The community is realising that there are many skills needed in driving change for animals. The contribution of a marketer, or a researcher, or a foster carer or political advocate, can be just as vital as that made by someone who works directly with animals in the shelter, or a shelter CEO. We all have a role to play in creating a better future for the community’s displaced companion animals.

However, while the No Kill philosophy and No Kill equation makes perfect sense to the community who want to see the lives of pets saved – and new No Kill advocates quickly move towards a single, important goal ‘how can we get these life-saving programs up and running tomorrow‘ – what is noticed pretty quickly by these same advocates, is that the shelters themselves often don’t like the programs being called ‘No Kill’.

“We don’t like that term,” they gripe. “We won’t work with you if you call it that.”

Then they’ll often wax lyrical about the pet loving public being too stupid to understand the term, or that they’ll want to be allowed a ‘transition’ period of still using killing as a tool so they can’t be ‘No Kill’, or that their community is different; “they’re too irresponsible”, “the pets are unadoptable”, “that there is a lack of compassion” or “that only new laws can stop the killing”. They cross their arms and close their minds and maintain that there’s nothing they can do to stop the killing pets in their shelter – No Kill is simply impossible until their community learns to behave itself.

So animal advocates trying to make change in their community face a roadblock – shelter management won’t negotiate with them until they drop the ‘No Kill’ term, which puts the responsibility for killing firmly on the shoulders of the shelters who won’t implement the programs which would save lives – meaning the programs which would save lives fail to be implemented and the killing continues.

That’s when these advocates come to me with a single question; can’t we just call it ’something else’?

Their thinking is sound; maybe if the terminology was rebranded into something that the shelter management found more acceptable, maybe if we just conceded this one detail we could get our foot in the door and start the process of change, maybe if we allowed shelters to maintain their belief that they and the animals are victims of a ‘throwaway society’ and that they are simply doing the dirty work of a ‘irresponsible public’… maybe that’s not so bad if it gets us a seat at their table so we can show them just how these programs can help. If the leaders want to make themselves feel better by calling it something else, then who cares as long and the programs get off the ground… right?

Why No Kill works

Christie Keith wrote a fantastic piece back in 2008 called ‘Don’t Surrender the Power of No Kill’. It told the story of how one of her friends found a litter of kittens and asked Christie to give her the contact details of the local ‘No Kill’ shelter – not because she followed Nathan Winograd or had ever heard of the No Kill movement, but simply because she cared and wanted to see those kittens saved:

… all my friend knows is these kittens she saved need shelter and help. She knows that “no-kill” is good. It’s what she wants for those kittens. And she’s willing to wait, and to drive for hours, if I can just tell her where to go.

She knows she wants those kittens to live, not die. She knows she doesn’t want them killed. It’s really that simple. And that powerful.

To suggest that this animal lover would be ‘too stupid’ to understand that if these kittens were untreatably ill and suffering that a No Kill shelter would euthanse them on compassionate grounds is simply setting up a straw-man argument of community objections that don’t exist in reality. Given this person is compassionate enough to pluck these kittens from her backyard and care where they end up, it would be reasonable to assume she wouldn’t allow her own pet to suffer irremediably. Why then would we think she would want this forced on other pets?

What she wants to know that these kittens won’t be killed for convenience. That they will be given every chance to find new homes; even if that means they go into foster care, or are transferred to rescue, or their pictures are circulated on social media sites or bows are tied around their necks and the local media asked to come take pictures of them. The community understands the difference between ‘killing for convenience’ and true euthanasia, much more completely than we give them credit for.

So that takes us back to our shelter manager, who rejects No Kill. If the real issue is not the ’stupidity’ of the public, what is really going on? And what happens when we ‘rebrand’ No Kill to appease their sensibilities?

First is to understand the nature of ‘Resistance’ – I wrote a whole piece on the topic here:

Shelters can’t openly reject the notion that pets should be offered foster care instead of death, that pets should be given a chance with a rescue group rather than be killed, that pets should be kept healthy instead of allowed to have their health and behaviour deteriorate whilst in care, that pets should be promoted off-site, online and in the local media rather than summarily killed, or that pets should be allowed to go into new homes rather than have potential families turned away by uncaring or bureaucratic staff… because if they reject these notions then they put themselves firmly in the firing line of their community.

Given the loss of support, donors and resources is crippling, they find themselves left with two choices; change or resist. And often, entrenched in the status quo, offended that people are criticising their performance and scared of being forced into transparency and accountability, they choose to resist.

We know this resistance exists because this information on how to run these life saving programs successfully has been around for decades; shelter dog rehabilitation, outreach desexing, working with volunteers, saving lives through foster care, relationships with the community and foster groups, good media interactions and adoption promotions, conferences, magazines, volunteer train-the-trainer programs, have all been available to groups who wanted to move away from killing. While for the last five to ten years the internet has allowed the immediate access of the best of sheltering practices, and connection to specialists from around the world running effective programs. No Kill hasn’t created this information; it’s been around (and could have been used) for as long as most shelter managers have been in their positions. And yet in 2011 we are still have trouble getting shelters and pounds to invest in, and fully implement, those programs and practices which save lives.

Until now

Why is it, that groups are now falling over themselves to do things other than run down their community and lament high kill rates, and to be seen to be ‘life-savers’ where just two years ago, they were still defending killing and bagging the community for being ‘irresponsible’? Why is it all changing?

