I’ve been asked by the Cat Protection Society to review the document that’s driving a lot of the cat welfare law changes in Victoria.

The document ‘The Cat Crisis Coalition – who are we, what do we want and why‘ is used as a handout for councils and the public to show just exactly why legislation should be enacted that require all cats over the age of 12 weeks to be desexed and that all cats and kittens are desexed before sale.

Remembering that 10,000 word documents about cat welfare are as about as interesting as navel lint to the public and the politicians who need to read them, I’m pleased to have the opportunity to break down into layman’s terms the claims of this paper.

Lets start with their first idea:

irresponsible cat owners are causing ‘cat overpopulation’.

No one can deny we have a cat breeding problem in Australia. We certainly have a shelter overpopulation problem. But as Kersti Seksel said so eloquently at a recent cat welfare conference;

There’s no evidence that owned cats replenish the unowned population. It is more likely that the net movement is in the other direction, due to the differential desexing rates – in fact we’re getting them moving from the unowned, into the owned population.

The reproductive rates of owned cats are capped by very high rates of desexing, leading to the population of owned cats being in negative growth (less cats are born than die each year). In fact, according to the Pet Information and Advisory Service:

The number of owned cats in Australia has been in steady decline for 20 years.

Outgoing, affable, friendly pet cats, raised indoors are still a desirable commodity. To make up for a lack of available animals, some of the cats born to unowned parents are moving into the owned populations. Think the rescuer who rehabilitates feral babies, or the person who shelters a pregnant stray, then socialises, advertises and rehomed the kittens.

This is supported by a recent study of Victorian vets which showed of the owned cat population, those few who did have litters were quickly absorbed by the cat owning public;

Very few litters were presented at the participating clinics. Most of the progeny of these owned animals were rehomed directly by their owner in some way. Very few were taken to shelters. This suggests that the progeny of veterinary clients are not contributing significantly to shelter admissions.

So while there are still bucketloads of kittens arriving in shelters each year, these are from the self-sustaining, unowned population. If we could finally do away with the notion that owned cats are causing cat overpopulation, that would be gr8t. tnx bye.

compulsory desexing is needed to make owners more responsible

The group uses the following example to back up their claims that the public are ‘irresponsible’:

DAMIC Benchmarking Survey – found just 41% of estimated 616,000 owned cats were registered.

But what they neglect to mention is that the same report noted the reason for the low rate of registration was likely due to “the existence of a semi-owned cat population”. They count semi-owned cats in these figures, skewing the results.

So would compulsory desexing make people adopt and desex their neighbourhood moggies? No matter how much we’d like to convert semi-owned cats into owned cats, the experience of the Who’s for Cats? campaign has shown it’s not as easy as just ‘applying pressure’.

From a survey in response to their campaign asking people to adopt their semi-owned;

The majority of respondents thought the campaign would be effective in raising awareness about the stray cat problem, and were considering taking action in response to the campaign messages. Most people thought they might take the stray to a pound or shelter, as opposed to taking full ownership of the cat. This finding is consistent with the experiences of animal shelters participating in the campaign, which have found more people are surrendering rather than taking ownership of stray cats.

While again, the survey of Victorian vets shows that people who genuinely own their animals, do in fact already desex their pets;

Overall, the level of desexing was high, with a greater percentage of cats (94%) being desexed than dogs (89.7%).

In conclusion: owned cats are already desexed and approaches which target semi-owned cats lead to increased impoundments. Compulsory desexing won’t just fail to effect the owned population, it will increase shelter killing.

Desexing must be compulsory – voluntary programs have been in place now since 1996 and they have not worked.

If you can show me a high volume, free (or even low cost) desexing program in Victoria, which allows communities to desex their neighbourhood cats without someone needing to become the owner of each one, I’ll eat my hat. In fact, if you can show me a high volume, low cost desexing program in Victoria of any kind at all, I’ll make it my personal life’s mission to make it the most well promoted program in Australia.

Sadly, it’s not the case. Voluntary desexing has not worked, because no one has supported bringing cheap and free pet desexing to the masses. This group is looking to skip ahead to impoundment and punishment, rather than taking that first step of offering the disadvantaged in the community resources to comply. With studies showing the greatest barrier to pet desexing is simply cost, we would do well to stop allowing these groups to write off supporting the community as a solution, before it’s even been tried.

And finally

Compulsory desexing will tighten the supply – studies from the USA have shown its success in reducing the numbers of cats entering shelters.

Again, I call balderdash! We’ve seen examples in San Mateo County, California in 1991 where the introduction of compulsory desexing saw cat deaths in shelters increase 86%.

In the city of Los Angeles where they passed one of the most draconian mandatory spay/neuter laws in America (requiring virtually every dog and cat in the city to be sterilized by the age of 4 months), they saw their kill numbers go up 31%, after more than five years of steady decline in shelter killing.

While the national ASPCA weighs in saying:

The ASPCA is not aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of a mandatory spay/neuter law.

Yeah. No.

