensive programs in behavioural training and rehabilitation, volunteerism and pet personality matching, Animal Aid promote that they “only euthanase an animal as a last resort”. Their figures look like this:

Dogs impounded: 600

Returned to owners: 468

Rehomed: 60

Killed: 72

Compare that to a council processing a similar number of dogs, Moreland City Council, who’s impounded animals go to The Lost Dogs Home in North Melbourne.

Dogs impounded: 593

Returned to owners: 236

Rehomed: 63

Killed: 189

(Missing 105)

So of the 600 dogs Maroondah City’s impounded at Animal Aid, 88% were saved; either returned to their owners or rehomed.

While the 593 dogs of Moreland City Council, who’s animals go to The Lost Dogs Home in North Melbourne, 299 were saved, 189 were killed and 105 dogs disappeared into thin air.

The story of a very large pound

These discrepancies in performance can be seen over and over again. Bendigo City Council have a pound contract with the RSPCA. The RSPCA Bendigo use ‘Adoptapet’ and their own website to advertise available animals, has a volunteer program and seems to have a good relationship with rescue groups. And while their figures certainly ain’t anything to write home about, at least they rehome as many as they kill:

Dogs impounded: 2,432

Returned to owners: 1,335

Rehomed: 554

Killed: 543

A comparably large number of impounds can be seen at the Hume City Council, but they use the Lost Dogs Home to impound their animals:

Dogs impounded 1494

Returned to owners 753

Rehomed 238

Killed 503

In both Bendigo and Hume around 50% of impounded dogs were returned to their owners. But what is revealing, is what happened to the remainder.

While at Bendigo, an equal number of dogs went to new homes as were killed, at the LDH/Hume, twice as many dogs were killed as found new homes.

But lets not forget the cats!

According to a review of all of the available data, the Lost Dogs Home took in a little over 7,700 cats and killed nearly 6,600 of them (see breakdown below). Less than 2 in 10 cats left The LDH alive.

No more hiding

These figures are now freely available, for everyone in the community to make assessments of their own local councils and council pounds. There is no longer a veil of secrecy for The Lost Dogs Home, or any pound in Victoria to hide its poor performance behind.

While I fully support any group being successful and business minded, for The Lost Dogs Home to take $12 million dollars of Australia’s money under the guise of saving pets – money that could have been given to other groups with a life saving mission -  only to use it to become Victoria’s largest killer of pets, and to do so in the face of alternatives, is intolerable.

We will not stand for it a moment longer.

I’ve been having an ongoing discussion with a group who is by all accounts, made up of very smart eggs. The problem they’re facing however, is that while they obviously have a lot to offer others in the rescue field, their message is being constantly met with resistance.

Why? They’ve asked. Does no one look to us for leadership? We’ve got all these great ideas, but no one seems to be interested in being a part of them. We’ve spent a lot of time trying to get our name out there – why can’t we get more support?

It’s interesting, because when you ask them exactly what they’ve done it looks something like this;

- meet with people

- point out where they’re going wrong; how they’re failing

- suggest improvements

I’ve even received an email from them, the first line of which read, “we’re a new organisation, who believe that your message isn’t getting to the people who really need to hear it…”

Ouch!

So how does this make me, and the other people they’re talking to, feel do you think? To have someone come in and not only point out our flaws; but to do so without us even asking for this feedback?

Say I tell you I hate your haircut, just outta the blue. I really hate your hair… Don’t suppose you’d like to go for coffee with me now?

Didn’t think so.

Certainly, if I was a trusted friend and you asked me what I thought of your hair, I might be able to give you a sensitively worded explanation about why I liked your other haircut better. But only once we had trust and understanding, could I hope to give you constructive feedback without deep insult.

When looking to change organisations, we know organisations are run using policies. Policies need to be debated and challenged in the public domain… that’s called ‘fighting the system’. It has varying levels of success, based largely on how many people are participating. Hence the tendency for these initiatives to work, only after mainstream press or similar.

