The Lost Dogs Home have three requests of their public; they should value their pets, be more responsible and donate to “give abandoned and unwanted dogs a second chance in life”.

In Australia the great news is, animal welfare groups advocating for companion animal care, plus changes in family demographics and wealth has seen huge success in all of these.

People do value their pets

Dogs and cats have never lived a more privileged life; in fact we love them so much…

… that households now spend more on them than on child care. That’s $700 for every man, woman and child every year – 50% more than five years ago. ref

When the Queensland Goverment’s feral pest researchers studied feral cats and…

…as part of the research some feral cats were collected and their stomach contents examined.

They found;

“One cat had 25 undigested mice – all killed and eaten on the one night.

“At the time there was an abundance of mice in the area and it might seem like the feral cats were doing a good job in controlling them.

It was obvious to them what they had to do.

Kill the cats.

Because, the boffins theorised;

“… mice numbers fluctuate and when numbers are low feral cats turn that same appetite onto native animals.

So even when their own study shows that feral cats are full of feral mice and not native animals, these scientists have concluded; better kill the cats… you know, just in case.

It must be nice to be a Biosecurity Queensland researcher; if your data supports your theory, you’re right. If you data is not what you hoped, you can just theorise the results away and you’re still right. Lovely.

The rest of the article is junk science (one of their researchers saying he’s definitely seen cats who have eaten wildlife, but no actual figures), the usual cat owner beat up and a thinly veiled threat to TNR supporters, who’d better look out because it’s illegal.

Gimme a B!
Gimme an IAS!

Whats that spell?

Queensland cat control ’science’.

A letter in a local paper;

I too will trap them

To the person who wrote “War on Cats”, I write in support of the reader on the issue of nuisance cats.

We too have had years of neighbouring cats in our small cul-de-sac annoying us. I have been to the X shire to no avail. They don’t provide traps because people were taking cats to them to dispose of. And as the council won’t take them, we will take our own action.

Our local pet shop hire traps our at a $50 deposit and $3 per day hire fee.

I too will be trapping them.

Whenever we are looking to support an initiative we need to look at whether we’re empowering the ‘I too will trap them’ segment of the community, or encouraging cat lovers and community compassion towards animals.

Both trappers and cat lovers have an opinion and both will weigh in on cat management, but the one you choose bring onto your team will have a huge effect of where you end up.

‘I too will trap them’

You are opening a Pandora’s box in encouraging people to take vigilante action against free-roaming cats. If people realise 90% of cats entering shelters are euthanased, but choose to help you trap them anyway, they clearly feel no affinity or desire to protect these animals from harm.

In the worst case, you’ve actively encouraged the ‘unhinged’ to see these animals as fair game.

Cat groups have been working hard on rolling out the ‘Who’s for Cats program’ in Victoria. Without a doubt it looks to empower the ‘I will trap them too’ section of the community.

If the stray cat/s are not easily caught or handled, they will need to be trapped. You may be able to hire traps from your council, who should also provide you with guidelines on trapping cats
Who’s for Cats – impounding cats

By painting cats as vermin that need to be ‘removed’, they’ve diminished the worth of cats and helped make them targets for abuse.

This campaign ran throughout 2008/09 in Victoria. And this is the situation for Victorian cats today;

Police probe cat decapitation
ABC – Thu Nov 12, 2009

Warrnambool police in south-west Victoria are investigating the death of a domestic cat found on a nature strip on Tuesday morning with its head and tail cut off.

The tortoiseshell cat was not microchipped and its owners have not been found.

The attack, in Couch Street, comes less than two months after a pet cat in Maryborough was shot 13 times in the head with a slug gun.

The Victorian president of the RSPCA, Dr Hugh Wirth, says violence against cats is increasing.

“Well it’s an example of an outbreak of animal cruelty that is going on all too frequently in recent months,” he said.

“There are animals being mutilated, animals being put to death in very nasty, nasty circumstances.”