The solution isn’t this complicated. Really.

To reduce the number of animals killed in our shelters, we must minimise the numbers we take in. We don’t do this by creating mandatory desexing laws that invent more reasons for cats to be impounded, or for them to be seized from owners who can’t afford to desex, or from those who care for community cats. Mandatory desexing only increases impoundments, and therefore shelter killing.

Programs which reduce shelter killing, help the community with affordable, accessible pet desexing. These programs are cheaper than a law because law enforcement is really, really expensive. They’re more effective than a law because everyone is willingly involved, rather than being accused, persecuted or having their pet removed. They’re better for cats, because despite what many would have you believe, a healthy cat, is NOT better off dead than semi-owned and cared for by the community.

So to Victoria’s mandatory desexing zealots, The Cat Crisis Coalition, I say phooey.

Stop judging, impounding and killing, and start serving your community.

Mitcham Council’s cat bylaw was passed by a 9-4 vote this week. The bylaw “aims to reduce feral cat numbers” and requires cats to be microchipped and registered, and introduces a two cat limit.

So again for clarity;
the bylaw aims to reduce feral cat numbers…
… by targeting owned cats.

I’m sorry, wha?

As I heard someone say so succinctly recently ‘it’s like trying to reduce the rabbit problem by bringing a law to register pet rabbits’. While some are moving ahead with effective, humane programs, Mitcham has decided to ignore the experience of other councils, who have introduced various cat management legislation only to see cat complaints and impoundments increase, and go with the ‘we’ve seen it doesn’t make a difference, but we need to punish owners so this will do’ approach.

Meanwhile, the council was criticised by the RSPCA for not going far enough;

RSPCA spokeswoman Tracey Taylor said the bylaw “won’t make an enormous difference” to protecting birds and animals from cat attacks.

“Limiting ownership numbers doesn’t correlate necessarily to responsible cat ownership you can still have two cats that go out every night, kill wildlife and fight with each other.”

Keep in mind, this is the representative from the organisation who is lobbying ON BEHALF OF THE CATS – yikes!

The Australian Veterinary Association agrees the plan will be ineffective. From their media statement;

Dr Warren Foreman, South Australian President of the AVA, says that the Mitcham Council bylaw limiting the number of cats per household and imposing mandatory registration will not solve the problem.

…..
“Councils need to invest in education programmes to stop the feeding of un-owned cats and to assist residents to control unwanted cats on their properties.”

Catch and kill. Turning cat-feeders into the enemy. Haven’t we been here before? Was anyone lobbying for these cats to be offered protection, rather than blaming them for all of societies ills? Was anyone proposing something proven effective?

Cr Judith Weaver put forward an alternative motion for a two-year pilot program with Cats Assistance To Sterilise (CATS), focusing on education and desexing.

“The community is being duped into thinking this is going to work. Ninety-five per cent of the problem is desexing … the bylaw does not address desexing,” she said.

So when presented with a plan that incorporates the one thing that could make a difference to free roaming cat numbers, community cat desexing programs, this council chose killing instead.

Make no mistake; In 2010, with what we know about cat populations and the sources of shelter cats, to champion policies that increase impoundments, that is a choice.

To target free-roaming cats for removal via laws which see all unowned cats fall outside council legislation, that is a choice.

When ‘animal experts’, recognise that 95% of owned cats are already desexed, but still advocate for laws which target owners, rather than embrace live-saving programs, that is a choice.

When cat groups recognise that unowned cats are being cared for by the community, but still advocate for laws which require these animals to be trapped and killed, that is a choice.

When councils, reject the one thing that could make a difference; desexing programs which both reduce population and save lives, that is a choice.

Killing can no longer be ‘blamed’ on the public. Those who continue to promote programs that increase impoundment the face of alternatives, must do so fully in the knowledge that they will be remembered as those who resisted life-saving policies, in preference for killing.

They were the ones who made the choice to kill.

It’s a great word isn’t it? Misanthrope

mis·an·thrope
–noun
a hater of humankind.

One of the things that most attracted me to the No Kill movement, was the idea that we should be challenging those things we think to be true by taking in and observing the success of others. But one of the hurdles to a No Kill future that Nathan Winograd touches on in Redemption, is the resistance he encountered when trying to bring the successes he was having in saving lives, to those with the entrenched views of the industry;

Chief among these precepts was that (shelters) were required to kill the bulk of the animals because there were simply “too many animals and not enough homes.” This view, a gospel upon which the bedrock of animal sheltering depended, was a truth so ingrained, it was simply beyond question.

A corollary of that governing principle was that the public, in failing to have their animals neutered and, subsequently, failing to make a lifetime commitment to them by surrendering them to shelters, was to blame for this sorry state of affairs.

As a result, shelters – through no fault of their own – were merely performing the public’s dirty work.

Even when it was able to be demonstrated that clever adoption strategies, outreach and community supporting programs could actually save all healthy, treatable pets, a burning resentment of the public meant these techniques were dismissed. Shelters were unable to believe their own communities were as equally kind and compassionate as the ones Nathan was working with.