Because of No Kill. Because despite shelter manager’s resistance, the community aren’t too stupid to understand it. In fact they thought No Kill programs were what shelters had been doing all along and frankly, they’re pissed off to find out that the tens of millions of dollars they have been contributing annually has often been invested in making groups rich and powerful, not saving lives.

The same shelter managers who arrogantly proclaimed that they ‘had’ to kill 90%+ of cat intakes, or that pit bulls should be wiped out, or that we need mandatory desexing laws and pet ownership licences to save lives… are all suddenly floundering, as an educated community pushes back on the myths and mantras and bullshit from the industry. And the public doesn’t care whether shelter managers ‘feel good’ or comfortable with these changes – they don’t care whether egos are bruised or whether these ’sheltering professionals’ would rather we were kinder to them, or gave them more credit. They don’t care because the public see it’s about the animals – not appealing to the sensibilities of puffy, self-important CEO’s who have been ignoring all this good information for all this time, in favour of killing.

No Kill advocates need to value this change

When we think about calling No Kill something else, what we’re really considering is whether rather than continue this momentum, we should agree the term ‘No Kill’ is too controversial and appease those very same CEO’s who have failed animals, by diluting the message that got them to start making changes in the first place. Why on earth would we do that?

No Kill is a movement for the people. Programs which call No Kill by another name, may be an attractive ‘baby step’ for advocates stymied by unwilling shelter management, but getting a resistant shelter onside by agreeing to their terms, is dangerous. Because they can then use the language of No Kill, use the power of No Kill and create double-speak like ‘working towards saving pets’ to appease their supporters… all the while keeping their belief that they know best, the community shouldn’t say anything contrary to their ‘expert’ opinion, and that killing is simply an unavoidable part of animal sheltering.

To think you’ll get compliance from those groups who’ve come out saying ‘we don’t support No Kill because we don’t like the name of it’ by pandering to their egos in designing a less confronting, more stealthy program is unrealistic. While it would be nice to think all we have to do is give the blueprint to shelter management in a palatable format; the truth is the system is presently so monopolised and self-serving that the only way to bring about change is to target those who continue to champion killing head on, by showing the public how their attitude and their failures continues to kill animals unnecessarily.

They could have already implemented the programs to stop killing if they thought saving lives was their goal (calling it whatever they like in the process), but they haven’t. They could already be lobbying against the laws which mandate killing here in Oz, but they aren’t. They genuinely believe killing is a necessary part of their job, and to now admit that it isn’t, is a blow to their authority that most will never submit to. Waiting five, ten years while they pretend to be on board, dithering about the name and detail, while finding every reason in the book for ‘resistance’ is simply time wasted. We need to continue to shake the thrones of these kings from the outside in – through public awareness of No Kill programs and grass roots advocacy for change.

No Kill – can’t we just call it something else?

We could, but we shouldn’t. We should be about is what gets results, not what makes the defenders of killing feel the most comfortable. Claiming the No Kill movement as our own in Australia is a vital step to bringing about change in a system which is failing; by contrast, giving up the power of the No Kill movement accepts the excuses and the allows the unnecessary killing of shelter pets to continue.

“Mark my words, there will be an end to needless killing of healthy/treatable shelter pets. And when that happens, which side will history put you on? Will you have been an advocate for no kill or will you have remained a loyal enabler to those who needlessly killed untold millions of pets in shelters?”
~ YesBiscuit

Get No Kill news from Australia and around the globe – get the Saving Pets newsletter!

Two cat groups in different states had adoption events this weekend in the form of ‘Open Days’ with usual opening hours and their usual prices; one rehomed 11 cats for the whole weekend, the other rehomed 12 in a day. While they declared these events a ’success’, unfortunately when you’re taking in 20, 30, 40 or 50 cats a day, this does little to lighten your load.

By comparison this weekend, the RSPCA QLD made a big deal out of their shelters opening for adoptions after being closed because of flood damage. They offered ‘discount’ adoptions for two days – cats and kittens costing $85 and dogs and puppies $145.

Their result? 139 pets adopted from Fairfield (their major shelter), and 254 adoptions state wide.

Also this weekend, the RSPCA NSW ran a price based campaign. They began with a call to action;

“(we) are overwhelmed by the sheer number of cats and kittens that need homes or face being euthanased. In a desperate attempt to save as many feline lives as possible, the organisation is waiving cat adoption fees at five locations throughout the state from 17th – 21st February.

Instead of an ‘adoption fee’ new owners simply had to buy a $60 pack of cat goodies from their online store.

On the *very first day* of their 5 day ‘free’ cat adoption promo, the RSPCA NSW has issued this notice on their FB page…

“UPDATE: Please bear with us. We are overwhelmed with the response & we thank everyone for their support. Our facilities are very busy at present and your patience and understanding is appreciated”

They had been overwhelmed by people wanting to adopt a cat. Which is funny, if you ask most in the industry they’ll tell you ‘people just don’t want cats’.

While the campaign is running for one more day and the results are yet to be tallied, I’ll let you know as soon as they release their final adoption count.

Leading the way for these clever adoption promos, in November last year, the RSPCA Victoria offered three days of free cat adoptions and extended trading hours. Over the three days, 110 cats found new homes and probably most tellingly… they ran out of cats.