Dr Wirth says the acts are probably being carried out my males who view cats as pests.

“To males, cats are regarded as being not a legitimate animal and they believe that because they’re a pest sort of species in their opinion, although it’s not helped by conservationists, they believe that a pest animal can be mutilated or killed in any way, shape or form.”

The same cat welfare groups who encouraged people to think of a wandering cat as a ‘pest’ and to trap it, so it can be killed, are now faced with the problem that the public see the cat as… well, being a pest that can be trapped killed.

How did we not see this coming?

The cat lovers

Empowering cat lovers is a different story with a dramatically different result. From NSW:

The Campus Cat Coalition is a non-profit organisation dedicated to caring for the homeless cats living on The University of NSW property.

The Coalition comprises UNSW staff, students, residents and community volunteers. Our mission is to carry out a maintenance program, which will allow managing and reducing the stray cat population on campus in the most humane way.

The Campus Cat Coalition provides a viable alternative to euthanasia by spay/neuter, vaccination, release, feeding and adoption of tame cats and kittens.

Cats and kittens are humanely trapped, spayed or neutered, vaccinated and either rehomed wherever possible or released back into their Campus territory where they are fed and monitored by UNSWCCC volunteers.

Unclaimed tame strays and any kittens are boarded or fostered until homes are found. No cats are euthanised, except as warranted by a veterinarian to relieve suffering.

We endeavour to promote community awareness of the responsible care and treatment of animals.

And this, also from NSW

Sydney dentist Daina Silins leaves $3 million to stray cats
November 14, 2009 12:01am

It was stray cats and dogs she loved, so in the end Daina Silins gave them her $3 million estate.

The tall Latvian-born woman with long dark brown hair never married and never owned any animals, but animals were always on her mind.

Her cluttered Barrenjoey Rd home had dozens of books on different species of dogs and cats, and a collection of old notes and coins believed to be worth $60,000.

Most importantly among her belongings was a will Ms Silins, 80, had drawn up with plans to give her $3.27 million estate including her home, properties in Fiji and Bensville on the Central Coast to animal welfare groups.

“At her dental surgery she would feed every stray cat that came along, no one would go hungry,” former client Keith Clissold said yesterday. “She didn’t have any family but everybody knew her.

These people are cat lovers, empowered to take action and bring about huge change.

But the Whos for Cats program paints both of these groups as ‘part of the problem’ and that they’re ‘not for cats’ stating that if they want to help they…;

…. must either take ownership of a cat,
or call your local council.

Now these cat lovers are working with cats on a grand scale, so it’s unrealistic to demand they adopt all of the group of animals they care for.

Nor would the cats benefit, given they’re untamable adults living perfectly acceptable semi-self-sufficient lives.

These cat lovers will not help you with ‘catch and kill’, because they are driven to care for and protect these cats.

But they could certainly desex them all with the right support. They would continue to work with your help to remove the friendliest animals for adoption and continue to feed and care for the ones who’d never leave the shelter alive.

So who should rescue groups be looking to engage and empower? Someone who’d happily trap a cat and have it killed (or kill it themselves?) Or cat lovers?

Seems like a no brainer to me.

The nature of the new world means there’s no longer a ’secret back room’ where you can kill pets, and dispose of them without people asking questions.

Transparency of performance of Australian pounds is no longer ‘optional extra’, but a community expectation.

We demand that people who are dynamic, proactive and compassionate be at the helm of organisations being given millions of donated dollars to save the lives of pets. And if they fail in their mission, they will be held accountable.

No more excuses.

Dog home censors its Facebook amid kill rate row

The Lost Dogs’ Home has restricted public access to its Facebook page after criticism of its animal kill rates.

Any questions about the number of dogs and cats the home is killing and its operating surplus were deleted before the page was closed to new members.