This is actually pretty common in animal rescuing circles. Check out this video of a lady who has just watched an hour long presentation from Director of Animal Services for Calgary, Bill Bruce, who has taken his community to No Kill:

Each time she speaks, she tries to uses a stereotype she holds about her community, as a deflection of the ideas she’s hearing. Her own community is too diverse, too culturally various, too ignorant, too poor, too rural, too far behind, to ever see the same success that Bill has achieved in his community.

It’s misanthropy at work; the cynical belief that our community is the exception; they’re simply too (uncaring, dumb, uneducated, cruel) to ever be the responsible pet owners we need them to be. And it’s not just restricted to the Canadians.

Misanthropes are spreading the same poisonous attitudes here in Australia.

Rather than embrace the community and offer support and assistance to struggling owners, the Cat Crisis Coalition is seeking legislation that makes desexing mandatory. Even when presented with evidence that their community is overwhelmingly responsible and that cost is the largest barrier to compliance. Even when its shown that this kind of legislation actually targets the disadvantaged and increases cat impoundment and killing… they seek this legislation to target their ‘irresponsible public’. Why?

Right and pure: more important than effective

Because misanthropes can only feel right, after everyone else has been proven wrong. It’s not about efficacy, it’s about punishment. It’s not about solutions, but a desire to shame, blame and judge.

When an animal rescuer presented at a conference last year, claiming she was a fan of compulsory desexing for “twenty years and I’ll be it for twenty more”, she revealed the huge problem that misanthropes cause to the world of animal rescue. If the information you’re working with is decades old and has been tried without success, someone with normal drives would be constantly adapting, learning and evolving. However, this drive to discipline people for their supposed wrong doings, leaves misanthropes struggling to embrace new ideas when they require team work, not retribution.

I was sent this email in response to a piece on marketing for cat groups on this blog:

Just because your stats look good for rehoming animals does not mean they all ended up with good people.  Some of these poor kittens end up being given to snakes and pit bulls! I work in a prison where I encounter inmates non stop that have been convicted of animal cruelty. If someone answers an advert for a free cat or kitten they don’t have psychopath written all over their forehead! They look like you and me!  There has also been an increase in children being horrendously cruel to their pets.

I work on the frontline rescuing cats and I am fed up with people dumping cats because they can’t afford vet fees! Or dumping litters of kittens over and over because they won’t get their female cat desexed! Or they have decided to move to a unit they purchased and they can’t take their cat they have had for  12 years! Or they have a large disposable income yet want a desexing voucher! My elderly mother adopted a cat that had been abandoned because it had a terrible rash!

I am deeply disturbed that you are more focused on marketing pets rather than promoting responsible ownership! People talk about the cats and kittens we have advertised like they are buying a new piece of furniture. It is very distressing. It is well know that these are the most likely people to dump their pets when the novelty wears off. In addition, the animals are being treated like they are disposable items like handbags. This is not what the no kill movement promotes!

It’s not rational to think the public are animal torturers and psychopaths and are representative of your community. It’s not helpful to think someone giving up a pet because they can’t afford vet fees or they’ve lost their house is irresponsible. And it’s really shooting ourselves in the foot to think of smart marketing and responsible pet placement as somehow contrary aims.

We have to ask ourselves; does the misanthrope tendency to reject the idea that the majority of Australia’s are kind, pet lovers, causing unnecessary death in our shelters? If people are considered guilty until proven innocent, how does that mistrust effect our interactions with them?

The misanthrope badge of ‘us’ against ‘them’ continues to see us fumble and fail. It’s time we put this kind of thinking behind us, banish it to the history books and start to love our public.

Plan for super-sized puppy breeding centre
March 29th, 2010

A Melbourne puppy farmer has unveiled plans for a super-sized breeding centre at Ballan, about 70km north of Geelong.

Planning documents filed with the Moorabool Shire Council show the proponents, Robert and Chanthavilit Attard, want to build 52 runs, each to hold two breeding dogs, and a birthing shed on the 20ha farm on the Ballan-Geelong Rd.

….
Animal Liberation Victoria’s Debra Tranter said the group would be lobbying to prevent the permit being granted.

“The plans for this puppy farm resemble a piggery,” she said.

“Dogs are not primary producers, they are companion animals and deserve to be treated as such.”

Here’s a layout of the 52 kennel dog farm where the 100+ breeding dogs will spend their lives:

So how does a puppy farmer present this info to the public?

According to Who Is, this is the website of Robert Attard

Chevromist Kennels

It’s amazing how a few stock photos can change the image of the business from ‘high production kennel’ to wuvvy-dubby dog sanctuary.

C’mon people!? Really?

Image from gaping void

Followers of this blog will know that I’ve been working with an organisation to improve their adoptions.

One of the biggest changes they’ve had to make, is in the language they use when they promote their pets. Before, their language was negative and designed to highlight the flaws in the pet, in an effort to ‘protect’ them from unsuitable homes. The result has been a long-term conversation with the public, focused around the idea that all the pets coming through this shelter have ’something wrong with them’.