The long held myth that the public simply don’t want to adopt pound animals and that shelters are just ‘doing the dirty work of an irresponsible public’ is finally being recognised as the furphy that it is. It is possible to adopt your way out of killing, and positive, proactive marketing by compassionate shelters finds pets homes.

Pounds, shelters and rescue are getting more media than ever, as the public’s interest in companion animal welfare swells. Some use this new exposure for good; promoting their adoption programs, responsible pet ownership initiatives and encouraging councils and pet owners to work together on solutions which allows both public safety and recognises the importance of pets in a healthy community… aaaaand others use these media opportunities as an opportunity to bash the public. You know the kind;

• PET HORROR: One in three animals found in Monash set to die
• 3000 cats and dogs put to death
• SHOCK STATISTICS: Maroondah Council euthanises 60 per cent of impounded cats

No doubt the groups involved think they’re doing a public service; “if people know shelters and pounds are places where pets are killed, it will keep them from ‘abandoning’ their pets” the thinking goes. Forgetting that around 80% of the cats entering the shelter have never had an owner and that 85% of dogs entering shelters in Australia are entering as strays. So for this small benefit – potentially discouraging owner abandonment – what is the cost?

This week I’ve had no less than five emails that read almost word for word like this one:

Last week I found an adorable stray. She just trotted into my house. She was so friendly and well behaved that we thought she must be someones beloved pet. We were further convinced of this as when I took her home she showed us that she is house trained, loves people, including children and was immediate friends with our 38kg golden retriever!

I put up signs at my workplace and went to all the vets in that area, still hopeful of reuniting her with her owners. I also listed her as ‘found’ on several websites. No luck so far. We would love to see this little dog re-homed, she has an amazing spirit. We are happy to continue to pay for her everyday needs eg food, heartworm, flea medication etc and provide a temporary safe, loving home for her. Are you able to please help us find a home for this dog? We can’t bare the thought of her going to the pound, she has so much affection and love to give.

Across the nation pounds are telling people that they are places of death for pets. In response nice, caring people are doing what any nice, caring person would do – keeping the pet away from there! And given the whole system breaks down if owners are unable to find their lost pet within a couple of days, having people hold on to these pets and try and find the owners themselves instead of taking them straight to the pound, is a disaster in the making.

It doesn’t have to be like this – pounds playing ‘gotchya’ with their public and pet lovers seeing them as the enemy, not a resource to be trusted. There is a better way.

Compassionate animal management – how ‘the system’ can be designed to save pets

More solutions from Calgary

Taking your community to No Kill

I’m going to start putting out a regular newsletter, now I’m winding back the blogging. Sign up to stay up to date with No Kill developments in Australia.

http://eepurl.com/cC9Jw

Two years ago, a major animal welfare group could put out a piece in the media stating “we have massive irresponsibility in our community and we need X law” (insert mandatory desexing, pet owner licencing, cat curfews etc) and pet lovers, who believed everything they’d been told by these animal welfare leaders without question, would jump in and fully support whatever was being proposed. I mean, why wouldn’t they? These people were ‘on the coalface’ of welfare and they would know.

Two years ago, a major animal welfare group could put out a piece in the media stating “we have massive overpopulation in our community and so we have no choice but to kill thousands of pets” and pet lovers, who believed everything they’d been told by these animal welfare leaders without question, would jump in and offer condolences to the poor animal welfare workers. These people are professionals who must be exhausting every avenue to save animals… mustn’t they?

Two years ago, a major animal welfare group could put out a piece in the media stating “our community is worse than any other; the pets aren’t rehomable and the community doesn’t care enough to help us save them” and pet lovers, who believed everything they’d been told by these animal welfare leaders without question, would agree wholeheartedly that their situation was unique and their pets were unsavable and their problems were insurmountable and that the only solution was in fact, to continue to kill animals.

But today, things are different.

Those same pet lovers who believed everything they’d been told by the animal welfare leaders without question… are connecting with each other. They are able to see that they have not only been shut out of the decision making of these community funded organisations, but that these groups have been hiding facts and figures and performance behind the mantras of ‘public irresponsibility’, ‘overpopulation’ and ‘unique and insurmountable problems’, which when critically examined, prove to be false.

Whats more, by believing killing was the only way, the shelters themselves have created systems and procedures which ensure the killing continues. Cat ‘welfare’ groups who accept paid council tenders to trap and remove cats, despite killing 9 out of 10 intakes. Mega pounds which pull in stray pets from dozens of councils, cherry pick the best and kill the rest. Pounds which block access to community rescue groups, preferring the simplicity of killing unclaimed pets. Shelters who refuse to implement basic programs like foster care, off-site adoption and extended trading hours. Shelters who choose to kill, rather than offer free and discount desexing to at-risk pets. Shelters who kill unweaned kittens and untame cats. Shelters which lobby for laws that kill bull breeds. Shelters who kill rather than offer behavioural and veterinary rehabilitation. Shelters who continue to choose killing over implementing the programs that could stop it.

But now, thanks to the ease of which pet lovers can communicate, the community are getting wise. They can compare the performance of their own local pound or shelter, with those in other communities – both here and around the globe. They can see the results of the implementation of new legislation on other communty’s kill rates with a few clicks on the web, rather than relying on just what the shelters tell them. They expect that their local shelter will speak to them directly about which life-saving programs and services they are implementing and how the community can be involved. They expect council funded pounds will be more than just another ‘garbage disposal service’. And they expect transparency in performance and outcomes like never before.

