Dog Days Photo Blog

This is a combination of both my favourite posts, and some of the animal rescue news items for 2010. I hope you enjoy!

First,

my favourites

If I were to start a charity to help homeless people, take donations from the public and my organisation was called, The Foundation for the Charismatic, Good Looking, Healthy Homeless, I think I’d have some explaining to do. And yet for many in the animal welfare world, their charity model is based on this exact idea; The Foundation for the Easily Rehomed, Well Behaved, Healthy Homeless Pet.

How humans project morality onto dogs in the event of dog attacks. Does our anthropomorphism mean we’re acting out of revenge, rather than dealing directly with the causes of dog attacks?

The truth isn’t “cats get euthanised because people don’t want to come forward and collect them”, the truth is cats get ‘euthanised’ because pounds don’t work on finding solutions OTHER than killing them.

Even when we can demonstrate clever adoption strategies, outreach and community supporting programs can save all healthy, treatable pets, a burning resentment of the public means these ideas are rejected in favour of ‘blame’. The misanthrope is alive and well in animal welfare.

Why banning pet shop sales, isn’t going to drive people to animal adoption. When you consider the hurdles to adoption, the out of the way locales of most pounds, the inconvenient opening hours and the difficulties in getting pounds to work with their communities, rather than against them – it’s a wonder that any pets get adopted at all.

Animal welfare isn’t big on data – we prefer instead a simple theory; ‘people are irresponsible, and we kill pets because homes can’t be found for them all’.

We can either treat our public like an enemy, or a resource – it’s our choice.

If a national dolphin advocacy group neither furthered the view that wild dolphins deserved protection, nor promoted the science showing why they deserved compassion – in fact they were the biggest killer of dolphins – we would be outraged. However, cat ‘welfare’ groups straddle this ethical divide unashamedly.

‘Resistance’ is how a traditional, high kill pound or shelter defends the status quo when it realises that its community has turned against it.

You don’t build a No Kill shelter by ‘not killing pets’ (although the belief that a shelter’s obligation is to save lives, is definitely at the core), you build it by first reaching out to the community to establish what resources they have that can help you – developing the relationships both inside and outside the industry you need to succeed – and finally calling on the public to take ownership of the mission your organisation has set yourself.

Now, a month by month list of some of the most interesting stories of the year;

January

Blacktown’s god awful bidding process was in the spotlight, with advocates chasing a seemingly common sense group of procedures and policies that could take them to No Kill overnight.

The Lost Dogs Home gave not killing pets a try, only to find the community rallied to save pets. Unfortunately, this new life saving focus was not to last.

Animal welfare groups use ‘a little bit of necessary legislation’ to turn personal beliefs into law, and drive us into a future where owned cats are indoors and outdoors cats are fair game.

The McKinlay Shire Council of north-west Queensland canceled its cat bounty after sightings of rats.

The RSPCA confirm that maverick ‘feral animal’ trappers use inherently cruel techniques to kill the animals they deem unworthy of life.

With mandatory desexing failing to produce lowered kill rates as promised, advocates start making up new theoretical benefits.

Perth cat welfare groups claim certain suburbs need cat laws to make them more ‘responsible’, ignoring evidence that these are also some of the poorest suburbs in the state.

Australian report shows targeted desexing programs as the key to reducing strays and ferals.

United States study shows shelters got dog breed identification right just 4 in 16 times.

February

Invasive Animals chief Professor Tony Peacock says that blowing up rabbits isn’t as inhuman as people might think. Silly people.

Research has shown that 40% of cat owners are secretly feeding a cat they don’t own – rather than tell these people they suck, why not ask them to help us?

‘A pet is for life, not just for Christmas’ slogan came out in 1978 – do we think we could move on, yet?

Melinda and Les Paxton applied to have their puppy farm licence renewed. They had been using the internet to ship puppies nationally, keeping 59 sick, starving and diseased animals in five kennels. They are later raided by the RSPCA.

Pets Paradise seek sponsorship for sick pets, from sick kids.

Unclaimed pets aren’t only dying in pounds, they’re being killed after their owners have come forward to claim them.

2010’s Australian cat management report for the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, suggests eradication is unrealistic and that cats probably are just one factor amongst lots of really serious factors in native fauna extinction.

March

Senior dog Royce is seized from his home and elderly owner by Blacktown council for being a ‘pit bull’ (Royce had lived without incident as a staffy cross, until the police took him). After a month of impoundment and a professional assessment, council returned him.

In just three years, the ‘Who’s for Cats’ program drives Victoria into record cat impoundments.

Casino (NSW) choose to kill and blame their community for killing, rather than implement programs to stop it.

Michael Linke leads the RSPCA ACT to lifesaving success; “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.”

How the language of animal welfare groups actually confirm the public’s suspicions that rescue dogs are ‘faulty’.

How a few stock photos can change ‘high production kennel’ to wuvvy-dubby dog sanctuary.

Mitcham Council’s cat bylaw passes. The bylaw “aims to reduce feral cat numbers” by targeting owned cats. Perfectly illogical.

The Cat Protection Society of Victoria’s ‘Cat Crisis Coalition’ pushes common and discredited myths in an effort to drive mandatory desexing legislation.

April

While Calgary find unequivocal success in partnering with the community, Australian groups still favour chasing the laws that have failed everywhere.

By vilifying the victims and painting cats as vermin, Australia sees a boom in anti-cat sentiment and violence.

No Kill advocates find their voice; a video from Nathan Winograd and a post on why people aren’t so stupid as to find the concept of No Kill too complex.

The Victorian RSPCA tries to attract people to save homeless pets by telling people how broken and abused they are.

