Robyn Kippenberger, Richard Avanzino & Joy Verrinder

NDN Opening – G2Z elements

Up until just a couple of years ago, pounds were able to explain away poor performance simply by saying their community was ‘irresponsible’; that they were bad pet owners, that they were buying the wrong pets on impulse, that they were not desexing their pets, that they were giving up and abandoning pets too easily, or that they simply didn’t care enough to adopt. And that was why pounds killed pets.

And the community enabled their poor performance by swallowing these excuses without question.

However, in 2011 something has changed forever.

We’ve been able to find out that we, as Australians, are overwhelmingly responsible and loving pet owners. That we rarely buy the wrong pets on impulse. That we nearly universally desex our animals. That only a tiny percentage of us give up our pets. And that given half a chance, we’d love to adopt.

So we’ve had to dig a little bit deeper for the reasons why pets don’t survive being impounded. Whats more, we’ve been able to compare the performance of one pound with another. With transparency like never before, we’re able to see the single determining factor in a pound’s success in saving the lives of pets; is whether or not they reject killing as a function of animal management.

Historically, it has been high kill, low adoption shelters who peddled the idea that there was ‘too many animals and not enough homes’. But these conclusions weren’t based on numbers of animal intakes vs potential pet adoption market size – instead they were applying simple, unsubstantiated reverse logic; pets are killed in pounds therefore there is too many.  The mythical ‘pet overpopulation’  was then used to protect pound management and hide their ongoing failures from the public.

Today, if we’re looking for real answers, we need to look at the facts, not the fiction – we need to look at the data and the experience of successful shelters.

Around 500,000 pets enter shelters ever year. Kill shelters will say there is no way to find homes for all those animals. But the good news is most of them don’t need adoption. A large number are untame or semi owned cats who need to be kept out of the shelter with TNR and ‘Secret Cat’ programs. More than 80% of the dogs are simply lost & could be reunited with their families if the shelter emphasised redemptions. Others are going to go to rescue groups. While a few are going to be hopelessly ill or injured & will need to be euthanised. Rather than need to rehome all the pets, we really only need to find homes for about one in five of them.

Is it possible?

Are there 100,000 people looking to bring a new cat or dog into their homes this year?

The answer isn’t just yes, but yes, and many, many more times that. Based on the number of pets who pass away naturally, over half a million homes open up each year with loving owners looking to replace their cat or dog. While some are already committed to getting one from another source like a breeder, if we can influence just some of the others to adopt their next pet – we CAN save every adoptable animal. We potentially have half a million people vying for just 100,000 available pets, or in other words, even if 80% of people get their pet from a source other than rescue, we could still zero out the killing.

And that is simply the organic numbers. This doesn’t include people who are getting a pet for the first time. Or people returning to pet ownership after a break. Or people expanding from a single to a multi-pet household. Or people who’d be willing to care for a community cat. Or temporary homes that would foster a pet for a time.

All shelters and pounds have to do to harness this market is decide to stop killing. There are tools to make it happen. There is a model to follow. The numbers show that we can be a No Kill nation.

Ending shelter killing is not only possible, but a certainty once we reject the excuses and demand those in charge of running our animal shelters and pounds comprehensively implement the proactive lifesaving policies & procedures of the No Kill equation. It is community pressure which will force pounds to improve adoption & reclaim rates. It is concerned individuals finding others in the community, to apply pressure to *their* pound in *their* neighbourhood which will ultimately save the lives of pets.

The pound system we get, is the one we accept. If you are an animal lover who wants better for homeless pets than a convenient death in an animal shelter, don’t wait for government to fix the problem. Don’t think animal welfare groups have it in hand. Don’t join a Facebook group & think it will be enough to bring about change. You must activate. Get involved.

The No Kill Revolution Starts with YOU

The No Kill movement gains momentum in Oz.

Resident action group forms to effect change at Campbelltown Animal Care Facility

Activists to pound for a change at Blacktown

GAWS & The LDH – The times they are a-changin…

Earlier in the year I wrote about the stats coming out of NSW, which showed that not only does dog ‘overpopulation’ not exist in the state, but that small changes in council policy could see shelter killing eliminated overnight. However, the figures I was quoting were being collated by independent groups which can sometimes mean they’re discounted as inaccurate by those pushing the ‘overpopulation’ angle.

But the NSW Government has now made public a hefty set of stats which come directly from council pound records; Analysis of Council Data Collection System for Seizures of Cats and Dogs 2005/2006 to 2009/2010, a complete breakdown of all pound intakes in NSW. It gives a in-depth snapshot into both public behaviour and pound performance, which really does confirm what we knew all along – the biggest predictor of whether a dog will die in a pound isn’t the animals breed, behaviour or the owner’s profile, but simply which pound impounds the pet.