The home, which claims to be Australia’s largest animal shelter that cares for, treats and rehouses abandoned, lost, sick and abused animals, has been accused by animal welfare groups of hiding its kill rate to avoid scrutiny.

Read the whole article here

In The New Scientist of May 21, 1994, Ian Anderson published a piece titled “Should the Cat Take the Rap?” which discussed the issues surrounding cats and wildlife in Australia.

It mentioned David Paton, a professor credited with triggering much of the anti-cat sentiment nationwide and subsequent measures against cats. Paton concluded that domestic cats kill on average 25 native animals per year, including mammals, birds and reptiles.
ref

The 1994 release of Ian Anderson’s paper attracted the attention of cat welfare groups, politicians and even the international media.

However, the biggest outcry was from the public, with this ‘25 native animals’ number becoming the mantra for huge anti-cat sentiment in Australia. From The New York Times;

The Stray Cats of Australia: 9 Lives Seen as 9 Too Many

As if in some B-movie thriller, people here are raising a hue and cry about an alien predator that is spreading out of control across the land: a plague of millions of killer house cats run wild.

Interlopers on this isolated island continent like the settlers who brought them here 200 years ago, stray cats have multiplied through Australia’s deserts, forests and urban alleys, driving indigenous species to extinction as they go.

Conservationists have been warning for years about this feline colonization, but lately their cause has been taken up in a nationwide alarm that is being met with anguished opposition from cat lovers.

”I am calling for the total eradication of cats in Australia,” proclaimed Richard Evans, a member of Parliament, putting the issue on the national agenda last October.

”Cats are responsible for 39 species being either extinct, locally extinct or near extinct in Australia,” Mr. Evans said the other day. Domestic cats each kill some 25 native animals a year, and wild cats kill as many as 1,000 a year, the National Parks and Wildlife Service says.

This article noted the anti-cat backlash had gotten to the point that, “people were getting out golf sticks and hitting them (cats)”, and MP Richard Evans became the mouthpiece for the Anderson paper, calling for laws requiring all cats to be desexed, a cat registry and cat curfews.

Fast forward to today, and the magic ‘25 native animals‘ number is still getting bandied about. Brisbane vet from VetShopAustralia, Dr Mark Perissinotto has this morning launched a scathing attack on the cat, claiming…

“… each cat can kill up to 25 creatures every year and with more than 2.2 million pet cats nationwide, the annual wildlife death toll could add up to more than 55 million”.

“Cats can be very efficient destroyers of wildlife such as the blue wren, feathertail gliders, sugar gliders, ringtail possums, bandicoots, small bats, frogs and lizards”, Dr Perissinotto said.

‘25 native animals’ is often quoted as gospel by the media and forms the scientific basis for many local council cat control plans. And with animal welfare groups using this new round of anti-cat hysteria in a drive to get their compulsory desexing legislation passed, in 2009 the same anti-cat community behaviour and council policies which attracted international attention more than a decade ago are raising their head again:

Cats suffer as cruelty spirals
What’s Rocky’s problem with cats? That’s a question that’s got an animal welfare officer scratching his head.

According to the central region’s RSPCA senior inspector Shayne Towers-Hammond a large number of the district’s animal cruelty matters involve the abuse of cats.

“Cats are having a very bad time here,” Mr Towers-Hammond said.

Call for crackdown on ‘noisy sex’ cats
They’re the neighbours from hell, but not as we know it.

A St Clair man is fed up with wayward neighbourhood cats who he says kill, fight, crap and have noisy sex in his frontyard and has launched a petition calling on Penrith Council to tame their bad behaviour.

“If you let your cat out it will be a nuisance: kill things, chase other cats around and go do a poop in someone else’s garden, David said.

Trapped cats ‘thrown in lake’
The City of Swan has received a number of complaints about the law changes, with neighbours allowed to trap cats on private property and take them to the pound without notifying owners.

The trapped cats that were thrown into the lake were not in the City of Swan.