But when you’re working at the grass roots level, talking to people and imparting new ideas, that’s working with individuals and no one likes to be told they’re wrong by a complete stranger. I mean, who the hell are you and how the hell would you know?

If you’re wanting someone’s time, you’re going to have to show them that you really understand their position. Not only that, you’re going to need to develop a relationship with them that goes deeper than ‘talking at’. You don’t get the privilege to share knowledge simply by knowing more than the person you’re talking to – your earn it by building your relationship to the point where they really value your input.

Derrick Feldmann wrote an excellent piece on the topic called ‘To Get Our Name Out There’, which relates specifically to groups ‘talking at’ their donors, rather than having  a relationship with them.

He suggested four things that effective groups do to build relationships, that I see as being as relevant to those trying to bring about great change in their communities, as those looking to engage donors;

Lead with Impact. Organizations that discuss impact, tell stories, highlight people and let their work speak for itself “get their name out there” in a way that re-engages past and current donors, and ignites new donor motivations.

Focus on the cause. Organizations that spend time raising the awareness of the cause or issue they address in the community are the ones that truly do “get their name out there.”  They build awareness through programs, partnering with other organizations not to highlight themselves, but to shed light on the importance of issues affecting their community.

Let others spread the good news. Effective communicators turn to the people affected by an issue – the ones who receive services, and individuals who encounter the work of the organization – to spread the good news.  Through word of mouth, technology, and other peer-to-peer strategies, those people will tell others why the organization is relevant and important.

Show expertise. Organizations can get attention by talking, writing and performing activities that showcase the organization and its people as experts.  They spend time talking about research in the field, unmet needs and models not only of their work but of others’, too.  They compare and contrast information in a way that sends a message to those listening, prodding them to think, “The next time we need help on this issue, we know who to call.”

I like to call this, “it’s not about you”. You don’t make friends when it’s all about you. You don’t get supporters that way either. And you definitely don’t influence and engage people when it’s all about you. It has to be all about them. How are they feeling? What are their challenges? What are their daily pressures? Do they have fears? Reservations? A boss who’s an idiot? Are they motivated or have they lost their passion? Do they like their work? How can you help them?

It’s desperately important to understanding the difference between fighting the system and working with individuals when you’re spreading your message in your community. People don’t want you to talk at them – they want you to listen to them. Promoting others, showing examples of success and acting as a support to those around you will allow you to develop the relationships you need to start to engage those you seek to influence.

Something telling them you hate their hair never will.

Saving lives in the ACT

RSPCA ACT has used Facebook to blast for foster carers ahead of kitten season (smart! smart! smart!)

Do you want to help save lives?

We are gearing up for summer: We are on the look out for people wanting to help us with our kitten foster care program. We fill up pretty quickly and to have homes in our community for four to six weeks means we save more lives. We supply pretty much everything, you supply the love and socialisation. Give us a call on 6287 8100 and ask about our kitten foster care program.

What is it with 100 year old guys and outdated ideas?

On the back of Hugh Wirth’s hysterical scare campaign, Graeme Smith from the LDH has weighed in with a call to declare all “pit bull types” dangerous saying;

“The number of declared dangerous dogs known to and registered by authorities is the tip of the iceberg compared to the number of dogs with the potential to turn killer.”

….

“The only way of preventing people and other defenceless pets from being attacked and killed by pit bull-type dogs is to declare all of them a restricted breed. Not just the pedigrees but any dog with any part of the breed in it.
Herald Sun

Yikes!

So just what is a ‘pit bull’? Well, some of the countries the biggest ID experts can’t actually say..

WA Rangers Association president Samantha Tarling said identification had emerged as a fundamental problem, with WA’s chief veterinarian refusing to ‘testify to the DNA’ of a dog.