.

Less than 10% of dog intakes are surrenders

The average percentage of dogs surrendered according to the report is 9.8%. So the idea the pounds are overflowing with callously dumped pets is simply untrue. What’s more, in all apart from the very largest pounds, the number of intakes of surrendered dogs are only a couple of dozen a month; and really not adding much to the shelter load. Programs which help pet owners keep their pets; community dog training schools, behaviour helplines, dog socialisation opportunities and help for owners who rent, all help cement bonds between pets and owner and could be used to reduce abandonment.

So if the dogs aren’t being surrendered, where are they coming from?

.

80% of dog intakes have owners looking for them

The average percentage of dogs returned to owners according to the report is 43%. It is fair to assume those pounds with lower rates (23%, 28%, 30%) do less to reunite pets with owners, than those who have higher rates of reclaims (50%, 52%, 53%).

But what is *really* interesting is the Sydney North entry; 82% of their dogs went home.

So why do Sydney North dogs do so well?

According to the report, the Sydney North entry is made up of; Hornsby, Hunters Hill, Ku-ring-gai, Lane Cove, Manly, Mosman, North Sydney, Pittwater, Ryde, Warringah and Willoughby

The largest council – Hornsby – sends their pets to the Sydney Dogs and Cats Home, a No Kill shelter in Carlton. The rest of the pets (about 60%) are impounded at local vets (Pittwater Animal Hospital, Collaroy Vets, Warringah Animal Hospital, North Shore Veterinary Hospital and Vetfriends Veterinary Practice), while a handful go to Blacktown.

Why is this significant? Because vets have all the proactive procedures we beg pounds to implement; friendly customer-centric animal loving staff,  convenient locations and opening hours and a motivation to reunite pets with owners.

Could it be that the best performing pounds, aren’t pounds at all?

82% is a figure which reflects what we suspected all along; with the right systems in place, the majority of people can be (and want to be!) reunited with their pets. Because their reclaim rate is so high, their kill rate is an inspirational 3% and shows what can be achieved, when those processing pets look beyond killing as a solution.

.

When relationships with rescue save lives

Central Coast (made up of Gosford and Wyong) have discovered an efficient way to bring down pound kill rates; do something other than kill. Not only do 53% of dogs go home, more than 12% of them are adopted direct to the public. But what is truly inspiring, is that through relationships with the community 22%, or more than 1 in 5, are released for rehoming by a rescue group.

This has allowed their kill rate to drop to an admirable 8%.

Only once a council puts the excuses for killing aside and start to develop relationships with its community, can the killing end.

.

Using smart advertising to save pets

While not a feature of this report, there has been another breakthrough in a NSW pound worth mentioning. Back in January, Camden Council made a commitment to their community’s homeless pets by supporting a year-long trial designed to increase the number of pets adopted from their tendered pound (Renbury). In 2009/10 131 unclaimed cats and 66 unclaimed dogs were destroyed, while only 12 cats and 65 dogs were adopted in the same year.

The approach was two-fold. Four animals should be selected each week to feature in colour weekly  ‘Adopt a Pet’ advertisements in the local newspaper (The Camden Advertiser) to improve awareness of adoptable pets. Council would also pay the $24 a day per animal in accommodation cost to hold the pet up to six days over its impound period.

The proposal was raised by deputy mayor Lara Symkowiak as a way to reduce the killing rate of impounded animals.

“The number of impounded animals is certain to increase due to the dramatic growth in population our [council area] will experience,” she said.

“This campaign is a proactive measure by council to raise awareness of Renbury Farm and promote responsible pet ownership.”

“It would be a fantastic outcome if Camden Council could boast that it does not [destroy] any healthy, re-homeable animal.” ~ Cr Lara Symkowiak

.

The program started in January this year.

.

By March they were seeing results:

“Renbury Farm staff have told me that the weekly advertising is generating more enquiries and people come into the shelter to view an animal they have seen advertised. In some cases, our advertising has drawn people into the shelter, but the person has ended up adopting an animal that has come from Bankstown, Fairfield or Liverpool council. Although the person has adopted an animal, it is not reflected in our statistics as a “Camden” animal was not adopted. This is still a huge win as it is our advertising that has drawn someone in and an animal has been adopted that would normally have been euthanased. So we are getting wins even though not all of these are reflected in our stats.”
Cr Lara Symkowiak

.

And last month:

Camden Council’s Adopt a Pet initiative has had its most successful results yet with not one dog at Renbury Farm Animal Shelter being put down in the first week of June.

Deputy mayor Lara Symkowiak said advertising Renbury Farm’s Adopt a Pet program in the Camden-Narellan Advertiser each week was showing positive results.