Graeme Smith of the Lost Dogs Home uses an attack by a group of staffies as a chance to condemn the pit bull.

May

The SPCA New Zealand share their ‘Saving Lives’ program – a No Kill blueprint to saving every healthy, treatable pet in the country.

Pets Haven show how you can use social media to save a pet in 2hrs

PEDIGREE announce they’re spending $4 million on promoting homeless dog adoption.

Fraser Coast Council ask their community to help them save pets. The community respond and 79 pets are rehomed in a week.

Bendigo: a case study in cat management

9 out of 10 cats are entering the Logan shelter are unidentified and undesexed (unowned). Despite killing 600 of these unowned cats in three months, the council still blames ‘irresponsible owners’.

The Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science ‘Factors Relevant to Adoption of Cats in an Animal Shelter‘ researched the effects of toys, cage location, and cat characteristics on adoptions.

Mitcham Council (SA, not VIC) is encouraging residents dob in neighbours who own more than two cats or who fail to microchip and register them, as part of the enforcement model for their new cat bylaws. Can we say community friction?

June

Why WA’s new cats laws will mean death for millions of animals.

Why we can’t just ‘get rid of’ free-roaming cats

Why research, when you can hate? Cats – an easy target for lazy environmentalists

Free is saving lives. The astounding power of free pet adoption events.

The Victorian Government look to give councils the power to kill impounded dogs, without allowing them the community agreed holding time. This law would later become the basis for their ’shoot to kill’ dog control powers passed in June.

The City of Swan – a case study in cat management (or $243 per cat).

After animal weldaer groups strengthening their cat laws to target ‘unowned’ cats, empowered Queensland cat trappers targeting pets.

Huge success in the ACT thanks to innovative shelter policy, and rather than demand it in other states, animal welfare groups again go after breeders.

Rescue groups tell people that outdoor cats need to be caught and impounded for their own good, then tell the public ‘it’s not our job’ when asked to impound cats.

July

No Kill conference video blog – day 1 in Washington DC.

August

No Kill conference video blog - day 2 in Washington DC.

‘Shelter’ means pound in the US – why this affects our No Kill message.

The Lost Dogs Home again, this time denying that they’re ‘killing’, but are in fact ‘euthanasing’ their animals.

The Cooma-Monaro Shire Council (NSW) has shaken off the excuses and have save 97% of the dogs they impounded.

Solutions, not killing; cat management in New Zealand

September

Offering innovative behavioural rehabilitation for pets is a vital step to modern sheltering. The ‘Pups in Prison’ program gives both inmates and dogs a second chance.

Whyalla Council Pound in SA was under fire for using a gas chamber to kill stray pets with a near 100% kill rate for unclaimed animals. They would later pledge to stop using the gas chamber.

Blacktown Pounds (NSW) starts using ‘Pet of the Week’ adverts and finds the featured dog is adopted immediately after going to print, while cat adoptions increase.

Don’t pretend WA’s cat laws are about saving cats

Next time you hear some extraordinarily rich animal welfare group bleating on about how ‘it has to kill pets’ because the government won’t introduce compulsory desexing/ban puppy farms/licence owners… know that there are other organisations that are reducing pet killing by simply helping their community.

‘People who can’t afford desexing have no business getting a cat’ – yes, but now what?

‘Adoption days’ are a huge hit with the public. How to save 6 dogs in three hours.

The big, fun guide to saving cats this summer

October

The RSPCA Million Paws Walk has been crowned the winner of the Best Charity or Cause Related Event at the Australian Event Awards 2010. Do we really still believe Australia’s don’t care about pets?

Councils continue to be given the blessing of animal welfare groups to trap and kill cats without owners.

The Cat Protection Society of Victoria shows us all how to fail at animal sheltering, with 12,491 intakes and a 91% kill rate. They would later sack the board members who dared question their policies.

Remember the $24 million dollar Macquarie Island cat cull? Turns out indiscriminate poisoning is bad for the environment.

Say it with me; if you want people to adopt your pets, you have to offer more than euthanasia statistics

They’re all adorable and they all need a home.

November

An Australian report asks, are ‘unscientific’ temperament tests costing dogs their lives?

The RSPCA Victoria uses a ‘free’ cat promotion to save 110 cats in three days.

Can you ‘dump’ an animal at an animal shelter?

We often hear that the community doesn’t know how to care for pets, that the community has no business in animal welfare and that pets are better of dead than in the hands of the public. These beliefs kill healthy animals.

How does the circle of blame cost cats their lives?

3,101 adopted, 13,594 killed – The Lost Dogs Home stats for the year are in.

Victorian foster care networks save lives in a state where more pets are killed, than rehomed. New codes of practice should be used to cement the rights of these groups to save the lives of pets, pounds are set to kill.

How to make sure your annual animal welfare donation goes to saving lives.

The San Francisco SPCA feature adoptable dogs and cats at Macy’s in San Francisco’s Union Square. Awesome.

December

Understanding who your supporters are needs to be at the core of every piece of information you put out to your public. Do you know who you are talking to?

The Sydney Dogs and Cats Home makes a declaration to life saving and it goes bananas with community support.

Condemning people still getting pets as xmas gifts because of a link to pet abandonment, would be fine… if there were one. But there isn’t. And we know this because people have done actual studies on the factors surrounding pet relinquishment.

Shelters won’t stop the killing, without making provisions for untame cats. There’s no ‘No Kill’ without TNR

The City of Casey’s council pound tender has gone from the RSPCA to the Lost Dogs home. Given the Lost Dogs Home already high kill rate, do shelters need to show a commitment to animals?

In the minds of advocates, cat laws are considered ‘free’, while services to help cat owners obviously cost money. But are cat laws really free?