No longer can a pound or shelter complain about their ‘high kill rates’ without a community backlash – of both frustration and assistance. The community don’t want pets to die in shelters. The community will support programs which reduce intakes and rehabilitate pets. The community will foster and be involved with their local community rescue groups. The community, when offered convenience and a friendly welcome, will adopt in droves. The community will volunteer and fundraise when they can see the resources are being spent on caring for animals, not killing them. The community want shelters to be a place of safety for pets.

A community who no longer believes the myths, mantras and excuses of shelters who defend killing in the face of alternatives, have the power to bring about the change needed to save the lives of pets. So while the shelters defend killing and continue to lobby for laws to punish the ‘irresponsible’ and ‘reduce overpopulation’, the community’s pet lovers are realising that because the problems exist inside the shelters – the solution lay there also.

The No Kill Primer – a beginners guide to making any community No Kill

The Victoria initiative The Cat Crisis Coalition was created in early 2006 and focused on driving local councils to introduce mandatory desexing for all cats over the age of 12 weeks (with breeder exclusions) and at point of sale. Featuring “all major Victorian shelters” – the Cat Protection Society of Victoria, The Australian Animal Protection Society (AAPS), The Lost Dogs’ Home and Cat Shelter, The Humane Society for Animal Welfare Inc. (HSAW), The Lort Smith Animal Hospital, The RSPCA and the Victorian Animal Aid Trust – and the organisation claimed to be working “to reduce cat overpopulation and stop the heartbreaking destruction of so many cats each year”.

According to their website, 21 of the municipalities have mandated cat desexing thanks to the organisation’s persistence; Banyule, Bass Coast, Brimbank, Campaspe, Cardinia, Frankston, Greater Dandenong, Greater Geelong, Greater Shepparton, Kingston, Knox, Latrobe, Melton, Moorabool, Mornington Peninsula, Pyrenees, Strathbogie, Wodonga, Yarra, Yarra Ranges and Yarriambiack

They are then looking at taking their legislation state-wide – “Once we have a majority of councils on board we plan to take our case back to the Victorian State Government and urge their further consideration.”

So, while the Cat Crisis Coalition is claiming enormous success with the implementation of this legislation, how’s it actually working out for the cats?

Banyule

Council’s website states, from 2007 all animals over three months of age must be microchipped and registered with council (this is a statewide requirement under ‘The Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994′). Cats are impounded at the Cat Protection Society.

The Banyule Domestic Animal Management Plan 2008-11 shows the council is home to 6,770 registered cats, 6,518 of these are desexed (96%).

While the Cat Protection Society VIC continued to lobby Banyule Council throughout 2010 (here, here and here), so far council has not passed legislation to mandate desexing, preferring to approach the issue using a combination of smart desexing programs and education, with a focus on semi-owneds:

In Banyule the number of registered cats that have not been de-sexed is very small, approximately 252 cats out of a total registration number of 6,770. This means that the vast majority of cats which are not de-sexed are also not registered with Council and as such Council Officers have little knowledge of their whereabouts.

However, the Council Officers are kept extremely busy with cat trapping in response to complaints, particularly during kitten season. The number of cats impounded every year remains significant and the unfortunate reality is that many will be put down.

Very few Council’s have taken the compulsory approach to de-sexing of animals, with Cardinia, Mornington Peninsula, Greater Shepparton, LaTrobe and Wangaratta being the only councils to have introduced mandatory cat de-sexing so far. None of Council’s neighbouring councils are planning to introduce compulsory de-sexing, with the preferred option being education, encouragement and incentives.
Banyule Domestic Animal Management Plan

The Council figures show 741 cats impounded, with 197 rehomed and 471 killed (63%).

Plans to introduce the requirement for desexing for all new cat registrations is presently being considered by council, thanks to strong lobbying by the Cat Protection Society:

As the deadline for the DAMP to be submitted approached, our own municipal Council Banyule surprised us with a plan that did not include compulsory desexing. As we have reported, we have been actively lobbying in our area collecting some 2500 signatures on the petition. We protested very strongly to the Councillors with the result that Banyule will introduce compulsory desexing for all new registrations and we thank them for their enlightened decision.

Conclusion: While Banyule is about to get on the compulsory desexing merry-go-round, its high rate of desexing amongst owned animals (96%) and relatively low cat impound rate (less than 800 per year) shows the existing outreach desexing programs are pretty effective. To be truly useful, programs for free-roaming cats would need to be expanded to include those animals without any owner at all, however thanks to lobbying by cat ‘welfare’ groups these kinds of programs are actually illegal in Victoria (desex and release is ‘abandonment’, while feeding is illegal), making this unlikely.

With free-roaming cats the major loser with the introduction of mandatory desexing legislation (undesexed animals = those with out owners, fall foul of the new laws), we can expect their cat impound rates to rise over the coming years.

Bass Coast

Bass Coast Council has a two cat limit and pets over the age of three months must be registered and microchipped. Council works with South Gippsland Animal Aid to rehome pets.

Their Domestic Animal Management Plan 2008-10 shows 1,191 registered cats, with just 84 cat impoundments. They don’t seem to feel that mandatory desexing is necessary in their community;

Bass Coast Shire’s own registration records (as of April 2008) indicate that only 56 of 1191 registered cats are not desexed and Pound statistics indicate that 63% of cats that enter the pound are un-owned.