“To have that week less than six months into the campaign is good,” she said.

.

“Good” is obviously a huge understatement by this awesomely proactive councillor. Not one dog is a kill rate of 0%! The result show that simple, compassionate changes by councils lead to huge benefits for pets and amazing successes like this invigorate staff and the community.

.

So what about ‘overpopulation leads to shelter killing’ can we finally put that to rest?

From the stats above we can see that shelter killing can be overcome with the right mix of procedures – so what about ‘overpopulation’? Is there evidence of it within these stats?

Based on the table above we can see that 48,321 dogs were processed by pounds over the year. While this includes the majority of intakes by major animal welfare groups (RSPCA, AWL NSW, SDCH etc), there would be a percentage of pets going direct to community rescue groups. This would not be a high number however, as most groups are only able to take on limited private surrenders.

According to last year’s Contribution of the Pet Care Industry to the Australian Economy (2010), there are 1.1 million dogs living in NSW. That means less than 5% of dogs are using pounds or shelters. If half of them are collected by their owners, just 2.5% of dogs are needing to be rehomed each year.

Christie Keith introduced a new concept with her recent blog post at Pet Connection; ‘low hanging fruit’

She suggests that we’ve got desexing rates to a rate of saturation;

Although there are places in the country where there’s still a good amount of lifesaving potential in increasing spay/neuter accessibility and prevalence, in most communities, we’ve already harvested the low-hanging fruit. Most pet dogs and cats are already spayed or neutered, and spending huge resources chasing down the tiny number who aren’t is going to result in ever-dwindling returns, particularly when it’s done at the expense of better sheltering and better adoption, as is so often the case.

.

And that now our energies need to be turned to those areas where we can make huge percentage increases; ensuring lost pets are going home, and that pounds are either rehoming unclaimed pets, or are supporting rescue groups to save them.

It would take a very small increase in that rate — to save the lives of every healthy pet, as well as every pet with a treatable or manageable health or behavior problem, in every shelter.

.

‘Low hanging fruit’ is the pound who only sends 20% of pets home. ‘Low hanging fruit’ is the pound who blocks access to rescue groups. ‘Low hanging fruit’ is the pound who refuses to open at times that allow working families and adopters to visit. ‘Low hanging fruit’ is the pound who refuses to list lost pets online, or keep lost pet databases. ‘Low hanging fruit’ is the pound who refuses to advertise available pets in local media in a positive way.

If we put as much effort into pursuing ‘Low hanging fruit’ in our own communities and at our local pound, as we do in beating the ‘desexing’ drum, the ‘anti-impulse buy’ drum, then we could make enormous inroads into saving lives.

Once above scrutiny and allowed to hide behind a plethora of excuses for poor performance, today’s pounds and shelters are being held accountable to provide the community’s pets a healthy animal management system.

This new level of answerability is never more evident than when animal lovers join together to develop solutions for their local companion animal issues, only to find that their council pound has been killing nearly every. single. one. of the unclaimed animals they were encharged to care for. Deeply entrenched in a culture which blames the public & absolving themselves of even the most basic responsibility in saving lives, these underperforming shelters buck the trend of compassion and instead choose to kill behind close doors. That is, until the community finally understands the premise of the No Kill model & stands up to apathetic management & heartless local council policies.

It’s hard to hide in the internet age; it’s nearly impossible to keep secrets from an empowered community. More and more it’s backlash from the public driving the change that for decades has failed to materialise.

Rockhampton’s slaughterhouse

Rockhampton (QLD)’s pound has a problem with flooding, and a problem with pets being stolen, and a problem with parvo and a problem with facilities being a run down pile of crap:

“As far as the location of the Rockhampton city pound, it is in a flood prone area beside the sewage treatment works and it’s not a very nice location,” says (Councillor Tony Williams). (ref)

But mostly they have a problem with animals ending up dead;

(Compliance officer Chris Phillips) admitted just 11% of cats survive a spell at the pound and during April only seven of the hundreds of animals taken to the pound were rehoused by the council.

Council killed 300 of the 436 pets impounded in the month of March alone, but it’s not their fault – obviously – the killing is the public’s fault;

… several councillors used a debate this week to blame society. Cr Cherie Rutherford said it was disturbing to see what little regard people had for animals and Cr Graeme Brady said everywhere you went in Rockhampton wandering dogs were a problem. (ref)

Cr Tony Williams said the problem was that some people treated pets as a disposable item. “Pets are for life, not just three months, but sadly not everyone sees it that way,” he said. (ref)

And the killing most certainly has nothing to do with the pound being open for adoptions one hour in the morning and one hour in the afternoon and lost pets only being held for 72hrs before being destroyed.