Cats in the community – my presentation from the Cat Welfare Symposium, and an article in the media advocating that community cats are worthy of compassion, alongside their owned counterparts

Thanks very much for being an advocate for animals and for stopping by Saving Pets. Happy new year!

I’ve just received my copy of the 2011 Kittens and Cats Annual, which includes ’show cats’, health articles and, disappointingly, both the RSPCA and the AVA calling for people to surrender unowned and semi-owned cats to councils and championing the ‘Who’s for Cats’ program – despite knowing council pounds and some cat welfare agencies run to a 90% kill rate for stray, 100% semi or untame animals, almost guaranteeing free-roaming cats who are impounded will be killed.

But the good bit? They also have included an article on the Secret Cat Society, Community Cats and international TNR and humane cat management programs submitted by myself. So while the ‘leaders’ of cat welfare in Australia are still championing death for unowned cats, this publication has kindly given us a couple of pages to advocate for new programs which are both successful in managing cat numbers, and have that moved beyond the now redundant thinking that you can ‘kill healthy animals, to be kind to them’.

Do me a favour if you can?

Buy a copy

And write to the publisher to say thank you on behalf of those cats who seem to be beyond the compassion of major animal welfare groups here in Australia.

I know a single article doesn’t seem like much, but free-roaming cat advocates being given the respect of being seen in a mainstream publication (right alongside those groups championing for the destruction of the unowned cat) is a great boon. We have to start somewhere recognising those working hard and advocating across the country to bring about a humane future for these animals.

The videos from the Cat Alliance of Australia WA Cat Welfare Symposium from earlier in the year will be coming soon – will let you know as soon as they become available.

But I’ve been lucky enough to be able to get mine.

Click play below if you’d like to see it! :)

When we work with pet owners, we implore them to only take on as many animals as they have the physical and financial resource to care for. If a pet owner does make the mistake of taking on too many, we ask that they seek help from friends, their community and rescue and shelters to work to find solutions so that pets aren’t allowed to suffer, aren’t killed unnecessarily and are given opportunities for a positive future.

Another ‘commitment’ we expect pet owners to make is that if they find themselves in the position of wanting to ‘get rid of’ their animal, that they don’t only get professional help to assess the pet’s suitability for rehoming, that they also commit to giving the pet whatever rehabilitation is required to get them to the point of being ready for their new family. Only in the cases of extreme, unmanageable or dangerous behaviours, with a poor prognosis for successful rehabilitation, would we consider euthanasia a suitable outcome for this unwanted pet – basically we want death to be a last resort, not used for the owner’s convenience.

If an owner makes the mistake of taking on too many pets and needs to reduce the number they have, we wouldn’t look kindly these pets being killed rather than this owner working to find alternatives for them. In fact, if they were to take the pets to to vet to be killed rather than seek treatment for them – like rehabilitation, alternative homes, or rescue – we would likely think them lazy and unethical. We would want this owner to live up to the commitment they made when they took in these animals.

But what if I’m an owner without the physical and financial resources to hold and care for the number of pets I have, and instead of reducing the number of pets in my care, I actively seek out to bring more pets into this already dysfunctional situation?

Obviously, that’s bad.

People who not only keep too many pets without the means to care for them, but who also seek out more pets to collect, leads to disastrous results – as anyone whose ever had to try and find solutions in a warehousing situation will know – but what if the person ‘collecting’ these animals was government sanctioned and paid by local council taxes?

Good shelters know when to stop

At the Lost Dogs Home’s major shelter in North Melbourne they have capacity for around 50 cats and around 150 dogs at any one time. They have a small team of foster carers (less than 40). But they hold 18 pound contracts with local councils with the majority going to this, their major shelter. With intakes of around 70 pets a day, it’s not hard to see the pressure on resources created.

The Lost Dogs Home’s North Melbourne site took in 24,426 pets last year.

3,101 were adopted, while 13,594 were killed (3,242 dogs, 10,352 cats).

With such a low rate of adoption, this organisation uses ‘killing’ as their primary method of solving their pet issues. But just like a pet owner, they have complete control over how they care for their pets. They choose the outcome they pursue on behalf of each pet. They are a private organisation and are under no obligation to take on more council contracts (and therefore animals) than they can reasonably care for and rehabilitate. But, they choose to run overcapacity, killing 55% of all intakes and offering only limited treatment and rescue options for pets.

If we wouldn’t accept killing the pets as a reasonable solution for a pet owner, why should we accept it from an animal welfare organisation?

The Lost Dogs Home have claimed this year has been a year of revolution for the shelter. They claim these kill figures are not as bad as we’re making out. They claim that it’s not fair that they’re judged on ‘last year’ and that this year will be better. All of which could potentially be awesome.

Until you find out, they’ve just bid for and won the City of Casey’s pound contract for 2011.

The City of Casey have been working with the RSPCA Peninsula for 15 years. The RSPCA shelter is now looking at downsizing in response to the loss of this tender.

The Lost Dogs Home which offers less than a one in two chance of being rehomed for unclaimed dogs (1,940 adopted, 3,242 killed), and a less than one in 9 chance of being rehomed for unclaimed cats (1,161 adopted, 10,352 killed) is actively seeking to take in extra pets into its ‘care’, adding an extra 2,500 animals into its already swelling impoundment figures.

With the organisation using death as a first, not a last resort for its animals, how can it reconcile seeking to take on thousands more animals with its claims of wanting to reduce its kill rate?

If this were a pet owner, we would be screaming bloody murder at their ‘irresponsibility’. However, The Lost Dogs Home continues to collect more and more council contracts and homeless animals and kill them without account, hiding behind claims that the animals themselves are ‘unadoptable’, or that there are simply ‘too many of them’ and that killing is the only option.