During the development of this Plan, concerns were expressed by AMOs that restrictive legislation may cause adverse impacts on animal registration compliance rates.

There is no argument that there is a need to reduce the number of stray, feral and unwanted cats.

Conclusion: This small location doesn’t seem to have either a cat impound problem (less than 100 per year), nor be requiring desexing as law. In fact I can’t find much information about their cat ‘issues’ at all!

While this Council is being counted as a ’success’ by the Cat Crisis Coalition, there isn’t much evidence that they are better or worse off since the creation of the lobby group.

Brimbank

Brimbank’s Domestic Animal Management Plan is dated 2007. They cite 4,592 registered cats, while they impounded 1,788 cats annually of which 92% (1,644) were killed. Cats are impounded at the Lost Dogs Home.

All Brimbank Council cats over the age of three months must be microchipped and registered with council. Council have also resolved that as from 10 April 2009 all dogs and cats being registered for the first time must be desexed, meaning all cats must be desexed before 12 weeks to be compliant with local law.

In 2009, “Animal Management Officers collect 6.2 cats on average per day” (around 2,200 per year), so the intake rate was slightly increased in the three years since the DAMP was released.

In 2010, Council spent $800,000 on animal management issues for the year, with around $200,000 being spent on cats. More than 100 Brimbank residents have outstanding fines owing to council for failing to register an animal, with human welfare groups in the area calling for compassion:

“Thirty per cent of Brimbank residents have an income of $30,000 a year or less, so it’s obvious that many people just can’t afford to pay their fines,” (Community West legal centre executive officer Robyn Shilton) said.

“It’s terribly sad.”

Conclusion: Cat laws are expensive, but are also ineffective in communities with areas of disadvantage. When the community can’t afford desexing, issuing fines for non-compliance does little to help them comply. The pressure of mandatory desexing has also been shown to reduce participation with other responsible pet ownership practices like registration; and while cats who are registered cat go home safely, those that aren’t become shelter statistics, driving up shelter kill rates.

Overall statistics for cat impoundments seem to have them remaining steady at best, continuing to climb at worst. However, with the legislation only being in existence since mid 2009, it’s probably still too early to draw many conclusions about their effectiveness.

Campaspe

Campaspe council have a two cat limit and a requirement that all animals over the age of three months are desexed. Cats are impounded at the newly built $1.3 million dollar Campaspe shelter, operated by the Lost Dogs Home since May 2009.

Since 2008 all newly registered pets need to be desexed prior to being registered. Council’s 2008 Domestic Animal Management Plan shows the council is home to 1,850 registered cats. Council impound 755 cats for the year, with 383 killed.

In 2009/10, 629 cats were impounded, with 447 killed, so while impoundments are down, killing is up 15%, since the LDH took over the reins.

Conclusion: I have no idea why the Cat Crisis Coalition is claiming this Council as a victory. Despite having mandatory desexing for more than two years, killing is up from 383 cats per year to 447 cats per year. If the main measure of ’success’ for legislation is a reduction in killing, this council gets a FAIL.

Cardinia

Cats in Cardina are required to be microchipped and registered by three months of age. Due to it’s rural location, cat limits in Cardinia are between 2 and 4 animals, depending on property size. All cats are required to be kept secured to the premises of the owner at all times and the council offers a trap-and-kill service for free-roaming cats at council expense.

Cardinia Shire enacted compulsory desexing of cats prior to registration in December 2005. They also door knock to check animal registrations, issuing fines of over $200 to non-compliant owners. They also have a 24hr-a-day cat curfew restricting cats to their owners property at all times.

According to their current Domestic Animal Management Plan Cardinia has 3,283 registered cats, and a kill rate of 69%. They fail however to report how many impounds of cats they have, so while claiming this initiative has been successful, it is impossible to compare them to like councils.

And while it would seem this Council have all bases covered, this year the public were warned to expect a large rise in impoundments and killing prior to the 2010/11 kitten season:

Managing director of Cranbourne’s Lost Dogs Home and Cat Shelter, which services the area, Dr Graeme Smith, said stray cat numbers could be expected to increase soon with the new breeding season.

“Collection of strays is something people need to discuss with Cardinia Council, but it’s generally thought not to be a good idea to feed them as it will cause further breeding,” he said.

Conclusion: With compulsory microchipping, desexing, curfews and a heavy enforcement model of door-knocking and fining non-compliant owners, Cardinia is a cat law junkie’s nirvana. So why then do they have the very same kitten season as experienced by other, less law heavy councils? Free-roaming and unowned cats!

Until councils and cat lobby groups can get off the ‘mandatory desexing is the answer’ line of thinking and instead invest energies in working to change legislation which presently blocks programs targeting ‘community cats’, we’re doomed to see the kitten season repeat verbatim.

Frankston

Frankston has the reputation for the ‘toughest town in Victoria’ with door knocks to ensure registration compliance, and mandatory desexing for all animals over three months of age, but also forced desexing for any animal impounded.

But it all started in 1998 when Council introduced a cat curfew. This saw an increase in the numbers of cats impounded by residents with 438 cats being handed in. The number of complaints complaints against cats increased, so to fill demand council purchased additional cat traps.

In 2000, a Council started major trapping programs in ‘cat-free’ areas: 472 cats were impounded for the year while 368 were destroyed (78%).

Skip forward a few years and the number of cats impounded in the municipality in 2006 was 549 (412 killed). During 2007, 657 cats were impounded, with 524 killed.