Feral cats face instant death
The news comes after feral cats and wandering pet cats featured in a series of Advocate reports in July.

The stories were sparked by a letter from a Hornsby Heights resident to their neighbours, threatening to trap and kill cats that were found on the letter writer’s property.

Under the plan presented to the council meeting last night, cats identified by vets as feral would be destroyed without the usual requirement of impounding them for seven days.

But do cats really deserve to be persecuted?

If we’re going to support trapping programs that see cats impounded and killed, and if welfare groups are going to use it to drive council policies, don’t we owe it to the cats who’s lives are on the line to be examining this ‘25 native animals a year’ number more closely?

Firstly; although this figure is still quoted;

(David) Paton’s 1991 survey in Adelaide found that household cats were known to prey upon 67 native bird species, 18 mammal species, 4 snake and 3 frog species. Paton concluded that domestic cats kill on average 25 native animals per year, including mammals, birds and reptiles.
ref

It was discredited at the time due to the method of data collection he used to build his figures.

Anderson’s article noted that Paton’s cat predation surveys generally included only people who belonged to bird-watching societies, and that he had extrapolated this biased data to make sweeping estimations of wildlife predation nationwide. Paton then published his severely flawed and unrepresentative interpretations with much fanfare.

and

John Egerton at the University of Sydney was quoted as saying Paton’s work was biased and that building national campaigns on such a basis is wrong. Paton himself admitted that some of his studies were not controlled, but felt that his overall conclusions were sound despite using data from existing anti-cat households rather than from a mix of households.

and

His survey is flawed as it involved primarily ornithologists who may have inflated the submitted figures to enable an anti-cat bias. Cats are actually rodent specialists, but will take birds which are attracted into gardens by bird-food and hence made vulnerable to cat attacks hence an abnormally high number of birds would reported by bird-lovers.
ref

His figures also failed to take into account the influence of human sprawl on native animal welfare. While habitat destruction, cars and pollution have shown to be much more to blame for dwindling native animal numbers, than any single predator; the weighting, attention and priority they’re given is much less because the only scapegoat is ourselves, and the solution…. inconvenience.

(Not so popular as being a hater)

Also, in Australia the majority of cat owners live in highly urbanised areas, so it was suspected that a survey conducted over the full range of metropolitan populations would show that domestic cats catch very few native fauna. Due to the inconsiderate human trait of wiping out the natural landscape in its entirety, those native animals who are able to, have adapted to all aspects of living near us including habitat loss, urban dangers, the elimination of natural food supplies and new predators like dogs and cats, and if they haven’t been adaptable, they’ve been pushed out.

In addition to this study’s flaws, there has since been another more comprehensive study which cast huge doubt over the papers claims.

The Petcare Information and Advisory Service (PIAS) commissioned the independent market research organisation Reark Research Pty Ltd (Reark) to carry out a detailed survey of cats in all Australian capital cities except Darwin. The sample group represented domestic cat distribution within each city so that conclusions could be drawn about the total metropolitan cat population. This survey was conducted during 12 months from April 1993 and provided information on the cats’ hunting behavior and on the size, age and neuter status of the metropolitan cat population.

The objectives of the survey were:

- To clarify the hunting behavior of the metropolitan domestic cat, including what creatures are caught, how many creatures are caught and how many native creatures are caught

- To provide detailed information on the metropolitan cat population, including what percentage are neutered and the changes in cat population over the previous 12 months

- To provide information on factors likely to affect cat hunting behavior, e.g. tendency of cats to roam from the owner’s property and the wearing of bells

Over 4000 households were surveyed. This sample size reduced the likelihood of error when the results were extrapolated to the metropolitan domestic cat population as a whole. The questionnaire used an open and non-threatening approach to discuss the cat’s behavior. This reduced owner defensiveness about their cats’ behavior and habits. Media coverage of “cat issues” had a distinct anti-cat bias which was preventing the collection of useful data.