After receiving a bollocking by the community’s pet lovers and the local media “…meetings were held between RSPCA, Capricorn Animal Aid, and Council to look at improving rehoming rates.”

Ironically, only because of backlash by the same ‘irresponsible public’ so quickly condemned by Council, is the pound being held accountable. For the first time in decades, pets may given the chance to survive an interaction with the pound.

Parkes Shire Council unashamedly killing

Just four hours out of Sydney, Parkes Shire Council Pound has a problem; they get in one pet a day and gosh darn it, they have to kill it;

Parkes Shire Council has expressed concern regarding the number of dogs and cats being impounded and euthanized on a weekly basis within the district.
…
Last month a total of 28 dogs and six cats were impounded of which 26 were destroyed.

Despite a requirement in the NSW code of practice for pounds & shelters to make an effort to rehome healthy pets, Parkes’ remarkable effort to kill just about every pet that comes through their doors is explained away simply in their annual report;

“Council does not have any practical alternative available to rehome dogs and cats. During 2009/10 no dogs or cats were rehomed.”

108 cats and 337 dogs were killed in the 2009/10 financial year. Given its very hard to adopt a dead animal, these guys were never given a chance.

After the plight of pets being highlighted in the media, there was outrage from the Parkes’ community. Parkes Council was unrepentant – it’s the ‘irreponsible owners’ dontchya know?

Parkes Shire Council wants the state government to conduct a public awareness campaign highlighting the obligations of owners.

Pressure on Blacktown pound turn the wheels of change

Early last year the repulsive Blacktown Pound (NSW) ‘bidding’ process and pound procedures came under the scrutiny of the local community. Not only were small desirable breeds being sold undesexed to the highest bidder (often breeders who could recoup costs from selling pups), but potential adopters were being sent away empty handed when their bids were unsuccessful. Despite dozens of bidders on some animals, in 2008, 1419 dogs and 3146 cats were put down at the council facility.

Thanks to persistent public pressure, the council is now looking to make significant changes to their operating procedures;

Blacktown councillors voted to adopt recommendations made in two reports about pound operations and policy.

Former veterinarian and RSPCA boss Mark Lawrie compiled the reports, which say the desexing of animals given new homes may reduce the number of unwanted offspring returned to the pound.

Dr Lawrie says the tender system, which requires prospective pet-owners to outbid each other, should be changed to a fixed-price system.

He also said pound buildings and animal housings are run-down.

Dr Lawrie’s reports said it would cost a lot, but that newer facilities should be built.

Advocates will be watching with interest to see if Council implement the changes as recommended, or continue to allow thousands of pets to be killed unnecessarily while potential families flock to more cooperative sources of pets; pet stores and trading post breeders.

Don’t stop fighting

In the US, where animal welfare reform is well and truly underway, animal control agencies are slamming door on public scrutiny. We’d do well to learn from their experiences;

FixAustin.org’s Ryan Clinton, who has seen his community go from killing the majority of its homeless dogs and cats to saving more than 90 percent of them for six months in a row this year, sees such activism as democracy at its best.

“It should be uncontroversial that an agency doing the work of the people, and paid for with the people’s hard-earned money, should reflect the will of the people,” he said.

“But too often, animal-control agencies facing calls for reform behave more like authoritarian regimes than arms of a democracy, circling their wagons, deflecting blame, and becoming less rather than more transparent.”

He said the only reason any organization would take such actions is that it assumes the animal-loving public will give up.

“While that does happen in some places,” he said, “in others the public only fights harder. I think the lesson from Austin is that if a community of animal lovers fights inhumane sheltering practices long enough, smart enough and tough enough, that community can prevail.”

And we will prevail here in Australia too.

Coming soon; good news for pets – pounds who save lives

See also: How to save 110 pets in three days

One of the things I’ve enjoyed most about my time off (apart from the sweet, sweet smell of baby neck!) is getting to watch the snowballing of compassion, as pet lovers and animal welfare advocates join forces like never before. Where the voices speaking up for the rights of shelter pets were once only a few ‘crazy’ fringe pioneers, now the myths and mantras which justified killing for convenience are being rejected by the community at large.

Sides are being drawn; those who seek to continue to kill, hiding behind apologetic slogans of ‘overpopulation’ and continuing to browbeat an ‘irresponsible public’. And those who seek to embrace the resources of the community’s pet lovers, championing the core belief that a new home is a better outcome for a pet, than death in a shelter. The community is speaking up for animals, fighting to overcome the inertia of many pounds in implementing proactive redemption, rehabilitation and rehoming programs. Thanks to this movement, the future is looking bright for Australian pets.