At what point does a shelter need to live up to the same commitments we place on pet owners to treat, rehabilitate, care for and rehome those animals it has taken responsibility for? At what point is a ‘lack of resources and space’ a reflection of bad shelter management, rather than a genuine pet ‘overpopulation’ issue? Are the animals still considered ‘rescued’ if the overwhelming majority of them are simply killed?

We need to ask the hard questions of shelters who are taking on these council contracts – especially when they seem to do so at the expense of the animals.

Wyndham Council are having ongoing trouble with their cat laws;

The council has issued 239 fines for unregistered dogs and just 13 for cats, from April to September this year.

Based on the $227 fine, the total fines for unregistered dogs was almost $55,000 and, for cats, less than $3000.

This council has only tried to introduce a ’small’ law in mandatory microchipping and registration – but the big problem with cat laws has been revealed – just how do you enforce them?

I often have discussions with cat advocates; “we need mandatory desexing/registration/microchipping/confinement!”, they’ll say; “if we had then the shelters wouldn’t be full of cats!”

My response is; if you want to keep cats out of shelters, why not offer services which help the small groups of people who are not already compliant, and unowned cats? To which I always get;

YEAH, BUT WHO’S GOING TO PAY FOR THAT?

And therein lies the rub – in their minds, cat laws are considered ‘free’, while services obviously cost money.

But laws aren’t free

Many communities claim their new laws haven’t worked because of a lack of enforcement. Obviously if you create a law that has no budget or resources allocated to ensuring the law is complied with, then your law isn’t going to be very effective. And if you’re looking to get compliance up around 80-90%, you’re going to need a really strong mode of enforcement to be successful.

So, you’re going to need an enforcement budget. At least one staff member plus whatever resources/systems they need. But one person isn’t going to be very effective; you’ll probably need more. Could you add it to other, existing staff’s duties? Maybe. But with cat laws, you’re going to need to literally go door to door, looking for non-compliant cat owners. Most councils don’t have the resources for this. So the easiest and most common way to ‘enforce’ these laws? At the point of impoundment:

When asked why more dog owners than cat owners had been fined, the council said fines were often issued to people picking up their unregistered dogs from the local pound and that, unfortunately, many cats were never collected.

About 1100 cats were impounded in Wyndham in 2009-10, with 935 of these put down.

The current fine for a unregistered cat (hence the collection fee) in Wyndham = $227. A new cat from the newspaper? Probably free.

By using this vulnerable time to try and enforce our laws, we ensure a cat will die in a shelter who has an owner. We should never do anything which impedes or discourages a person from collecting their animal, and instead do everything we can to try and send the animal home.

So short of paying a government department a huge sum to create a program to go door to door (pulling resources away from other programs like outreach desexing), cat laws are unenforceable.

Ok, you have your enforcement budget – now what?

Your council has bucked the trend and has promised to work to enforce their new cat laws, so they have a chance of success. Great!

But is it?

Assuming the aim of the law is to keep cats out of shelters (you can stop reading now, if the law you’re designing is simply to ‘punish cat owners’ or ‘get cats off the street at any cost’) we need to understand what happens when we do try to ‘enforce’ our new laws.

Where do kittens come from?

It is generally accepted that the owned cat population is in negative growth (ie. less cats are born from owned parents, than are needed to replace them);

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

“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.”
Kersti Seksel

People who are ‘good’ owners, already microchip and desex. Kittens have very little perceived value (unlike puppies), so most litters from this group of people are ‘oops’ litters. Truly ‘accidental’ litters make up a tiny fraction of the number of the kittens born each year

In most cases, owners who have an ‘oops’ litter are generally nice people and work to find these kittens homes themselves, so they don’t enter the shelter system. (ref) They then get their cat desexed.

People who are ‘bad’ (irresponsible) owners genuinely don’t care about the cat’s welfare. They likely acquired the cat through passive means and do not undertake other ‘good’ owner behaviours (taking the cat to the vet etc). When the cat has its first litter, mother cat and litter end up at the shelter. These guys are the ‘owned’ kittens/cats entering shelters and make up around 21% of intakes. (ref)

Disadvantaged owners, unowned and semi owned cats. I’ve put these guys all together, because they’re our biggest ‘target’ for positive change.

• Disadvantaged owners often fall foul of cat laws. In the case of mandatory desexing, they can’t afford or access the surgery. They’re elderly, or they’re mentally ill or they’re otherwise disengaged from society.

• Semi-owned cats are free-roaming with varying levels of human care (it lives in their shed, they just give it food because it’s hungry, it just showed up, they assumed it has another owner).

• While unowned cats are obviously completely without a human carer, but may live in close proximity to humans (rubbish tips, schools, supermarkets, restaurants)

When these cats have litters, either all go to the shelter, or the kittens remain in the environment to continue the breeding cycle. These guys are large contributors to shelter cat numbers as urban cats are generally well fed and healthy (“80% of cats entering shelters were non-owned or semi-owned” ref)

How does an enforcement model of cat laws effect each of these groups? (or why cat laws are unenforceable)

Targeting ‘good’ owners isn’t necessary, as the contribution they make is minimal.

Targeting ‘bad’ owners is labour intensive/expensive. First you have to know where to look (we’re back to door knocking everyone). When you confront the owner, the cat will likely be handed over as there is no bond between pet and owner. If you do this on any kind of scale you increase shelter intakes (bad). Plus, since there is clearly the resources to support a cat, another cat will likely move in and chances are it will be undesexed and the cycle will continue.