“I once challenged some owners that their dog was a pit bull,” she said. “They showed me the parents with the paperwork. It was a cross between a boxer and a labrador. I could have sworn it was a pit bull.”
The West Australian

But really, what does it all mean to the average pet owner? Given that staffies are some of the most common dogs in the country and along with ridgebacks and mastiffs are the most likely to be misidentified as a a pitbull, it means that many, many pets are at risk.

Ready to play ‘Spot the Pibble type dog?’

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

Here’s the thing; all of these guys have been assessed as temperamentally sound and been rehomed to new families. But with breed ID’s driven by the opinion of the assessor, rather than science that will hold up in court all are all at risk of being labeled of ‘pit bull type’ in the future. What Hugh and Graeme are proposing is that round these guys up; regardless of whether they’ve ever done anything wrong and kill them because of the way they look.

So how’s it working overseas?

These are pictures of just one load of dogs that Denver has rounded up and killed as part of their breed ban. “Well,” you might say, “dogs are killed every day in shelters across the land.” Yes, they are and it is all awful. But these were dogs who had homes. These were owned dogs that got picked up and killed for what they look like, not for anything they did. Underneath this pile of dead dogs, but not shown, were something like twelve puppies that were not even weaned yet. The photographer wanted to show them, but didn’t have the heart to move the bodies of the adults around to show the puppies. Either way, this is how a breed ban manifests itself–in the rounding up and killing family dogs.
Wag the Dog

So has Denvers 20 year old pit bull ban made the community safer? (20 years! To give you some idea why the ‘old chaps’ still think it’s revolutionary, while the rest of the scientific community has moved on);

…. authorities in Denver have stubbornly stood beside their ban – -and have done so without any evidence that the ban has actually improved public safety. In fact, the city admitted as much last November in an article by the Colorado Springs Gazette:

As director of Denver’s Animal Care and Control, which has euthanized nearly 2,000 pit bulls in three years, Doug Kelley has to play the bad guy in the pit bull debate. But even he is not a strong advocate for the pit bull ban.

“You’ll never see a more controversial ordinance,” Kelley said.

He said the ban has lessened the number of attacks by pit bulls, certainly, but he has no evidence that the ban has decreased the total number of dog bites or attacks in the city. He also said the ban gives people “a false sense of security.”

In spite of the lack of success of the ordinance in improving public safety and in spite of growing financial burdens of defending their breed ban in court, the city has stubbornly stood by its failed ordinance.  They have done so in spite of other embarrassing and costly situations — including killing over 2,000 pit bulls over the past 3 years– many of which were family pets,  holding down a former military officer at gunpoint while they confiscated her dog, a child killed by a non-pit bull type dog, and the highly publicized incident where a dog named Forrest was confiscated from his owner, deemed not aggressive, but the breed ban prevented the dog from going back to his owner and thus he had to be shipped out of state.

But that might be changing.

For the past few months, Councilwoman Carla Madison has been working on a proposal that would end the city’s ban on pit bulls. Apparently the city is looking to save some money — in efforts to close its $120 million shortfall.  The city apparently is looking to repeal the ban, in part, because they are looking for a compromise to help squash the legal costs associated with defending their law and stop the mounting legal fees. A cost calculator put together by Best Friends Animal Society puts the cost of enforcing the city’s BSL at about $803,170 annually….and I can gurantee their litigation costs that they have figured in don’t even come close to covering Denver’s bill.  It appears as if Madison at least may have the support of the mayor as well.
KC Dog Blog

So, that’d be a no.

Check out the ASPCA’s position paper ‘Are Breed-Specific Laws Effective?’

Perhaps the most unintended yet harmful consequence of breed-specific laws is their tendency to compromise rather than enhance public safety. When limited animal control resources are used to regulate or ban a certain breed of dog, without regard to behavior, the focus is shifted away from routine, effective enforcement of laws that have the best chance of making our communities safer: dog license laws, leash laws, animal fighting laws, anti-tethering laws, laws facilitating spaying and neutering and laws that require all dog owners to control their dogs, regardless of breed.

So, that’d be a double no.