RSPCA ACT continue to lead to way

The RSPCA ACT have released their annual statistics, saving an inspiring 94% of dogs and 65% of cats. Their secret? Attitude!

“Despite the economic down turn and an increase in demand across all services, we just continue to improve. I am incredibly proud of our team.” ~ Michael Linke

Challenging the myth of ‘faulty’ pets

When Geelong Animal Welfare Society (GAWS) was approached by its community to work to reduce their high kill rates, their response was that the animals were dying because they were simply ‘not adoptable’.

“The animals we put down are not rehomeable,” Dr Walter said. “We are not like a pet shop, some of these dogs will have attacked people.

… these cats cannot be re-homed, they will rip your arm off.”

This may have seemed plausible until you consider the organisation killed 852 dogs and rehomed just 487 (they also ‘misplaced’ 217 dogs), and killed 2,426 cats, rehoming just 546.

The organisation is accused by protesters of refusing to implement proactive programs promoting adoption, refusing to working with community rescue groups, refusing to list pets online and acting in a hostile fashion to potential adopters. The community’s animal management problems are exasperated by the organisations support of draconian laws, which predictably drove up impounds.

While GAWS management are resentful of such attention – they have been killing without consequence for decades and wish desperately that their community would just butt out – the saga continues with the latest annual report revealing the organisation declared $2.3 million in financial assets in 2010.

GAW’s community is getting wise that they are not to blame for the organisation’s poor performance in saving lives and that the high kill rates are out of sync with how they want homeless animals to be treated. In short, the community are fighting for the animals, while the animal ‘welfare’ group who should be, fights for the right to keep killing. An abhorrent contradiction.

Community members who would like to join the push for an improvement of services at GAWS can join the Geelong Animal Care Facebook group.

Community push for compassion

With their name rapidly become synonymous with high kill rates, The Lost Dogs Home found itself the focus of locale media;

Pound kill rate sparks concern – THE AGE

A Lost Dogs Home plan to take over the running of more council pounds has alarmed animal welfare groups, who say the strategy will lead to more dogs and cats being killed.

The home has won three council contracts from rival RSPCA Victoria and has plans to take over more pounds as well as expand interstate.

The home has won contracts with Casey, Hobsons Bay and Echuca councils by tender from the RSPCA over the past two years and now runs 17 council pounds in Victoria.

But animal welfare groups have criticised the home’s growth strategy because of its high kill rate of impounded animals.
….
City of Casey spokesman Chris Ryan said tenders were called for all contracts valued at more than $150,000. The Lost Dogs Home was awarded the council’s pound contract, held by the RSPCA for the past 15 years, in December and will begin services on June 1.

Showing just how out of step they are with modern sheltering initiatives, the group blames both the community and the animals themselves for the fact so many pets fail to survive impoundment;

(Lost Dogs’ Home managing director Graeme Smith) ”We’re getting five to six owners per week refusing to come in and collect (their pets). It’s a syndrome that needs some addressing.”

Smith says the high number of dogs deemed not suitable for a new home reflects the area the shelter covers where there are more dangerous and restricted breeds of dogs.

”We have a council in the City of Melbourne that is hot to trot in making sure that we do the right thing and doing the right thing is not rehousing a dog that is going to go out and kill a neighbour’s dog or savage a kiddy,” says Smith. ”I’ve been someone who has been very strong on that.”

It’s worth remembering that this organisation adopted 3,101 pets and killed 13,594 and continues to fail to put animal welfare first, expanding their operations at the expense of animals and failing to reunite pets with owners.

Pounds may not be responsible for the pet ending up in care, but what happens next is completely in their hands. With the LDH refusing to modernise or work with local breed clubs, foster carers & rescue groups to maximise life saving, the community has the right to & should be demanding better. Killing pets while blocking these community relationships is no longer tolerable.

The community demands better for Victorian shelter pets

With the blessing of major shelters working to maintain control of valuable animal control contracts, the Department of Primary Industries proposed a highly restrictive new Code of Practice to become the blueprint for rescue in the state.

However, in a fantastic win for pets, the government listened to community feedback (over 500 submissions and more than 2,500 signatures in the PetRescue recommendation) and made significant changes to the original proposal. These changes allow shelters to work freely with foster carers and removed restrictions which forced shelters to kill pets after arbitrary time limits.

Not only does the new Code of Practice acknowledge the vital and significant contribution community rescue and foster care groups make in the modern animal sheltering model, it obligates high kill shelters to fully implement comprehensive foster care programs to save all healthy and treatable pets. A huge thank you to everyone who contributed in standing up for homeless pets and the amazing rescuers working to save them!