I’m pleased to report that after months of coaching (fight the fear!), the adverts coming from this organisation are now much more positive. Not glowing mind you, but certainly more focused on encouraging the right kind of owner, rather than driving the wrong kind of owner away. I was happy with how we were progressing.

But yesterday, disaster. The results of a large community survey were in and the findings had everyone shaken. Turns out many in the community think there is something wrong with shelter dogs.

[well duh emoticon here]

Now, this won’t come as news to you, but OMG it did to them! Everyone began to flapping about looking for a solution to this ‘new’ problem. They now had the answer to their low adoptions; they must bring in programs immediately to remedy it!

So they proposed that every dog moving through the organisation participate in a basic, certifiable dog training class before adoption; taking around 1-2 weeks and requiring an army of trained volunteers. Great right?

Well, no not exactly.

Certainly training programs (especially off-leash exercise & dog 2 dog socialisation programs) are vital for dogs in a shelter environment. But it turns out when I asked shelter staff, there wasn’t a mentionable problem with the behaviour of the dogs. Dogs aren’t being returned because of unwanted behaviours. Even those dogs deemed hyper-twatty while in care, when released from a 3×2 kennel and join a family, find inner peace. Then there’s the guys who are lovely in the shelter/absolute gorgeous when they get home.

Turns out the dogs aren’t the problem. It’s the public’s perception of the dogs that’s the problem.

So while a boost to internal dog training programs may see a small but measurable improvement in dog behaviour, how far does it really go to remedy the years they’ve spent marketing their pets as abused, special needs and ‘not for the faint hearted’ (one of their favourite adoption advert catchphrases).

They argue that a training program is a hook for the media; ‘every one of our dogs come with a training course certificate’, but again, aren’t we just reinforcing to people that these dogs have ‘problems’?

Thinks the public: “a training program? why do the dogs need a training program? is there something wrong with them? I think I’d rather a ‘clean slate’ thanks very much; I’ll get a puppy”

So how do they change people’s perceptions of what a ‘rescue dog’ is?

1. Recognise that the people working in the shelter aren’t marketing copywriters.

Just as you wouldn’t get the engineer that built the car to write the copy for the brochure, neither should your animal staff be writing adoption adverts. This is no reflection on their abilities, it’s just that if your core business is rehoming pets, then the role of animal promotion should be allocated to a marketing professional and the strategy given as much emphasis as your fundraising copy or organisational newsletter.

2. Get your pets ‘out there’

If the problem is that people think all your pets are abused and faulty, locking them away from the public only reinforces the idea that they are dangerous. This organisation has many huge events throughout the year and available pets aren’t invited – the risk to the public, they say, is too great.

When people adopt a dog, the first thing they do is take it to the beach, or the off-lead dog park, or for a walk to the shops, because that’s what people with dogs do. If our dogs can’t do these things while they’re in the hands of trained professionals, what is that telling the public about their behaviour?

By contrast (and I’ve seen this at in-store events) a bunch of healthy, happy, social dogs enjoying a few hours out meeting people sends an incredibly powerful message to the public. “Hey! Look at this guy! A rescue? Really? But he’s so NICE!”

3. Recruit your adopters

The strongest advocates for animal adoptions are people who’ve adopted. Happy family case studies are hugely powerful tools for changing people’s perceptions about rescue dogs.

However, having these case studies sitting in your email inbox, or posted in the wall of your office isn’t bringing about change. Get them on your website, get them in your media interviews, get people sharing their stories online (see how easy it is to gather hundreds of ‘happily ever after’ stories here on the PetRescue facebook page). Get people to make YouTube videos about their pets and post them. Invite adopters to come to your events with their pets and give their pets ‘I’m an adoptee’ jackets to wear. Anything to empower them to show off their great new animal and let them break down these stereotypes on our behalf.

….

It’s the strangest thing; these three things which seem so obvious as someone working ‘on the outside’ are completely beyond what this group can cope with doing right now. Everyone is still looking to fix ‘the animals’ rather than change themselves. But it’s a process and I have belief they will get there.

I see now that being a ‘change agent’ is less about having revolutionary ideas (these aren’t my ideas, they’re just some really good ideas) and more about not allowing yourself to become indoctrinated into the stagnant thinking that often plagues these organisations. I encourage anyone who wants change to get inside and fix what’s broken. It absolutely can be done.

Check out this CEO Update from the latest RSPCA ACT e-newsletter. Doesn’t it just make you want to dance and sing?! (bolding mine)

From the CEO…

As CEO people often ask me if it is sad working at RSPCA. My response is always the same, no. RSPCA is a happy, warm and supportive place to work. We home a greater percentage of animals than any other open admission Australian shelter and we are influencing dozens of shelters and pounds across Australia and internationally to improve the number of animals homed. We are always innovating and looking at positive ways to find homes for animals. We are also working on a number of strategies to help keep people and their pets together.