From the 1st September 2008, all dogs and cats in Frankston must be registered by three months (12 weeks) and be desexed before registration – effectively mandating compulsory desexing. Council impounded 660 cats in 2008, 455 of which were killed (69%).

Since the introduction of their new laws, council has gone mum on their stats, leaving the finer details out of their DAMP and preferring not to give current details to the public. Confirming the effectiveness of this new mandatory desexing legislation is therefore impossible.

Conclusion: While the impound figures kept going up and up after the enactment of each new law, Frankston was and is still continued to be hailed a ’success’ by cat welfare groups. However, with these laws and such a large investment in a strict enforcement model (the holy grail of cat management according to mandatory desexing advocates), why would the Council be reluctant to share the details of their success? It certainly leaves us wondering – just what is going on in Frankston?

Greater Dandenong

The website for Greater Dandenong Council shows that along with compulsory microchipping and registration, they offer discount rates for cats who are desexed. They have their own council pound, with animals being taken to the Lost Dogs Home for rehoming after 8 days.

Their Domestic Animal Management Plan shows them impounding 417 cats, killing nearly 95%.

The Cat Crisis Coalition lobbied Council for mandatory desexing through 2006, through 2009, and although council projected a 2010 date, there is no evidence that this mandate has been passed.

Conclusion; With a low impound rate (less than 500 per year) and an enormously high euthanasia rate of 95%, there is an elephant in the room – why are so many cats dying in the Greater Dandenong area?

While groups like the Cat Crisis Coalition are quick to point the finger at an ‘irresponsible public’, they seem to be much more reluctant to examine whether pounds themselves are doing enough to save the lives of these cats. This council saved just 20 cats for the year. With these laws being passed in the name of ’saving the lives’ all aspects of the animal sheltering process must be critically examined, including the role of pounds in getting animals out alive.

Greater Geelong

In 2007/08 the number of cats impounded in Geelong was 3,401. In 2008/09 the figures were slightly down, with 3,141 cats impounded for the year, despite a state-wide rise in the number of impoundments.

In 2009/10 the cat impound rate was still dropping, with 3,070 cats impounded. (with a 70% kill rate). In December 2009, cat welfare groups supported the council’s introduction of a 24hr curfew for cats.

Nine months later, Geelong recorded their largest number of impounds ever – with a 30% increase in cats entering the local shelter.

In crisis, at the end of 2010, council introduced an amnesty on cat registration to increase compliance, driving the number of registered cats up from around 9,000 to over 11,000.

Council’s Domestic Animal Management Plan has no statistics whatsoever on animal impounds. However, having not learned much from the experience of cat curfews, they are looking to mandate microchipping and desexing in year three of the plan.

Conclusion: This council is another being claimed as a ‘victory’ by the Cat Crisis Coalition, but who is yet to enact the desired legislation, nor proved any real success in cat management. Whether new laws will be introduced this year remains to be seen.

Greater Shepparton

Greater Shepparton started considering their options for cat management back in 2005. Their cat stats in 2002/03 saw 597 cats impounded (with 572 killed). And there seemed to be a steady increase each year, with 743 cats impounded in 2003/04 (696 killed) and 702 cats impounded in 2004/05 (631 killed). Council impounded 816 cat impoundments with 735 killed (90%) in 2006/07.

At the end of 2008 Council mandated that all cats are desexed before registration at three months and introduced a cat curfew requiring cats are kept in at night.

In 2009, Council claims “around 1000 unwanted cats are destroyed each year within Greater Shepparton because of irresponsible pet ownership”, suggesting that the impound rate is continuing to rise despite the adoption of mandatory desexing legislation.

Conclusion: The Greater Shepparton Council is now heading into their third year of having compulsory desexing legislation. There is yet to be a release from council showing that these laws have done anything but drive up cat impound rates.

Kingston

In 2006/07 Kingston Council was impounding less than one cat a day, as their Domestic Animal Management Plan showed Council has 6,776 registered cats, yet impounded just 350 cats each year (296 killed)

Since 2008, Kingston Council has has mandatory registration by three months, with the requirement that all pets are desexed before registration. This sees both dogs and cats needing to be desexed by 12 weeks.

When passing this legislation, there was no survey of the number of pet owners already compliant with desexing, or even discussion on whether support for low income cat owner could achieve the aims to reduce the relatively small number of cats entering the pound. Instead their new laws were based on a single unverified but pervasive rescue mantra; “There is a large oversupply of cats and dogs… if they had not been born, they would not need to be euthanased”.

In late 2010, still battling their cat ‘issues’, Kingston introduced a night time cat curfew.

There are no new, publicly available figures since the desexing and curfew laws were passed, making it impossible to compare their results to like councils.

Conclusion: Kingston Council is still battling nuisance complaints about cats, having set the communities expectation that cats should be confined or removed. Of course the cats have other ideas, so trapping services to target those cats without owners in breach of their new curfews, will likely see an increase in impoundments. While mandatory desexing could possibly see those cats with owners being seized. Will they be impounding more than one cat a day moving forward? Only time will tell.

Knox

Knox is a brand new addition to Cat Crisis Coalition’s mandatory desexing recruits. While they already have a dawn to dusk curfew, the deadline for desexing is April 2011. The legislation is less draconian than many, with pets needing to be desexed before their second registration (or more than a year old) and is not retrospective.