And finally, Lynn Bradshaw, the national president of the RSPCA has come out in opposition of both Hugh and Graeme saying;

We know that a dog’s tendency to bite is the product of at least five factors: the dog’s genetic predisposition to aggression; early socialisation to humans; its training or mistraining; the quality of its care and supervision; and the behaviour of the victim. Genetics is only one of these factors. In the wrong circumstances, any dog, regardless of size, breed or mixture of breeds can be dangerous. The RSPCA believes that deeming a dog as “dangerous” should therefore be done on the basis of its behaviour, not its breed.

In fact, studies have found that dog breeds subject to breed bans are no more likely to attack or cause more serious injuries than any other similarly sized dog. While there is some evidence that certain breeds may be genetically predisposed to aggressive behaviour, most research concludes that breed-specific legislation is unlikely to have a significant impact on the frequency of dog bites. Recent experience both here and overseas has also shown us that it is virtually impossible to effectively enforce such legislation.
SMH

Triple no = fail

I’m not sure Australians fully understand how uselessly crap this legislation is at its goal of making the community safer, the sheer expense involved in policing it, or the fatal flow on effect it will have on hundreds of thousands of ‘pit bull types’ that are presently living as family pets and whom will never, ever pose any threat to public safety.

** Cheat sheet for the breed id’s

1. Staffy x
2. Staffy
3. Bullmastiff x
4. Staffy x
5. Neo x Mastiff
6. Ridgeback Cross
7. Greyhound (purebred)
8. Mastiff x
9. American Staffordshire (purebred)
10. Ridgeback
11. Staffy x
12. Sharpei x
13. Staffordshire Terrier
14. Kelpie
15. Staffy x
16. Bull Arab
17. Boxer
18. Great Dane x Bull mastiff
19. Rhodesian Ridgeback

While other countries have started to move away from banning breeds and are taking steps to revoke breed specific laws, simply because they do nothing to reduce the number of dog bites, the RSPCA’s Hugh Wirth is stuck in the 1970’s, working hard to generate hysteria on the back of a recent dog attack;

THE RSPCA has renewed calls for a ban on American pit bulls after a man was attacked and his pet dog killed yesterday.

RSPCA Victoria president Dr Hugh Wirth said the dogs were a menace and were not suitable as pets for anyone.

“They are time bombs waiting for the right circumstances,” Dr Wirth said.

“The American pit bull terrier is lethal because it was a breed that was developed purely for dog fighting, in other words killing the opposition.

“They should never have been allowed into the country. They are an absolute menace.”

So with pit bulls being banned in Victoria for years, how’s the legislation working?

An APBT can only be legally seized by a municipal Local laws officer under the provisions of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 concerning the ownership of declared Dangerous Dogs. All APBTs are automatically declared Dangerous Dogs. In some cases the dog will be held in a pound until the results of a court case against the owner. The magistrate may order the dog euthansed. On the other hand if the APBT committed offences outside your property the DAA permits the dog to be euthansed without further reference to the owner – eg what occurred in the attack yesterday.

The current law in Victoria aims to discourage ownership of the APBT and to lower the numbers by “breeding the APBT out”. The law is not effectively achieving this because it can only be enforced by Local government and most municipal council do not consider this task much of a priority. The current legislation to achive the breeding out of the APBT is good in theory but has failed through lack of rigorous enforcement.
Hugh Worth – Live Chat

I always find it interesting when groups enact legislation that fails, they immediately call to do exactly the same thing, but with more enthusiasm. The very definition of insanity.

So if we know what isn’t working – do we know what is working?

Check out the now famous, Calgary model

In 2008, Calgary has record low number of aggressive dog incidents

Well, the city of Calgary had the lowest number of aggressive dog incidents that they’ve had in over 25 years. Last year, the city with over 1 million population, recorded 340 aggressive dog incidents, 145 of which were bites.

In 1985, the city (which had a population of 600,000 at the time) had 1,938 aggressive dog complaints, including 621 bites. You can see their progression charted out here.