Busting myths

Rather than the usual suspects busting out tired old mantras of an ‘uncaring and irresponsible public’, new animal welfare players are finally being given the chance to spread the No Kill message, showing the community how to build a better future for pets. Vix from PetRescue was given the opportunity to discuss companion animal management on the 7PM Project recently. She used the opportunity to discuss modern sheltering practices and the innovative programs which are ensuring pound and shelter pets get a second chance at happiness.

Congratulations to Vix for such a groundbreaking interview.

Must attend conference announced

Continuing the theme of the new generation of inspired and inspiring animal welfare advocates leading the way in animal sheltering practices, the rock star line up for this year’s NDN has been announced.

Some of the international guests include:

- Richard Avanzino (President Maddie’s Fund USA)
Read more about Richard

- Robyn Kippenberger (CEO RNZSPCA NZ)
Read more about Robyn

- Bob Kerridge (Executive Director SPCA Auckland & National President, RNZSPCA)
Read more about Bob

- Mitch Schneider (Director Washoe County Animal Management Services USA)
Read more about Mitch

& Dr Jeff Young (DVM Planned Pethood Plus USA)
Read more about Jeff

And a host of amazing local speakers including;

- Michael Linke (CEO, RSPCA ACT)
Presenting; Change for the better

- Corinne Alberthsen & Jacqui Rand (University of Qld)
Presenting: What can 191,000 cats tell us about saving lives?

- Dr Kate Hurley (Director Shelter Medicine Program UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine)
Presenting: Feline Health in Shelters and Pounds Workshop

- Kate Mornement (Monash University)
Presenting: Behavioural Assessment Research

and Mike Bailey (Good for Dogs), Saskia & Meaghan Adams (Fundraising extraordinaires!), Tim Rickman & John Bishop (Pedigree Adoption Drive/PetRescue), Christine Yurovich (Cat Alliance of Australia) and Cathy Craw & Geoff Clarke (Tasmanian Canine Defence League).

For more information and to reserve your seat, visit: The National Desexing Network Conference page

A lot of shelters and rescue starting to put out web videos to promote the pets they have in care, which is of course AWESOME! And there are a few tips and tricks your group can be using to get the most out of your web videos. No one wants to make a video that no one watches and a lack of interest from supporters can lead to the web video program being cancelled before it even gets off the ground. So what makes for a successful web video how can you make yours the blockbuster of the year?

What you’ll need

- A ‘Hard Disk’ camcorder < -- a video camera
These record and write directly to a computer drive inside the camera. This allows you to transfer your video straight to your computer through a cable, without having to mess around with video tapes. You can pick a basic model up at major appliance stores for around $300 – $400.

- A computer
You’ll need a computer which is compatible with your new camera.

- Editing software
Sometimes video cameras come with software which lets you edit video. Alternatively, there are a host of online programs you can use. If you’re engaging a volunteer to help you, having them research and choose the best editing software to use can be part of their role. One of the best online programs comes built into YouTube (see below).

- A YouTube account
YouTube is the website where you will upload your videos. Not only does it have software to edit your videos, it comes with lots of clever ways to share your video built in. Visit the site and create an account and password in preparation for your videos.

Getting started

Before you even get shooting, you need to have a think about who you are making videos for, and how you’re going to go about sharing them. It’s not enough to think ‘we’ll make videos and people will watch them’; you have to have a plan on how you’re going to reach people.

Places to share your web-videos

- In your newsletter: if you have a email mailing list and a newsletter that goes out regularly, you can time your videos with the mailer. Web videos can be great for adding interest.

- On your Facebook fan page: Facebook is one of the best places to share videos as upload is immediate and videos make great content for your page. But how many followers do you have? If you’re neglecting your page and only have a few hundred followers, now is the time to get your Facebook page in tip top shape! (I’ll write more about Facebook pages in a coming blog).

- On your Twitter: some groups are using Twitter, others aren’t. It’s totally up to you and whether you have enough resources for another social media project, but like Facebook, Twitter is immediate and videos make great, shareable content for your stream.

- In your PetRescue listings: Videos can also be uploaded to your PetRescue animal listings; either as a YouTube link, or as a video upload. Pet profiles with video are much, much more popular than those without so it’s worth the time.

- On your organisation’s homepage: having adoptable animal videos on your homepage shows people that you’re committed to finding pets homes, and changing them regularly will draw visitors back to your website.

So you have your camera, you’ve created a nice big audience for your web videos and are ready to start shooting. Now what?

Keep it short

Think ‘advertisement’, not ‘documentary. Your video is going to be less than a minute long when you’re done. Did you hear that? Less than a minute. Any longer and people will be dozing off and tuning out. This means you have to be really focused on what is important.