Reark analysed the results which indicated that:

- 41% of cats caught introduced mammals such as mice, rats and rabbits;

- 2% caught native mammals such as possums or bats;

- 17% caught reptiles or amphibians such as lizards, skinks, snakes or frogs; 19% caught introduced birds such as sparrows and starlings,

and

- 7% caught native birds such as magpies or honey eaters.

It is already known that proportionately, town cats will catch more birds than their country cousins; for the simple reason that both cats and birds are more common in towns. Many people feed birds and provide artificial nest sites in the form of nestboxes and buildings. A percentage of cats caught nothing at all due to being indoor-only pets or not being inclined to hunt.

56% of cats were reported to catch prey of some type and many caught prey of several different types. One flaw in this part of the survey was that owners could not determine whether a dead animal brought home by the cat had been killed by it or had been scavenged e.g. roadkill. In other studies some owners have reported seeing their cats scavenging in this way and bringing home creatures which are not found in Australia except as pets! Over the period 12 months to April 1994, surveys concluded that each metropolitan domestic cat caught on average:

Average Catch/Cat Units%

Native Species
Mammals 0.02 0%
Reptiles and amphibians 1.32 28%
Birds 0.23 5%
Sub Total 1.57 33%

Introduced Species
Mammals 0.80 17%
Reptiles and amphibians 0.00 0%
Birds 0.77 16%
Sub Total 3.19 67%

Total Prey Caught 4.76 100%
ref

The findings support the suspicion that metropolitan domestic cats are in fact catching substantially fewer native fauna than previously supposed. And due to the size, scope and lack of bias of this study, these results were considered much more trustworthy than the Paton findings. In fact, in the face of the following estimations, the results of the Paton study seem simply ludicrous;

During the survey year, each domestic cat is estimated to have caught on average:

- one fiftieth of a native animal

- one fifth of a native bird

- one and a third native reptitles or amphibians;

and

- half of all creatures caught were vermin – mice and rabbits

Report on the PIAS study here

While it might not sit well with the spittle spewing cat-haters in our community, cats aren’t having the huge environmental impact claimed. And contrary to common perceptions that cat numbers are increasing, the metropolitan domestic cat population is actually in decline and cat owners are getting more responsible, not less.

Cat welfare groups drumming up anti-cat sentiment in the name of ‘animal welfare’ is illogical and condemns cats to a future where they are regarded and treated even worse than they are now. ‘Cat hating’ and the celebration of their mistreatment is an Australian passion not seen in other parts of the world. And I have to wonder; did we as animal welfare groups bring this on ourselves?

As anyone following No Kill developments in Australia knows, the first step to setting your community on a No Kill path is to stop seeing your public as ‘the problem’, and instead start to recognise they are the solution to shelter pet killing. Council pounds can look to engage, involve and attract the compassion of animal lovers in their community and head towards a No Kill future, or they can blame their public for shelter killing.

And it’s 100% their choice, but they can’t do both.

We have an interesting example here which show exactly how these two differing approaches: the new approach (outreach) and the how-we’ve-always-done-it approach (blame), puts an organisation on one of two completely different paths.

From the 27th October: Blacktown Advocate

Support for animal ‘no kill’ policy

For one Blacktown councillor it would be one his greatest ever achievements, while for nearly 8000 animals it’s the difference between life and death.

Councillor Russ Dickens has expressed his desire to implement a ‘no-kill’ policy for animals at Blacktown Council’s Animal Holding Facility.

Last year, the council said 1419 dogs and 3146 cats were killed at the facility.

That’s 34.4per cent of dogs and a staggering 88.3per cent of cats from the 7,692 combined total of cats and dogs who at some pointed resided there.

Cr Dickens, who is also a fulltime vet, said it would be one of his “greatest and proudest achievements” at Blacktown Council if he could implement a no-kill policy.

“The euthanisation of animals is heinous, I’ve never liked it. It’s not through their own fault that they’re being put into pounds and then onto death row” he said.