Targeting disadvantaged owners doesn’t help them. If you fine them, they can’t afford to pay you. In the case of mandatory desexing, it can force them to give up their cat. Given they’re pet lovers, they’ll probably get another. So now you have one loved cat in the shelter, and a new cat in the home that is likely still not compliant with your laws.

Some semi-owners may be happy to comply with cat laws (excluding confinement) if they don’t already have the prescribed number of cats/can afford desexing. Other semi-owners may not have the resources to do more than feed, but we should encourage them to continue to do that and support them with accessible cat desexing surgery. To punish them for non-compliance ensures the cat either – loses its carer – or enters the shelter – or both. After impoundment, we can almost certainly guarantee another cat another moves in, continuing the cycle.

While unowned cats don’t give a hoot about your new laws and will continue doing that thing cats do. Do they now fall foul of the new laws? Then they’ll probably be trapped and killed in the shelter.

So which one of these groups do our cat laws really target effectively? Go back and read them again if you’re not sure.

The answer is none of them. If anything, it targets the cats. More cats entering the shelter, not less. More cats remaining unclaimed, not less. More cats being killed, not less.

Our ‘not free’ cat laws, the ones we were using as the ’solution’ to our cat management issues have backfired and caused even more cats to lose their lives. Without a long-term strategy, these laws are unenforceable.

We understand there will be some initial carnage, but won’t it stop after a time?

Some cat advocates understand all of this, but push ahead anyway. “Any law is better than keeping the status quo”, they’ll say. “We understand that there will initially be a spike in impounds/killing, but for the greater good we must restrict cat ownership today, to get a better result tomorrow”. It’s the old ‘kill them to be kind’ mentality.

But the truth is, there are no examples where the pursuit of these laws has seen a positive outcome for cats. There is no evidence that any variation has worked, ever. The ACT has had mandatory desexing for more than ten years, with impounds still going up. The City of Casey has confinement, registration, mandatory desexing and door knock, and their cat impounds remain constant (40% higher than other councils). City after city after city has struggled with cat laws unsuccessfully.

If we are to truly begin to see a reduction in the killing of cats in Australia, then we need to stop chasing a failed model and start looking at those programs which do work to keep cats from dying in shelters. We need to recognise that when even so called ‘cat protection’ groups save less than 9 in 100, a shelter is the worst place for a cat to be. Especially a cat who is anything but a house pet.

We must finally discard the myth that by ‘punishing owners’ we’re somehow helping cats. We must choose not to remain stuck in a system based on killing. Effective cat management takes more than simply dreaming up new cat laws; it’s going to take compassion and a completely different approach to put us on a new, successful path.

See also: Profitable and popular – why cats can’t get a fair deal in Australia

The RSPCA Peninsula (VIC) have lost the tender to the City of Casey’s pound services after a 15 year relationship;

RSPCA state chief executive officer Maria Mercurio confirmed its tender was unsuccessful.

“What we don’t know yet is why we lost it, nor do we have any idea when the new tender will take over, so at the moment we’re in a state of limbo,” Ms Mercurio said.

She said the centre would explore other avenues and had no short-term plans to make staff redundant.

“We have a strong commitment to the community and we certainly won’t be walking away,” Ms Mercurio said.

“It’s a shock to staff but we need to step back and reassess the future of the site.”

So with such a ‘commitment to the community’, how has the pound been performing? From the City of Casey Animal Management Plan 2008/11:

Unclaimed dogs – 672
Rehoused – 247
Killed – 425

Unclaimed cats – 636
Rehoused – 47
Killed – 589

Certainly, with Casey killing more dogs than they adopt, and saving a fraction of the cats impounded, the community won’t be missing much – while the pets might be better off if they were to go to an organisation with a greater life-saving commitment.

With the council remaining tight lipped on whom the valuable new pound tender will be allocated to, let’s all hope the City of Casey has made a compassionate decision.




See also: The City of Casey – a case study in cat management

Image: Lovemeow.com

• Why haven’t major national animal welfare groups championed the myriad of studies showing that cats in urban areas are a very tiny, manageable pressure amongst many enormous pressures on native animals?

• Why do national animal welfare groups continue to align themselves with cat haters and cat trappers in the community, promoting cat ‘removal’ rather than advocating for the cat’s right to live free from abuse, harassment or death?

• Why haven’t national animal welfare groups adapted their policies to acknowledge that owned cats are not a large contributing factor to cat overpopulation, and why have they instead continued to lobby for failed laws aimed at punishing cat owners?

• Why do national animal welfare groups ignore successful programs which demonstrate that outreach desexing for free-roaming and semi-owned cats immediately reduce cat intakes?

• Why do major animal welfare groups support the bulk killing of cats in the face of alternatives, not only defending the killing, but seeking out council contracts which require them to actively trap and kill on behalf of government?

• Why do major national animal welfare groups who purport to care and advocate for cats… fail to do either?

I used to naively believe this was because they were behind in their science; that once the details became common knowledge, that policies would change and major national animal welfare groups would reclaim their roots as cat advocates. But after being in the industry for a decade and researching and lobbying for cats specifically for nearly five years, I now see something else is at play.

They already DO get it. They really do. They know all this stuff, have all the science, can see what works and what doesn’t. But they play ignorant in the media and hold tightly to failed policies, when they have the answer to cat overpopulation at their fingertips.

They choose to keep killing in the face of alternatives.

Imagine for one moment if a national dolphin advocacy group neither furthered the view that wild dolphins deserved protection, nor promoted the science showing why they deserved compassion. In fact, they were often seen to be supporting laws and campaigns which harmed dolphins, including making caring for them illegal and promoting community dolphin trapping programs. Also, while taking money from the public in the name of dolphin protection, they simultaneously supported the government in the wholesale slaughter of dolphins by taking an active, paid roll as their primary exterminator. The biggest killer of dolphins are the dolphin protection groups themselves.