Strategically there are two ways forward for animal welfare. One is adoption matching and ensuring an animal goes to its forever home and will never be surrendered again. The second is reducing surrenders of unwanted animals and working with families on the brink of surrender.

We are well on the way to solving the first one as our Find-a-Friend system is now the national standard for RSPCA’s Australia wide. We do need to do extensive work however with the whole issue of pet acquisition. Pet shops, classified advertising and market stalls remain a key source of pet supply and in most cases the match is a bad one. If you want to help us continue this battle a donation to our forthcoming appeal would be very much appreciated.

The second strategy is more problematic and involves real estate agents, land lords, unit title holders and people who move house putting in a little bit more effort to ensure when they relocate their pet is catered for. Moving house is the single biggest reason people cite as a factor in surrendering their pet. Again you can help by donating or supporting RSPCA in a number of other ways.

Read on for more interesting information about RSPCA and the work we continue to do for our community.

Michael Linke
CEO

See more of the goodness that is the leadership of Michael Linke below. See how everyone is smiling? That’s because they like what they do.

Hey, remember how animal management in Orange were bagging out their community, rather than offering them services and support?

Well, they’re not the only ones;

Casino is the abandoned and abused animal capital of the Northern Rivers, according to figures compiled by the Animals Rights and Rescue Group (ARRG).

Two-thirds of the 2000 cats and dogs the Lismore-based animal welfare organisation rescues from around the region annually come from Casino, according to ARRG co-ordinator Barbara Steffensen.

Unfortunately about 65 per cent are either badly malnourished, injured, have skin problems or are underage.
….
Richmond Valley Council’s manager of environmental health and regulatory control Peter Cotterill agreed there appeared to be an animal welfare problem in Casino, but could not pinpoint the cause.

“There is a really high percentage of pet ownership in the Casino area and there are an unfortunately high number of irresponsible pet owners in the town as well,” he said.

Mr Cotterill would not accept, however, that the council’s operation of the Casino pound was contributing to the problem.

“Unfortunately, we have found through experience that if people want to dispose of an animal for whatever reason, they will dispose of it no matter what the council’s pound policy is at the time.”

So what does ARRG see as the solution?

… if there were more desexing programs in the town, many of the animal welfare issues would be resolved.

So the option for every single council animal management department is now clear:

If you choose not to offer extensive pet desexing programs, you’re choosing to offer extensive services impounding and killing.

It’s simple really.

Good morning!

All going well, I’ll be live blogging from Jayne Cravens’ ‘Building a 21st Century Volunteer Program’ seminar.

I’m quite excited as not only is Jayne visiting from the US, but she is big on using online tools for volunteer engagement. Some more info on Jayne here:

Jayne Cravens is the Online Volunteering Specialist at United Nations Volunteers, working with both NetAid and UNITeS. She directed the Virtual Volunteering Project for four years in Austin, Texas.

A nonprofit professional with more than 15 years experience in the field, she has presented workshops on online communities and culture, public relations, corporate relations, volunteerism, and volunteer management, among other subjects, for numerous organizations and conferences.

She is a regular contributor to various Internet discussion groups, and earlier this year, was selected one of the Top 25 Women of the Web. Jayne’s own nationally-recognized web site, coyotecom.com, offers extensive technology tips for community-serving agencies, and tips for camping (offline, ofcourse) with your dog.

Morning…

Trends in Australia

- volunteers now want to make a difference
- want to be decision makers, leaders
- they want connection
- want an experience they can talk about
- skills for resume
- new roles for specific skills (eg. web design)
- involuntary volunteers (eg. dole workers)
- roles created to benefit the community (skills training)
- requirents for representatives from all demographics
- more corporate volunteers
- aging volunteer population: needing new recruits
- more Internet use/ online communications to volunteers
- tighter budgets: volunteer coordinator needs to prove value in role

Virtual Volunteering

Using the Internet to support your volunteers.

- The majority of your volunteers will be supported online.

- People who volunteers online will usually also volunteer onsite.

- Number one complaint for online volunteer recruitment is: “I signed up and no one ever got back to me”
— get an automated response

- Use photos on your website of your volunteers to show how important they are to your organisation

- Write about you volunteer team: case studies, successes, positive stories. Give volunteers a chance to have a say (blog)

- Look at what other organisations are doing, then steal their ideas :)

- Recruit a volunteer to splice up videos of your volunteers/roles & upload to YouTube.

Learning about online tools

- If you don’t start the conversation, your volunteers will start one for you. Start the (blog? Facebook page) yourself, set the tone and encourage people to participate.

- Use Google alerts. Set one up so that when someone posts about you, you know about it.

- You need to be communicating via one-on-one email, but you need to be having a group discussion also.

- Dealing with negative volunteers online: when mean volunteers dominate the conversation, handle it as you would in person; call them & tell them it’s not cool. Moderate their effect be being positive. Deal with it so people can see how well you handled it.

- Join this group for volunteer managers: OZVPN

- Become a participant of least two online groups (any topic) to see how different people communicate online.