Bill Bruce, and the rest of the folks in Calgary, have opted to take a breed neutral approach to their animal control and instead of focusing on breeds, focused on the reasons behing aggressive dog incidents.

“We want to look at everything that led up to an aggressive dog attack,” said Bruce. “We’re hoping to find four to six common things that people do that causes dogs to bite. Our goal is not to have anyone bitten by a dog.”

It should also be noted that it appears that the population of ‘pit bulls’ in Calgary is increasing during this time when dog bites are going down.
KC Dog Blog

……………

Calgary has a 90-95% dog licensing compliance rate.

Every dollar that they raise from animal licensing (and fines for non-compliance) go back into funding animal control — not back into the city’s slush fund. So with an operating budget of $3.5-4.0 million, they are able to really do some things right with their animal control department.

They strongly encourage all people who license their dogs to also have them microchipped (which allows the dogs to be scanned and the owner determined immediately). Every animal control vehicle is equipped with a scanner — so if they find a stray dog, the animal control officer can instantly scan the dog for the chip, and deliver the dog home free of charge (although there are fines if your dog becomes a frequent flyer).

This home delivery a) is a service for people who obey the rules and b) saves money in animal control costs because stray dogs seldom even make it to their shelter. They are returned home where the dog belongs. The city then doesn’t incur the costs of putting the dog in the shelter, maintaining the dog while it’s in the shelter, food etc. Bruce’s goal for next year is to gett 50% of the dogs returned directly home without ever reaching the shelter.

If a dog does end up making it to the shelter, its photo is taken immediately and placed on their webpage within 15 minutes of the dog reaching the shelter. All the dogs in the shelter are treated for the basic diseases – -and if a dog is found injured, animal control will take the dog to a vet. The vets treat the dogs because a) animal control is usually able to find the owner of the dog because they’re all licensed and b) if they don’t, animal control will cover the medical costs associated with treating that dog. Wow.

Calgary built a new shelter for their animals about 5-8 years ago that is state of the art…and has never been filled to its capacity.

Calgary also focuses a lot of its energies on education and encouraging responsible dog ownership. They have a full time staff member, that is trained in education, that puts together a public education program. They have six specific programs that are part fof their public school’s curriculum that emphasizes respect for living things.

Calgary also has 140 dedicated off-leash areas for dogs — so that’s 140 “dog parks”. Kansas City, MO is struggling to find a way to get a second one. These off-leash areas provide a ton of areas for socialization for the dogs to learn how to interact with other dogs and other people.

The net results of their efforts have been impressive. Over the past 18 years, the city of Calgary has cut their number of dog bites and chases by more than 50% (all the while, the human and dog population of Calgary has doubled). Last year calgary only had to euthenize 256 animals (Kansas City, KS alone euthenized 5,000 DOGS last year, the KC metro area kills in the neighborhood of 40,000 dogs and cats each year). Almost all of the euthenizations came from dogs that had behavioral or health issues. Bruce estimates that Calgary will become a true no-kill city within the next 3-5 years.
KC Dog Blog

That kind of success certainly puts the failed Victorian experience into perspective. All the while we allow so called ‘experts’ who have pushed their ineffective ideas for decades drive discussions here in Australia, we’re doomed to keep chasing our tails with legislation that hasn’t worked and will never work.

BSL has not one single case study of having been successful in improving public safety. Anywhere. Ever. It is time to put the focus on the behavior of the dog in determining its aggression. The idea of killing a friendly family pet because of how it looks is absurd…and everyone should be dismayed by it.
KC Dog Blog

Make no mistake what we have here isn’t a ‘dog breed’ problem; it’s a people problem. One that will only be resolved once we stop looking for quick fixes and start looking at smarter ways to manage people and their pets.

Read more on the model that could save the lives here:

Municipal Animal Programs That Work – Best Friends

“It’s about Human Responsibility”, The Calgary Model for Animal Services