When we use ‘dolphins’, the conflict is obvious.

However, cat ‘welfare’ groups straddle this ethical divide unashamedly. Killing and promoting killing. Taking money in the name of protection, while also taking money to kill.

There’s a chapter in ‘Redemption’ outlining that when major national animal welfare groups took over council contracts they ceased being animal advocates and instead simply became the executors of government policy. Government policy is driven by what is popular. Believe it or not, this is actually a pretty sweet position for the animal groups. Rather than the tricky role of advocating for the best possible outcomes for animals, they can simply hold the middle ground and agitate to keep the status quo. They can simultaneously say ‘we’re bound by the requirements of the government at the time’ while having this reflect the popular and most profitable sector of the donor community.

Leadership and advocacy can make you unpopular; reflecting whatever is popular regardless of basis or outcome, can make you very, very rich.
……………………………..

Why do major national animal welfare groups continue to push failed policies, promote killing and ignore the repeated successes of organisation who stand up and advocates for cat welfare?

Because it’s popular and profitable.

It is popular and profitable condemn all the ‘irresponsible owners’ and lobby for strong laws to punish them. It’s seductive as people gather mob-like to rally and rail against ‘terrible people who don’t care for their pets’ as being at the core of overpopulation. Even though there is no scientific evidence that have ever been found to support the theory that owned cats are the problem, the coffers of these groups are filled each year with donations from people who’ve for decades been told ‘major animal welfare groups simply doing the irresponsible public’s dirty work’.

It’s not profitable or popular to present the more accurate position that the key to reducing cat breeding is to desex the unowned strays and help poor people to afford the surgery for their pets. Compassion doesn’t extend to poor people or street cats, meaning there few donations in real solutions.

It’s profitable and popular to promote anti-cat sentiment in the community, pandering to cat haters by futhering the myth that free-roaming cats are suffering or dangerous and while on one hand lamenting killing, on the other advocating that the cats be removed. By supplying traps and supporting the community in their incorrect belief that ‘cats are to blame’ for urban habitat and animal loss, major national animal welfare groups pander to their donors delicate sensibilities, rather than offer cats protection.

It’s not profitable or popular to point out to supporters that their big house, polluting car, non-native garden, grassed football fields and shopping centre carparks might be at the core of native animal loss, and to swim against the tide and promote cat welfare. There is no popularity in supporting cats whether owned or unowned.
……………………………..

But popular changes and profitable follows.

As small and independent groups gain footing and take a more thoughtful and compassionate approach, the pet loving public will follow. Once the tide begins to swing, major animal groups will come out as cheerleaders – advocating the effective positions available to them all along. But it will not happen until it’s popular and profitable to do so. And even then it won’t be because of a true desire to promote animal welfare, but because by reflecting the status quo, rather than creating it, they maintain maximum community support.

Until major national animal welfare groups advocate for cat welfare and protection we will see killing continue. The key to reducing cat overpopulation and killing, therefore, is simply leadership from major national animal welfare groups. The solution is in their hands.

And we as the public and their supporters, must not be fooled into thinking it it will take anything less.

I just caught the “Animal Wise Radio” interview with Nathan Winograd on the subject on TNR. I just plinked out some notes, but it’s really worth a listen (I’ll put links at the end).
………………………………………………………………………………………..
TNR, Feral Cats and Community Cats

Back in the 1980’s TNR was a controversial issue. Seminars were held where most of the animal welfare groups in attendance were anti-TNR. Today more groups are in favour of it, than against it, so we’ve come a long way.

We only have three options when dealing with cats in the communtiy;

- Cats are trapped, come into the shelter and are killed
Unsocial cats (community cats, alley cats) are generally the offspring of other outdoor cats. They have a nearly 100% chance of being killed for being unadoptable.

- Desex the cats
Now in the US the favoured solution. This has been practiced for decades in Europe.

- Leave them alone
Not a the preferred option/practical as cats are attracted to the resources of people. People care. People get upset that nothing is being done.

Other than ‘leaving the cats alone’, the only humane way to address the issue without killing is TNR.

There is no reason why shelters should prefer trapping and killing.

Cats will always live in the community. They are members of our community. Some people don’t want them around which causes conflicts. However, regardless of your goals (don’t want to kill/ want to have no cats) TNR is the only solution to reaching these goals.

If you want to control cats without resorting to lethal methods, then you must TNR. Even if you don’t care about whether the cats are killed, killing is not a solution that has ever shown any long term success.

TNR is the most effective way to manage cat populations.

People see cats outdoors, worry and then ring shelters to ask what to do. Shelters say, ‘bring the cat to us and we’ll save it’ – what are you saving it from? And are we really ’saving it’ if we kill it? We see a situation where animal shelters who claim to promote humane cat care, are encouraging people to ‘rescue’ an animal, only to put it to death.

What is rescued? When we’re dealing with unsocial animals, we’re not dealing with cats who need rescue. With or without a caretaker, they’re not just surviving, they’re thriving.

The traditional sheltering dogma is that outdoor cats are suffering. Their lives are short and miserable. When you look at the data and studies on colony cats, owned and unowned cats have similar low baselines for disease. Longevity, life expectancy are the same. 96%+ have a good to great quality of life. The cats caught in traps are healthy, robust animals.

This false notion that these cats were suffering has meant healthy cats are impounded and killed. We need to fight conventional wisdom. Groups who once opposed TNR, are now solidly on our side.