Earlier this month, Cr Dickens attended the 3rd National Summit to End Companion Animal Overpopulation, on the Gold Coast.

Through the conference and his knowledge on how local and foreign animal holding facilities are run, Cr Dickens outlined a number of procedures Blacktown Council could undertake to ensure the venture was a success

This is not just a man standing around wishing lost pets would go away – he has a plan.

His main point included desexing of all animals that come into the facility, but also included the introduction of a ‘trap, neuter and return’ program for feral cats.

Allowing temporary volunteer foster care programs for animals when facility space was limited, is another initiative Cr Dickens endorsed, whereby animals could be returned to the facility when space became available.

Cr Dickens said image was an important factor, as people are more likely to adopt when they are in inviting surroundings.

“I go in there every now and then to check on the animals and right now it is a place of horror and it needs to be a place of happiness and hope,” he said.

He cited Sutherland Shire Council’s animal shelter, whereby the no-kill policy is implemented and the shelter provides cats and dogs with play areas, toys and the cats even have their own beds.

A spokesman for Sutherland Shire Council said animals are only killed in extreme cases when the animal is either seriously injured, old, ill or dangerous.

In addition to current play areas for cats, there are plans to build a dog agility yard equipped with toys and devices to improve the dogs’ strength and coordination.

So this councilor is pushing for desexing before adoption and for community cats, a foster care program, a welcoming surroundings which doesn’t send their animals nutty or drive away potential adopters, beds for the animals and ongoing behavioural support.

But compared this to a previous article from Blacktown, which claimed that its not the lack of life-saving resources and programs, but that ‘irresponsible owners’ are the reason they kill…

A dog’s life on death row

Blacktown Council blames irresponsible pet owners for the putting down of 3448 cats and dogs over 12 months in 2006/07.

Cr Russ Dickens, a veterinarian, and Helen Powderly, the president of the Animal Welfare League Western Sydney region, agree.

Mayor Leo Kelly said that Blacktown’s animal-holding facility accepted animals from Auburn, Lane Cove, Canada Bay, Holroyd, Ryde, Parramatta and Hunters Hill, as well as from the local area.

His comments follow the release of Department of Local Government data that put Blacktown at the top of a list of 20 councils which put down animals. Tamworth was second (958) and Bathurst (950) third.

Last week, there were claims in the metropolitan media that Blacktown Council was being ruthless for killing almost 75 per cent of the more than 5000 impounded animals.

Each impounded animal is given a 14-day stay before a decision to destroy it is made.

Cr Kelly said the council gave animals new homes when this was possible.

He said the council also offered microchipping, desexing and school education programs.

He ruled out any introduction of a “no kill’” policy, saying it was tantamount to giving the animals a life sentence.

Cr Kelly said he was opposed to any suggestion that the pound increase its present opening hours (7.30am-3pm weekdays; 7.30-11.30am Saturdays) to allow prospective buyers more time.

He said this would “hit ratepayers”.

Cr Dickens said he was distressed by the high number of animals destroyed, but said it wouldn’t happen if pet owners were responsible.

“Some animals also run away because of fireworks on New Year’s Eve,” Cr Dickens said.

“They should be sedated and kept inside the house by their owners at this time”

Helen Powderly commended Blacktown Council for its animal- friendly programs but said it could still do more, because, she said, for too many animal were being killed.

“Pet owners should also take their responsibility seriously,” Ms Powderly said.

“Animals aren’t toys. They have to be fed, cleaned and cared for.

“They’re not toys that can be dumped once you’re bored with them or too busy.”

Translation: until all people are responsible, we will kill pets in the face of alternatives. Until there’s no such thing as a frightened stray, we’re going to continue to inconvenience people by only opening while they’re at work. Until people take it apon themselves to desex their pets, we’re going to continue to adopt undesexed animals to our public. And until cats stop coming into our shelter by the thousands, we’re not going to work on outreach desexing.