Choose an ‘adoptable’ pet

There is often a temptation to use your web videos to profile those pets who need extra help – we’ll call them the ‘harder-to-place-pets’ – and web videos CAN be great for getting extra exposure for these guys…. STOP!

You want your web videos to truly reflect the kinds of animals you get in care. Most often – lovely pets who need a second chance. These are the guys you’ll want to start with, to send the message to your community that you’re a great source of healthy, friendly, adoptable pets.

Once your program is up and running, then use your videos to profile your harder to place pets, alternated with lots of attractive and desirable animals. Don’t worry that the pet may be adopted soon after your video is released; this is an advertisement for ALL the animals in your shelter, not just the one you’re videoing today. So choose a friendly pet who will probably find a home as the ’spokespet’ for your shelter.

Choose a spokesperson

While a video of a pet running around is cute, it is not very effective in ’selling’ that pet’s best traits. You’re going to need a spokesperson. It doesn’t always have to be the same person, but they need to be enthusiastic, clearly spoken and positive.

There are two ways to film a video; either have the person handling the pet and speaking direct to camera (easy to film, hard to execute), or film the video first and then give it a voice over (a little tricker to put together, but gives a better result). Or you can do a combination of both, which is especially good if you want to film a foster carer talking about a pet, but then add extra details later.

Remember that someone talking behind the camera is going to be much, much louder than the handler a few steps away. If you want to have a ‘discussion’ between handler and cameraman, use a tripod and stand approximately the same distance away. Much better, avoid it altogether.

Develop a script

To make your video pop, you’re going to need to develop a script. You’re wanting to tell a story about your pet as they are now, and the kind of place they need to go to next. Don’t waste vital time describing how the pet came into care, unless it can help describe their new life (eg. “Billy previously lived with a retired owner, so we’re looking for another loving person with time to spend with him.”) And always, always keep it positive.

A quick way to compile a script is to answer the following questions;

What’s the best thing about the pet? What makes this pet super awesome and unique? Does this dog know how to sit? Fetch? Chase a basketball?
“Billy is exceptionally friendly and loves to run. He is happiest jogging along beside you, or fetching his ball in the backyard.”

What’s the best thing about the pet’s new owner? Who is the perfect owner for this pet? What are their attributes?
“If you’re an active family looking for an outgoing companion, Billy is your man. He’s looking for a mature family who will include him in family life.”

How would this pet’s perfect day go? If you had to describe the perfect day for this pet, what would it be?
“Billy would love to join you on a family outing to the beach or park, then curl up beside you on the couch and watch TV.”

You’ll want to introduce the pet at the beginning, then tell people how they can adopt the pet at the end. Use pre-made visual slides (more info below) to confirm these details:

Choosing a great location

You’ll need an attractive location, which is free from distractions to shoot your videos. Indoor areas with no carpet can produce a very ‘echoy’ result which makes it hard for the speaker to be heard, so a quiet outdoor location is often best. Off-lead paddocks can be great for shooting extra video of dogs playing and interacting, while extra video of cats should be filmed in a place where they are comfortable and therefore friendly and open.

When recording your script, the pet can be held by the handler, or dogs can be asked to sit for treats. A toy can be used to attract the pet to look at the camera.

Using media

Use a mix of video and photos

Types of video you can film:

- The pet with a handler: Either speaking to camera or not.
- The pet ‘doing its thing’: Chilling, doing tricks, interacting with other pets, playing, getting a bath or food or sleeping.
- The pet interacting with the camera: (As long as it doesn’t freak the pet out), video of the pet playing to the camera is really engaging.

If you also have a great picture, use that too!

Use slides

You’ll want to create a slide to start the video and introduce the pet:

And it’s really important to have one at the end to remind people how they go about adopting;

Look at your music

Music is great for creating feeling, glossing over background noise and people speaking off camera, but track choice is important. Just because you like loud rock, doesn’t mean the person you’re trying to ’sell’ to does. Think about the audience for your video (the pet’s perfect adopter) and the kind of music they might like (or at least not find repellent).

Also, keep it light and positive. While you might like the heart-wrenching effect of a sad track with poignant lyrics; remember getting a new pet is supposed to be an exciting and fun time for adopters. No doom or gloom!

Awesome video examples

Click ‘continue reading’ to see a library of some of the best pet adoption vids on the web…

This article is out today, but could have just as easily been written a decade ago, and is the epitome of the ‘bad, naughty public’ rescue media release;

Fewer people are able to give a dog a home

More abandoned dogs and cats are going without a home now than at any other time in the past 10 years, creating an “adoption crisis”.

The Animal Welfare League reports that dog adoptions are down 30 per cent and cat adoptions 10 per cent compared with the average of the past decade.