Handling community objections

“We don’t want the cats there, so we need the lethal approach to get there”

Putting aside the people see this as a zero sum game (cats mean wildlife suffer), the conventional wisdom that ‘people don’t want cats arounds’ has largely reflected the negative messages put out by cat welfare groups about cats (they should be kept indoors, outdoor cats are suffering etc.). As our messages changed, the public have come with us as we started to advocate effectively for cat welfare.

Those people who are intolerant, the ones who don’t care about the cat. We can’t meet their goals of improving wildlife outcomes through lethal methods.
- Studies show denser population of birds where there are cats (keep rats down)
- Cats allow denser populations of native birds, preying largely on other non-native species
- Even if you kill them, cats aren’t gone forever – more cats will move into the area because the area supports cats. These new cats aren’t unsterilsed and they’re unvaccinated.

Even if you believe the less cats out there the better, the only way to have that happen over the long term is TNR.

Finding out the true concerns. If the concern is that based on a 19th century public health model, that cats are spreading diseases; when you look at the data, regardless of which area you’re looking at (rabies/toxoplasmosis) they are not a great risk. Even if you can’t be convinced by the data, if you want to control disease spread, what you want to do is sterilise the cats so they’re not reproducing, get people to feed them at the same time each day so they’re not scavenging. You want to have them vaccinated. All of these things point back to TNR.

Regardless of whatever objection you throw out, TNR is the solution.

Can a community reach No kill without TNR?

No absolutely not. Without provision for unsocialised cats, you will always be killing.

Even if there were a sanctuary you could send them all to, there would still be cats in the community. The size/cost of the sanctuary would be prohibitive.

It’s expensive to not implement TNR. It reduces impounds. It reducing killing. A 10 year study in the Journal of the AVMA in Ohio, showed cat impounds and deaths were increasing, except for one community – the one who had TNR.

There is a webinar on community outreach for TNR advocates.

How do you engage the ‘wildlife’ people? How do you engage the people traditionally opposed to TNR. How can you have the discussion in your community. How do you diffuse objections?

The science of TNR is not that complicated anymore. Concerns evaporate over the years – and people want a third option for that ‘under the porch’ cat.

How do you take the message to city councils? They realise killing doesn’t work. Encouraging people not to feed, doesn’t work. While maintaining these approaches mean people who care about cats and want to do proactive programs like TNR, get pushed away – the very people they need to help with solutions.

The webinar is here (costs $125 US for a season pass)

Over 30 years ago, Dogs Trust coined the phrase “A dog is for life not just for Christmas®”. This slogan is now a registered trademark belonging to the charity and despite being more than three decades old, still forms the basis for their xmas promotions (or lack of) this year;

To help discourage people from thoughtlessly buying dogs as Christmas presents, the charity’s 17 Rehoming Centres will stop rehoming dogs from 19th December to 2nd January. People will still be able to visit the centres and reserve a dog, but will not be able to take it home until the New Year.

But on what ’scientific’ basis do they close over xmas? Thirty years on, they must have studied this by now, right?

New research carried out by Dogs Trust, the UK’s largest dog welfare charity, has revealed that 1 in 5 parents would still consider buying their child a dog for Christmas.

um. ok.

With the average Christmas present lasting just four weeks before being discarded by its bored recipient, the charity fears that puppies bought for Christmas will experience a similar fate and is urging people to ‘think life’ when taking on a dog.

I’m sorry, what? Because people still get pets as gifts, and kids get tired of toys, we’re making the leap to pet abandonment. Which would be fine; if it were true…

But it’s not. And we know this because people have done actual studies on the factors surrounding pet relinquishment:

The collection and analysis of data have confirmed some widely held impressions previously derived from anecdotal information, such as the finding of relinquishment studies that problem behaviors increase a pet’s risk of being surrendered to a shelter. At the same time, they have contradicted impressions long accepted as shelter dogma, such as the belief that animals given as gifts are at greater risk of relinquishment than those acquired in other ways.

Replacing Myth with Math: Using Evidence-Based Programs to Eradicate Shelter Overpopulaton

Some proper you know, science, from the US in 2000 ‘Characteristics of Shelter-Relinquished Animals and Their Owners Compared With Animals and Their Owners in U.S. Pet-Owning Households’ showed that contrary to popular belief, “dogs who came from an animal shelter, friend, or pet shop or who had been a stray were at increased risk of relinquishment compared with dogs who entered households as gifts”. I know, surprising huh? What were the other factors for risk of ending up in the shelter? “Dogs who soiled the house, damaged things, were overly active, or were reported as fearful.”

So the ‘gifting’ of the pet wasn’t so much of a problem as… well, actual problems. In fact, the being a gift offered the pet a protective effect, with pets more likely to stay in the home.

Given that the Dog’s Trust is located in the UK, we should probably look at a study there. The RSPCA UK put out a 75 page report on the issues surrounding companion animal welfare in 2007 ‘Measuring animal welfare in the UK (Pet animals)‘. Their take on biggest problems leading to dog relinquishment?

Many unwanted dogs are purchased as puppies and are signed over to the RSPCA when they are between two and four years old. This can happen for a number of reasons including owners becoming bored of the dog once it’s an adult, owners being unable to cope with behavioural problems caused by inadequate training, and owners failing to make long-term plans for the care of the dog. The number of healthy dogs put to sleep could be reduced with a combination of simple, practical actions. Microchipping would assist with locating pet owners and could reduce the number of strays. Neutering of dogs could prevent unwanted pregnancies and help control the size of the dog population. The provision of suitable information and guidance from pet sellers could also improve the welfare of the animal concerned.

Noticeably absent? An epidemic of ‘gifting’.