It’s think kind of backwards thinking that has seen animal sheltering remain stuck in a blame culture of ‘until’. “We’re going to kill until…” rather than step up and actually implement the programs that could see their need to kill removed. It’s about punishment, rather than solutions. But in 2009 there is no excuse not to implement a program that could save lives, no matter how ‘irresponsible’ you think your public is.

- If you have a capacity problem, you need foster carers.

- If you have a cat problem, you need extensive community cat desexing programs.

- If you have a problem with dog behaviour, you need targeted behaviour and training outreach.

- If you have a problem with adoptions, you need to extend your hours, clean up your shelter and an offsite adoption program.

- If you aren’t desexing before adoption, you’re not giving the message that desexing is important to your community.

- If you’re killing pets rather than working to save them, you’re re-enforcing the message that pets are disposable items.

This attitude of passing the blame is starting to be called for what it is – lazy, incompetent leadership by management who need to be replaced by people who are more driven, more skilled and more compassionate.

The animals deserve better.

Make no mistake about it, it was the biggest deception in Australian animal rescue history.

A high kill pound that portrayed itself as a sanctuary, who shut out rescue groups and turned the institutionalised killing of homeless pets into a multi-million dollar business. While other animal organisations around the country developed life affirming policies, reached out to their community and slowly worked to increase public affection for companion animals; they doggedly maintained an outdated ‘catch and kill’ mentality, driving merciless campaigns against ‘pit bull type’ dogs and orphan cats and condemning pets to death by the thousands in the face of humane alternatives.

But in 2009, when every single person can Twitter an experience, email the Director or start a Facebook group to ask the questions they can’t get the answer to directly, it’s much harder to keep this level of underperformance hidden from the public. Forced to answer the community, The Lost Dogs Home released official statistics, with its 1999 – 2004 figures now available online. However the 2005 – 2008 figures are still under wraps and The Lost Dogs Home facebook fan page has been turned off in response to ongoing online criticism from its members. Fail.

Now might be the time that people start to feel a little sorry for the staff of The Lost Dogs Home. It would certainly be difficult to be put in the position to ‘kill because its your job’. But everybody in this life gets to choose whether to follow directions or stand up for what they believe in. At any time, any staff member could have found the situation intolerable, stood up, walked out and taken the truth to the public. But they didn’t. They failed in their pledge to work for the benefit of animals, failed to change the direction of this organisation and failed in their duty to protect pets, and as such are culpable. Even now as the truth comes out, not one has condemned the killing.

There are no heroes at The Lost Dogs Home, only the complacent, the defeated and the greedy. While they now might have to weather the stings of criticism for their failures, that’s nothing compared to the fate of the pets entrusted to their care, who over these ‘missing’ five years, were slaughtered in the face of alternatives 50,000 times over.

The killers at The Lost Dogs Home will not only not be brought to justice, but worse; your money, the money you donated to save the lives of pets, is going to be used to defend them. They will now work to educate their public; pour money, not into saving lives, but convincing the next generation to accept their philosophy, and groom them as future donors. They will build a bigger shelter to allow them more capacity to impound and spend money on a PR campaign to undo the damage this tussle with their public has caused.

Throughout this next phase of spin, justification and rebranding, the pets who failed to leave The Lost Dogs Home alive must not be forgotten. The treatable, the elderly, the very young. The individuals, the dozens and the hundreds of pets who died the hands of The Lost Dogs Home, all while they stockpiled millions of dollars in donations.

We must not forget, forgive lightly or trust too easily… they simply do not deserve it.

The National Squalor Conference is the first international conference of its kind and is being held in Sydney tomorrow. Focusing on addressing the community impacts of social isolation, poverty, accommodation problems and mental health, disability and aged care issues, it looks to move beyond ‘blaming’ people for their situation and instead offer support to the most vulnerable in the community.