Of the Council’s 5,721 registered cats, More than 94.14% of registered cats in Knox are already desexed. According to their Domestic Animal Management Plan, the council impounds just 323 cats a year, with a 48% kill rate (155 cats).

Conclusion: This Council is brand new to mandatory desexing, but with an already low impound rate and high rate of desexing it will be interesting to see whether impounds are seen to increase as the law is enforced, primarily against non-compliant, undesexed, unowned cats.

Latrobe

In 2001 a comparison of Victorian local councils showed Latrobe City council impounded 500 cats for the year. The Council released their Domestic Animal Management Plan in 2008, citing 4,454 registered cats with 3424 desexed (76%). Their included 2007/08 figures showed the number of cats had remain pretty constant since 2001, with 569 cats impounded (488 killed).

From 10 April 2008 Council introduced the mandate that all cats and dogs registered for the first time, and over three months of age, must be registered and desexed.

From 2008 onwards there was a surge in cat impoundments. During 2008/09 Council impounded 1,204 cats (886 killed), a massive 45% increase from the previous year. During 2009/10 Council impounded 1,081 cats (929 killed).

Conclusion: It’s very, very hard not to get angry when results like this are misconstrued as ’successful’ by groups like the Cat Crisis Coalition. Nearly doubling the impound rate of a local pound is not something to be heralded as desirable, nor is it ethical to continue this approach in the face of such terrible results. And yet groups still maintain that mandatory desexing is the ’solution’ to pound killing, misleading the compassionate public with false claims that this has seen success.

Melton

Melton Council is one of my favourites, as I’ve written about them before. Groups lobbied for mandatory desexing, pretty much throughout 2009/10, with the RSPCA weighing in pushing for the legislation, despite Council administrative services manager Peter Bean stating just “150 of the 4000 cats registered in the shire were not desexed”.

One of the key issues that Council need to consider with this is that if the responsibly owned cats are already de-sexed at a rate of 96% based on current registration levels, the introduction of a desexing order will have little effect on the number of cats that are currently entering Council’s pound facility.
Council Meeting Minutes December 2009

But that didn’t stop them from crumbling under pressure from animal welfare groups, introducing mandatory desexing for all newly registered cats in August 2010. This also included the forced desexing of any impounded cat, before it is released.

Melton’s impound rates were quoted as 750 cats in 2008/09 and 784 in 2007/08. Given the short time since the introduction of the legislation, its effectiveness is yet to be proven.

Conclusion: Melton is a new member of the mandatory desexing club, so their results moving forward will definitely be of interest.

Moorabool

According to their current cat care brochure, Moorabool is yet to introduce compulsory desexing.

According to their Domestic Animal Management Plan the council impound just 90 cats per year.

Conclusion: This is another one of those iffy ones – is council considering mandatory desexing? Is that why it’s showing up on the Cat Crisis Coalition victory board? And when the council impounds less than 100 cats per year, why wouldn’t cat ‘welfare’ groups be working to improve the situation for those animals living free-roaming and under the care of semi-owners, rather than looking to bring in mandates which drive up impounds? The mind boggles…

Mornington Peninsula

Since 2005, the Mornington Peninsula have required mandatory desexing before registration for cats over three months old. That means the council has had the legislation for nearly five years. Awesome – if mandatory desexing works the way they say it should, saving the lives of cats, we should have super low impoundments here!

From the Council’s Domestic Animal Management Plan, in 2006/07 659 cats were impounded (491 killed). That puts it at the top end of impoundments, but what’s more; the shire is still subject to an ongoing ‘kitten season’:

The summer ‘breeding season’ for cats has resulted in a larger number of cats and kittens than usual being cared for at the Shire’s animal shelter. Volunteer ‘cat rescue’ groups have been of great assistance in helping Officers to find new homes for perfectly healthy cats that would otherwise have been destroyed as ‘unwanted’.
Monthly Report January 2010

While the Council’s 2010/11 budget shows cat impoundments have remained steady, with “around 1,500 dogs and 600 cats impounded annually”, while local vets being “inundated” with large numbers of strays, most of which are killed.

Conclusion: The Mornington Peninsula should be a shining light of effective cat management, after a near half-decade of mandatory desexing legislation. Unfortunately the figures show neither the decrease in impoundments, nor the elimination of annual cat breeding, mandatory desexing advocates promised, but does show that even in the presence of incredibly draconian legislation (with all its disadvantages), free-roaming and unowned cats will continue to breed. Go figure.

Pyrenees

Cats must be desexed (as well as microchipped) before they will be registered in Pyrenees Shire. Both dogs and cats must be registered before three months of age. This mandatory desexing legislation has been in place since 2009.

The Domestic Animal Management Plan for the Shire shows just 84 cats impounded for 2006/07 – so the council’s cat ‘problem’ was incredibly small prior to this legislation was introduced. In 2010 the council has a new problem;

There has been a slow decline in the number of animal registrations in recent years. Revenue in this area has been reasonably static because the increase in registration fees have compensated for the reduction in actual number of registered animals.

With the registration numbers in decline the problem is likely to be exacerbated by recent developments in this area. In the 2009/2010 animal registration period the government legislation and Council’s Local Law in this area were amended. Animals must now be micro chipped when registered for the first time. Furthermore, Council new Local Law– requires that cats must be desexed prior to registration. It is considered that these changes and the resultant costs to owners of these new requirements are likely to make it more difficult to get people to register their animals.