- Watch the youtube/ online videos of other groups in your industry to see things you like.

- Find a way to include offline volunteers, rather than not doing something online because it excludes them.

- Keep you ex-volunteers in your online groups. They might come back if they see something that interests them.

- getting your organisation ready
— introduce the idea informally/softly
— partner with people comfortable working online
— look at your existing volunteers policies and map your processes for online volunteers
> develop role description
> recruit based on assignment
> assess and screen

- Make regular contact online with volunteers

- Invite them to events

- Recognise, recognise, recognise! Google recognition programs.

- When a volunteer complains about something you’re not doing, invite them to be the one to take responsibility for the task.

Afternoon

Recruiting for diversity among your volunteers

- representation from different genders, age groups, economic levels, ethnicities, abilities/disabilities etc.

- work out which groups are under represented (seniors, skilled professionals, uni students) and target the places they visit. Contact their representative groups if you don’t know.

- why do the groups volunteer? Appeal to them.

- express the kinds of roles you have available (show they’re not all long term, time intensive).

- Recruit: neighbourhood newspapers, targeted radio stations & programs, communities of faith/ not of faith. Send messages regularily.

Identify: civic groups, professional groups, online groups, facebook groups, neighbourhood associations, ethinic groups.

Using online groups to recruit

- Don’t just stroll in to an online group & start talking. Treat it as though you’ve walked into a physical meeting.

- Ask advice. Recruit a volunteer from the group, or contact the group manager for advice.

- Be polite and sincere.

- Ask what words, phrases and topics should be avoided.

- Apologise if you’ve offended someone. Ask ‘tell me more about that’ to find out where you went wrong.

- Groups are rarely unified. Ask a range of people for their opinions and be aware of ‘unoffical’ leadership.

- Coordinate your efforts with other departments in your organisation.

What does it take to raise my stock value at my org?

- The fund raising manager make sure all the staff know exactly how much money they make.

Everyone should know:
— what impact the volunteers have on the organisation.
— how many volunteers have been involved and engaged this month.

- YOU have to become the marketing director for your program.

- Submit a short pithy report on volunteering for each staff meeting.

- Submit a similar report or data for each board meeting.

- Prepare one page for the annual report.

- Send a short volunteer update email occasionally to all staff. Remind people you exist.

- Involve marketing staff in your programs outreach; often the marketing department are looking for things to market.

- Make your volunteering section on your website comprehensive.

- Celebrate staff members who involve online volunteers.

- Do presentations to each department on your volunteering program (keep it short, 10 mins).

- Be persistent. Don’t try to change everything overnight.

- Volunteer Managers are outreach managers; they work with the community.

- Don’t measure the value of volunteers in $$ per hour, but the value they provide in community engagement, participation and spreading the word. “people like what we’re doing, they keep showing up to help”.

- Changing community perception of our organisations; what do volunteers say about us?

Bringing about change

- You have the power to debate for the changes you need.

- Use research, blogs and other peoples words to make you case.

- Ideas that were once common in non-profits (’the Internet is dangerous’) have changed over time.

- Use powerful language: ‘community assests’ rather than volunteer, ’supporting, engaging volunteers’ rather than ‘using’. Other words for volunteer; pro-bono consultant, team coach.

- selling volunteering internally is as important as selling externally.

My AHA! moment

That the value of volunteers is beyond money. Volunteer Management is actually a community engagement role.

—- 2007 ———————————————

Dec 6, 2007 – ‘Who’s for Cats’ campaign launches at the Lost Dogs Home

The Minister for Agriculture, Joe Helper joined the Cat Protection Society’s Dr Carol Webb at the Lost Dogs Home animal shelter to jointly launch what was lauded to be an innovative public awareness campaign.

The $5 million dollar ‘Who’s for Cats’ campaign, aimed to educate the one in five Victorians who fed stray cats, calling for them to “take ownership or call their council”, with ‘ownership’ under Victorian animal welfare legislation being defined as microchipping the cat and keeping it from wandering.

—- 2008 ———————————————

Jan 20, 2008 – ‘It’s not mean to keep strays lean’

“Feeding an un-owned cat enables it to grow strong enough to reproduce which in turn results in more kittens being born into a life of disease and neglect,” Dr (Carole) Webb said.

“We know many people – often very well intentioned people demonstrating genuine care – feed un-owned cats without realising their actions are contributing to the growth of the stray and feral cat population.”

People feeding a stray cat should contact the council to either take ownership or take the cat to a shelter, she said.

Apr 23, 2008 – Pearcedale RSPCA inundated with impoundments

Pearcedale RSPCA becomes inundated with unwanted cats and kittens.

Shelter supervisor Carrie Mudge said more than 230 had been handed in to the shelter during the first two weeks of April. Last year saw a total of 286 for the whole month.

But she said the dramatic increase was likely the result of the Cat Crisis Coalition campaign to reduce the number of unregistered and fertile cats roaming in the area.