Featuring speakers from legal, health care and psychiatric backgrounds it deals extensively with the issues surrounding hoarding and hoarding treatments and the cost to the individual, their family and any animals that may be involved.

Squalor and hoarding: a secret epidemic in the spotlight

The first National Squalor Conference, being held in Sydney this week, aims to highlight the growing number of people living in squalor in Australia. The conference will examine the links between squalor, hoarding, mental health issues and social isolation.

Confronting statistics collected by a number of agencies in relation to people living with compulsive hoarding and severe domestic squalor, emphasise the number of Australians living in squalor is far greater than previously thought. Over 1 in 1,000 elderly people are thought to live in severe domestic squalor and of course it doesn’t just affect the elderly.
……..

RSPCA NSW estimates that there are approximately 700 animal hoarders in NSW, owning an average of 30 animals each. There are potentially around 20,000 animals in the hands of animal hoarders in NSW alone. And the RSPCA sees approximately 200 new cases every year.

“Animal hoarding results in extreme suffering, affecting large numbers of animals for prolonged periods. The extent of abuse, neglect and social deprivation is such that euthanasia is often the only practical option for many of the animals rescued from these situations,” says RSPCA NSW CEO Steve Coleman.

“Last year over 130 small dogs were seized from a property in the south of the state. Large seizures like this place enormous emotional and financial strain on the RSPCA.”
Media Release

… and…

The Government provided $375,000 in funding for the pilot project following a study by Professor John Snowdon from the University of Sydney. The study found at least one in 1000 elderly NSW people are living in severe domestic squalor – twice as many as previously believed.

New data from the pilot project shows the issue of squalor is not just related to the elderly. Referrals have been made for people aged from 28 to 94 years, so the issue may be much greater than originally considered.

Mr Lynch said the project was addressing a complex and hidden social problem.

“This project is bringing hope to some of the most marginalised and disadvantaged people in our communities,” he said.

Mr Lynch said most people living in squalor were reclusive and had little contact with their families, friends or neighbours.

“The 200 referrals to date have poured in from all areas of the community, from both private and public housing,” he said.

“Significantly, all socio-economic groups are represented across the squalor client base and all cases referred present a high degree of complexity,” Mr Lynch said.
Media Release

As animal welfare advocates, we love to find someone to blame when society fails to protect animals. That’s why we’re so in love with the idea of compulsory cat desexing, in the face of studies which show 9 out of 10 people already desex their cats.

But when we’re rallying to bring in a law to make people be ‘more responsible’, we need to think seriously about who we’re really targeting. Often the last 10% of people, the outliers to social norms, aren’t irresponsible or evil, but simply disadvantaged and in need of help.

New laws don’t help these owners, or their animals. Sure, punishment feels nice and when it comes down to it, getting a law is easy. However, if we’re truly working for the benefit of animals, we need to dig a little deeper, see where the problem really lays and recognise that supporting people to do the right thing, is always going to be more effective than punishing them for doing the wrong one.

In response to public outcry over its high euthanasia rates The Lost Dogs Home proposes it will drop its kill rate by 2% and start calling itself ‘low kill’.

Yes you read that right. They’re planning to take themselves from a high kill pound to a ‘low kill’ pound; not by changing policies, significantly increasing the number of pets they save, implementing more of the No Kill Equation or engaging their community, but simply by starting to call themselves ‘low kill’.

No Kill advocates will recognise the exploitation of the language of our movement. This organisation kills a staggering number of animals and rather than learn from their mistakes, they are now attempting to divert attention away from their failure to put in place the programs and services that would have saved these lives.

The Lost Dogs Home have shown that they are a devious, outdated relic of sheltering who must now be pressured by their supporters and the pet loving community to not only pay lip service to, but completely embrace the No Kill model, whether they desire to or not. The truth is out and the future of this organisation cannot be allowed to be the same as its past.

We will not accept killing in the face of proven, lifesaving alternatives one moment longer. Enough is enough.