Now, I’m not actually promoting the idea that we encourage people to make animal gifts – I personally think something that poops and wees and needs lots of attention, should be a joy one inflicts on themselves. But we need to understand that the overwhelming majority of people who do give pets as ‘gifts’, aren’t just springing the pet on an unsuspecting relative; more often they’re getting the pet for the whole family, or that the person who is getting the pet is heavily involved (or is at least consulted) during the process.

What’s more, the idea that ‘gifting’ is a core factor leading to pets ending up in the shelter, rather than the quality and capability of the home, is completely ignoring the true causes of animal relinquishment – a lack of owner education, a lack of early training, the pet not being desexed, unrealistic expectations of pet ownership and the owner’s personal issues. We can be positively addressing many of those issues during our adoption processes.

The idea that animal shelters should close their doors in December in case parents OH NO! bring a pet home a pet for their families during the xmas holidays – when screening processes work throughout January to November as a way to protect pets from bad homes – is well, a bit backward really. And if the best junk science you can find for doing so, is crudely associating kids getting tired of Barbie and Lego with companion animal ownership, then maybe its time to let go of this catchphrase that’s keeping your shelters full to the ceilings throughout those xmas weeks and instead let pets go home.

Times they are a-changing

Thankfully Dog’s Trust are one of the last to hold on to this unhelpful shelter mantra. Dr Marty Becker over at PetConnection sorting the jewels from the junk ‘Christmas puppy? Maybe it’s NOT a bad idea’, proposing that maybe the holidays is the *perfect* time to get a pet. While the ‘Home 4 the Holidays‘ promotion is now into its 11th event and is looking to this year rehome 1.5million animals. This year.

The holidays are our biggest opportunity to go toe-to-toe with other sources of companion animals – we should want all the great owners to visit and adopt. Refusing adoptions during this time and instead sending them off to pet shops, while maybe feeling like a moral victory on our part, isn’t actually based on any proof of better outcomes for animals, or science that pets adopted during the holidays are any more likely to be relinquished than those acquired at other times of the year. It’s simply the same old xmas rot.

See also: A pet is for life, not just for xmas
and: Busting the holiday adoption myth

There’s an interesting trend amongst animal groups. Those who kill a high number of pets tend to keep their resources as closely guarded collateral (shelter centric). While those who have pledged to make the preservation of life their highest priority, open their doors and share their resources with both the public and other groups (community centric).

This doesn’t mean these ‘open’ groups are niave, or bad business people – in fact far from it. There is growing evidence that in a pet-loving nation like Australia, there is abundant resources for animal welfare groups should they open their organisations and embrace their public.

Wanna know how much? A single media piece this week about the Sydney Dogs and Cats Home’s pledge to save lives;

One of Sydney’s biggest animal shelters is hoping to stop putting down unwanted pets – a plan that could save the lives of thousands of animals.

Sydney Dogs and Cats Home in Carlton wants to find adoptive homes for all “healthy and treatable dogs”, which account for about 90 per cent of impounded animals. In many cases, dogs are unnecessarily destroyed after falling victim to broken homes or poor gift choices.

Chief executive and veterinarian Christine Cole said the recent “no-kill” movement in the US had put pressure on Australian pounds to create similar programs.

Was picked up in no less than 7 newspapers a month out from xmas;
The Bellingen Courier Sun
The Whyalla News
The Bay Post/Moruya Examiner
The Fairfield City Champion
The Flinders News
The Camden Advertiser
And all the way over to the small town of Busselton WA (my home town!) in The Busselton Dunsborough Mail

A pro-life policy reflects the progressive values of Australian pet lovers. It captures peoples hearts and minds to know that you have made a commitment to save lives – not just the highly adoptable and the cute – but the lives of all pets who are able to be saved.

The Sydney Dogs and Cats Home has 12 council contracts and takes in about 4,500 animals per year. To make their new life saving pledge a reality, they have joined forces with another powerhouse of the Australian pro-life movement, the AWL QLD, to introduce the ‘Getting to Zero’ program;

The Animal Welfare League of Queensland has achieved an Australian first – avoiding having to euthanise a single healthy dog or cat on the Gold Coast for more than 12 months.

So how did they do it?

AWL Strategic Development Officer Joy Verrinder says the achievement is a result of the AWL’s ‘Getting to Zero’ program which combines many different projects, all playing their part.

“It’s a very complex process to reduce euthanasia rates in any city. It isn’t just any one thing, it’s a combination of things,” she says.

“First of all it involves a big focus on the prevention of stray and abandoned animals.”

These preventative measures involve offering discounted micro chipping and desexing for pet owners.

“Desexing helps prevent that oversupply of animals being born with no homes to go to, so that’s a really important program.”

But inevitably, despite even the best preventative measures, there will always be unwanted animals.

This is where the AWL’s re-homing program comes into play.

“We have a really high re-homing rate – that’s because we do a lot of promotion of our animals, we make sure we have beautiful photos of them on our website and we do lots of advertising. And the general public have been fantastic in coming forward to adopt from us so that helps an awful lot as well.”

The success is three-fold;
- By embracing your community you release your ‘fear of the public’.
- From an up-front communications strategy, you release your ‘fear of activists’.
- And from a driven, compassionate and big picture approach, you release your ‘fear of fellow rescue orgs’.

And you enter the world of ‘community animal sheltering’.

The new animal welfare ‘thought leaders’ are those who lead by example, act with integrity and most of all, embrace a life saving philosophy.

The most successful groups are those who have reclaimed their roots as animal advocates and champion the rights of animal to receive safety and care.

While the most successful communities are those who are enlightened, activated and demanding nothing less than the best, from their animal welfare leaders.

Killing is finally being taken off the table as an acceptable method of population control.

The future is looking bright for Australian pets.

In safe hands … a Jack Russell terrier is bathed at the Sydney Dogs and Cats Home.