Council has a plan for outreach with a free registration program to try and counteract this unwanted effect.

Conclusion: This would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. Take a council, add regressive legislation and voila! A community who avoid basic responsible pet ownership practices to keep from interacting with council. Which could possibly be justified if the council were killing hundreds of cats, but this tiny town impounded less than 100 cats a year. But don’t forget this case study is still being heralded as a ’successful council’ by the Cat Crisis Coalition.

Strathbogie

Strathbogie Council’s Domestic Animal Management Plan showed just 64 cat impoundments in 2007/08. There is no reference on their website to Council progressing mandatory desexing legislation.

Conclusion: If there is something in the pipeline in the way of mandatory desexing legislation, it’s not yet visible to the community.

Wodonga

Wodonga has a cat curfew between 7pm – 7am, compulsory registration before three months of age, and since April 10 2007 all cats are to be desexed before registration. The Council doesn’t have their Domestic Animal Management Plan available for download.

Conclusion: There is such a small amount of data available on the animal situation in Wodonga, no conclusion can be drawn.

Yarra (City)

Stray cats in Yarra City are impounded with the Lost Dogs Home. Their Domestic Animal Management Plan include the following stats, 2005 – 149 cat impoundments (90% killed), 2006 – 137 cat impoundments (84% killed), 2007 – 150 impoundments (86% killed).

From 1 March 2010, Council mandated that it would not register or renew the registration of a cat unless it is desexed, stating;

While 97% of the 2,844 registered cats in Yarra are desexed, lifting that rate can make a significant difference.

Conclusion: While it’s too early for new statistics reflecting the new legislation to be available, the idea that mandating desexing in a community with a 97% desexing rate, and an impound rate hovering around 150 cat impounds a year, could make a ’significant’ difference is laughable. Results remain to be seen.

Yarra Ranges

In addition to a 8pm – 6am cat curfew, from April 2010, Yarra Ranges adopted a mandate which saw all new cats needing be be desexed before they can be registered.

In 2001 a comparison of Victorian local councils showed Yarra council impounded 250 cats for the year. Between 2003-2006, an average of 326 cats were impounded by the shire annually. They do not have their DAMP on their website for public access.

Conclusion: Yarra Ranges’ desexing legislation hasn’t been around long enough to show results.

Yarriambiack

Yarriambiack pets must be registered at three months of age, but there is no evidence of mandatory desexing legislation being enforced. Their Domestic Animal Management Plan is not available online.

Conclusion: Nil info available

What does it all mean?

Of the 22 councils presented by the Cat Crisis Coalition as ’successful’; some hide their figures from the public, many haven’t had the legislation long enough to prove efficacy, a few have remained constant, and some have actually seen an increase in impoundments. There is not a single example where the introduction of mandatory desexing legislation has brought down impoundment (and therefore kill) rates for cats, therefore ’saving lives’ as promised by lobbyists.

Unfortunately groups supporting this legislation in Victoria aren’t being honest with the community on the law’s usefulness in improving the situation for cats – worse – in many cases councils and animal groups alike actively block the community’s access to data about their effects, preferring instead that we just ‘believe them’. It is up to us as animal advocates to dig a little deeper, challenge unhelpful industry mantras and demand that laws are based and granted on merit, not emotional blackmail.

This is a working reference document, that will be updated as more information becomes available.

A heads up to rescue groups: Paradise Retail Holdings Pty Ltd (Pets Paradise) are continuing to claim an alliance with rescue through their Xmas Giving Tree. These donations will have either been made through a Pets Paradise store, or their sister company Pet Goods Direct;

From: (prh.net.au)
Subject: Christmas Gift Tree Appeal

Kind regards,

STORE – ORGANISATION
Roselands – Sydney Dog’s Home
Rouse Hill – Paws and Hooves
Parramatta – Animal Welfare League
Mt Druitt – Hawks Repound
Macarthur Square – Campbelltown Pound
Lakehaven – Hunter Animal Shelter
Blacktown – Blacktown Animal Holding Facility
Toombul – Peninsula Animal Aid in Redcliff
Redbank – Peninsula Animal Aid
Mt Ommaney – Animal Welfare League in Ipswich
Browns Plains – QLD Animal Welfare League
Parkmore – Pets and Paws
Southland – Guide Dogs Association
Rosebud – Hastings Pound
Knox City – Pets and Paws
Corio – Pets and Paws
Tea Tree Plaza – Geelong Animal Welfare
Myer Centre – Guide Dogs S.A
Marion – Guide Dogs S.A
Bondi Boutique – Blind Dogs S.A
Bondi Junction – Sydney Animal Shelter
Penrith – Sydney Animal Shelter
Hornsby – Renbury Farm Animal Shelter
Hurstville – Sydney Animal Shelter
Strathpine - Animal Welfare League
Helensvale – Animal Welfare League
Carindale – Animal Welfare League
Karingal – RSPCA Peninsula animal aid in pearcedale
Greensborough – Cat Protection Society in Greensborough
Epping – RSPCA
Inglefarm – RSPCA
Colonnades – Guide Dogs S.A
Rockingham – Rockingham Dog Pound
Midland Gate – S.A.F.E saving animals from Euthanasia

Groups who would like to send feedback to PRH about their inclusion on this list can reach them at marketing@prh.net.au