“The Who’s for Cats campaign is asking people to stop feeding the problem and either take full ownership of the cat, or to do the humane thing and bring it to a shelter. And judging by the huge increase we’ve seen this month, the campaign is working.”

Apr 29, 2008 – Record impoundments at RSPCA Peninsula

It’s raining cats and no dogs at the RSPCA Peninsula Shelter.

Manager Carrie Mudge said that as of last night 382 cats and kittens had been handed been handed into the shelter this month.

Ms Mudge said the recent ‘Who’s for Cats’ campaign encouraging Morningington Peninsula residents not to feed cats was to blame for the record numbers.

“We are struggling. We are trying to get as many as possible adopted, but every day more and more cats are getting handed in,” Ms Mudge said.

Jun 24, 2008 – Who’s for Cats ’successful’

The program starts to be hailed a ’success’, even though just 73 cats were desexed under the program;

The Who’s For Cats’ May special offer has been successful in helping to reduce the impact of cat overpopulation in Melbourne, Director Bureau of Animal Welfare Dr Steve Tate said today.

Dr Tate said during the month of May, five shelters across Melbourne offered desexing, vaccination and micro-chip identification of semi-owned cats for just $60.

Aug 1, 2008 – Record number of impounds – WFC Campaign update August

The ‘Who’s for Cats’ campaign update in August revealed the following:

* Various council pounds and animal shelters across Victoria have reported record numbers of cats being brought in for surrender since late last year.

* Further evidence of the campaign resulting in behavioural change comes from a recent RSPCA Inspectorate report. The report states that compared to the previous financial year, there has been a 41.9% increase in the number of calls regarding cats and that “the increase began around January and has continued throughout the ‘Who’s for Cats’ campaign.

Sep 17, 2008 – Global warming blamed for cat boom

Despite evidence that the campaign was responsible for the rise in impounds, the idea that ‘global warming’ is to blame is introduced;

The RSPCA claims climate change is producing a boom in the number of feral felines prowling streets in Melbourne’s leafy east.

The society, based in Burwood East, said warmer seasons encouraged breeding and urged moggy lovers to lock up their cats and stop feeding scraps to strays.

RSPCA animal welfare spokesman Andrew Foran said Melbourne’s stray cat population had eclipsed 500,000 and was on the rise.

Oct 29, 2008 – Lost Dogs Home drive campaign publicity

Stray cats: either adopt them or call council - Melbourne’s stray cat overpopulation is at crisis point. There are over 500,000 stray cats living on Melbourne’s streets with disease, neglect and starvation.

Are you feeding a stray cat? Do the right thing and either call your local council, or take full ownership of the cat by desexing, vaccinating and microchipping it.

2008 – Lost Dogs Home sees 40% increase in impoundments

In 2008 The Lost Dogs’ Home saw a 40% increase in cat admissions compared to 2007.

This was mainly due to Melbourne’s cat over population crisis which saw more strays collected of the streets and brought to the Home.

—- 2009 ———————————————

Feb 9, 2009 – Cat crisis clogs shelters “500,000 unowned cats roaming”

Shelters expand operations to cope with the influx of cats.

“Thousands of cats and kittens are being culled and hundreds turned away as animal welfare shelters struggle with a stray cat crisis.

……
The Lost Dogs Home – determined to remain positive during the crisis – last week installed a $70,000 condominium to boost its cat capacity by 50% (30 condos total)

Mar 1, 2009 – Empowered trappers: WFC Campaign Evaluation March 2009

“Who’s for cats?” Campaign Evaluation – March 2009

* With the majority of people responding to campaign messages choosing to impound rather than take ownership of stray cats, it seems that ‘non’ owners have had the biggest impact by getting unowned cats off the street (more so than by semi owners taking ownership of cats).

* Focus group research results provide further evidence that the majority of people taking action were not the semi owners of cats themselves, but rather members of the wider community who were experiencing nuisance associated with unowned cats. Focus group participants thought the ‘Who’s for cats?’ campaign gave people ‘moral permission’ to have stray cats impounded.

* This finding has emphasised the importance of communicating to the ‘Daves’ in the community, i.e. the people who are not semi owners of cats themselves, but who are experiencing nuisance associated with unowned cats, and are therefore likely to respond to campaign messages about the need to have these cats impounded.

* It must also be acknowledged that many semi owners have a bond with the cat they are feeding, and may therefore be unlikely to ever have it impounded. Focus group discussions identified various reasons why these people may also have difficulty in taking full ownership of the cats.

Jun 5, 2009 – The Lost Dogs Home sees ANOTHER 40% increase in impoundments

The Home has seen a 40% increase in the number of cats and kittens admitted to its shelters throughout 2009.

Jun 27, 2009 – The Lost Dogs Home blame global warming for impound increase

Scientists skeptical of Lost Dogs Home ‘global warming’ claims.

October 2009 – Cat statistics for a single month at the Lost Dogs Home

Intakes        840
Adoptions     60
Reclaims    45
Euthanasias    720

—- 2010 ———————————————

March 02, 2010 – Relaunch of the Who’s for Cats Campaign

The WFC campaign is an initiative of the Victorian government supported by Local government, the AVA and the animal welfare societies of Victoria.

* It is estimated that there are at least 500,000 unowned homeless cats living “on the streets” in Victoria.

(Editors note: Still 500,000? I thought this campaign was being deemed a ’success’ – if so, by what measure?)

* The aim of the campaign is to convince those who feed unowned cats to either adopt them properly, or turn them in to Local government or Animal Shelters for rehabilitation, preparation (health checks and desexing) and rehoming.

March 10, 2010 – 100 cat desexings offered to the community

Similar to other years, just 100 cats desexings are offered to the community;

As part of the “Who’s for cats?” animal welfare campaign, The Lost Dogs’ Home, RSPCA Victoria, Cat Protection Society, Lort Smith Animal Hospital and Animal Aid will desex and microchip a ’semi-owned’ cat at the heavily discounted fee of $85 ($65 for pensioners/ Healthcare card holders) for people who are willing to take full ownership of semi-owned cats.

—- And today ———————————————

March 19, 2010 – Introducing The Lost CATS’ Home

Having driven the cat intakes up to record levels, animal welfare groups are now able to call on the community to help them build bigger and better pounds!

With over 11,000 cats and kittens coming into the Home each year – now outnumbering dog admissions – The Lost Dogs’ Home is committed to providing cats and kittens with the highest level of care.

….
Representing one of the most important achievements the Home has made for cat welfare, your gift to The Lost Cats’ Home will help shape the future for cats and kittens and offer them the very best chance at a happy and healthy life.

———————————————–

The value in the status quo

Where’s the motivation for these groups to actually bring down intakes?

- Running pound contracts for local councils mean shelters are they are paid more, the more animals they take in. Driving up intakes inflate budgets.

- When individuals have long made a name for themselves lobbying for more draconian legislation, there’s no benefit in fixing the issues through community means.

- With less animals impounded, the requirement for the animals entering the pound to be rehabilitated is increased. All the while there are ‘plenty’ of stray animals, the relatively labour free option of ’save the best ones, kill the rest’ can be defended in the face of public scrutiny.

- When animal intakes go down, so do the opportunities to expand operations through community donations. Programs which reduce strays run directly in conflict with the personal desire for the expansion of these ’super pounds’.

- The idea that the public is irresponsible is indoctrinated into those working in animal sheltering. In the face of new evidence that the public is in fact overwhelmingly responsible and compassionate, accepting that animal management departments have failed to implement the programs that save homeless pets, leaves no defence for the killing done for decades.

Taking back our animal shelters

We’ll continue to see programs like ‘Who’s for Cats’ which put the blame for killing firmly in the hands of the public, until we as a community rise up and reject the idea that we are to blame.

These shelters could have spent the last three years working with their community to have every single one of these community cats desexed.

Instead they chose instead to righteously criticise the very people who could have helped solve the Victorian cat problem.

These shelters could have offered support and resources for community cat carers.

Instead they lobbied for laws which made caring for these cats an offence.

These shelters could have stopped taking in cats who they knew wouldn’t ever be able to live as pets.

Instead they encouraged people to round up strays and then blamed global warming for the killing.

These shelters could have fixed this problem with their massive resources, but instead they choose to kill and blame you for the killing.

Determining a dog’s likelihood of aggression by “breed” rather than basing it on their actual behaviour continues to see pets seized from peoples homes who have never caused a problem for their owner or their community.

Take the story of 13 year old Royce (13! A dog who should be enjoying his twilight years at home), who had lived with his owner in Blacktown without complaint. Royce was not found wandering, the council and police came to his home and seized him from his distraught owner. The most disturbing part of this whole story? Royce has lived most of his life as a staffordshire x bull mastiff, until Council deemed him a restricted breed;

Mr Coulter fought back tears as he described how pound officers, accompanied by police, came to his door and demanded his dog.

“They said he’s a dangerous breed; they say he’s a pit bull,” he said.

“I said: “No he’s not; I can prove that’.”

He said Royce has never harmed any person or any other animal.

“He’s so timid, he’s scared of his own shadow,” Mr Coulter said.

….
Blacktown councillor Russ Dickens, who is also a veterinarian, said taking Mr Coulter’s dog from him was an outrage.

“It’s reprehensible and draconian that this still happens in Blacktown,” Cr Dickens said.

He said he has treated Mr Coulter’s dog over the years and was unaware of any complaints about him.

“I’ll be following this up,” he said.

A Blacktown Council spokesman said Royce was alive and in an animal holding facility.

“The dog was seized because it was deemed a restricted breed and the owner had failed to comply with the legislated requirements for housing the dog,” he said. (ref)

When a 13 year old dog can be seized for simply looking a certain way, leaving an owner who’d done nothing wrong devastated, we have to realise we’ve been lead into this by people whose whole careers are built on killing without compassion.

Hugh, Graeme? is this what you had in mind?