South Australian Animal Welfare League operations general manager Damien Marango said while adoptions were down the number of animals handed over was steady. “Many animals are also taking longer to be housed,” he said.

Mr Marango said research showed financial pressures families were facing was the main reason for the drop.

“Last year, our adoptions started to plummet as we experienced continual interest rates hikes and this year, the outlook is not good,” he said. “Our figures have continued to fall with the introduction of a flood levy (and) discussion of carbon tax.”

He urged all South Australians to consider adopting a pet, such as 10-week-old female staffordshire cross puppy Indigo.

The carbon tax? Really?

What makes this an especially terrible article (apart from like, all of it) is the fact its only purpose of it was to encourage adoptions. The desired outcome was to bring people into the shelter. And they’ve tried to do that with the message;

People are bad! They give up their pets! No one is adopting! There’s financial pressures. We have no choice; it’s hopeless.

It’s a common approach, but not a very effective one.

Imagine for one moment any other business marketing themselves in this way;

You guys suck! You’ve stopped buying cars! We’re going out of business and you’re all to blame! The economy is killing our business. Take pity on us and buy a car?

As discussed here previously, telling people they’re bad, doesn’t get people in the door to adopt. Whinging to people that you’re having a crisis, doesn’t get people in the door to adopt. Complaining about the economy, or global warming, or a lack of some law, doesn’t get people in the door to adopt.

What does get people in the door to adopt, is positive promotion of the individual pets a group has available.

You gotta make people fall in love – not criticise them or berate them, or whine at them. And there is a lot that any group can do to get their pets in front of a really large audience and it costs nothing;

********************************************************************

Pets Haven in Victoria have a Facebook page with nearly 30,000 members. They use this page to promote the animals they have in care, call for donations to individual pets and – most importantly – celebrate when a pet gets adopted!

By creating a community of pet-lovers (rather than just simply ear-bashing them), the group gets thousands of dollars of free ‘advertising’ for their pets and have a community of advocates rooting for, and actively participating in their success.

********************************************************************

One technique The Animal Welfare League in QLD uses is PetRescue.com.au and a fantastic team of volunteer photographers to get astoundingly beautiful photos of their pets in front of an enormous audience.

The pets practically ’sell’ themselves with such gorgeous pics.

********************************************************************

Whyalla Vet is a South Australian group who takes advantage of the colour ‘Adopt-a-Dog’ adverts which have just started in newspapers nationally every Sunday. Nearly 10,000 visitors a day flock to visit the profiles of the animals featured, flooding groups with potential adopter options.

Being included in these advertisements is free and open to all rescue groups who list on PetRescue.

********************************************************************

Late last year, the RSPCA Victoria ran a weekend  ‘adoption fee waived’ cat promotion. In three days, 110 cats found new homes. And they only stopped there, because they ran out of cats.

********************************************************************

Even more lifesaving

A shelter saves a pet in under 2hrs

A shelter saves six dogs in three hours

A pound saves 79 pets in a week

A regional pound saves 97% of the dogs it takes in

A pound in NSW uses ‘Pet of the Week’ adverts and sees great success

Continuing to blame an ‘irresponsible public’ for low adoptions – in the face of overwhelming evidence that people DO want to adopt, they DO want to open their hearts to a rescue pet, that they DO want to help groups – makes no sense. Adoptions must be made an organisational priority, just as important as events and fundraising; and talented and innovative people need to be encouraged to be involved in the process. The only limit is our imaginations.

There is no ‘adoption crisis’. Positive, proactive marketing by compassionate shelters finds pets homes.

Truth is an important and rarely used tool. Secrets are usually good indicators that foul work is afoot. Exposing the truth is like letting the sunlight in. I realise most people don’t share my love of truth an openness. That’s OK. They can go fuck themselves.

My favourite quote of the day – anon

Displeased with me highlighting their end of year figures, showing The Lost Dogs Home rehomed 3,101 pets and killed 13,594 last year. And annoyed that their history of supporting campaigns which mandated the killing of pit bulls and drove the community to vilifying unowned cats is now being questioned by the public – the Lost Dogs Home have begun working behind the scenes to try and ‘muzzle’ Saving Pets.

As you may know, for the last seven years, I’ve been working with rescue groups across the nation get pets into homes through the website, PetRescue. For the last two years, the team I work with have secured a relationship with Pedigree, to work on a major national adoption promotion, the Pedigree Adoption Drive.

This promotion allows hundreds of small and independent rescue organisations and the animals they care for, the kind of exposure only normally available to those companies and non-profits with multi-million dollar advertising budgets. This campaign has saved literally thousands of lives, made rescue pet adoption more popular than ever, and has even changed the vernacular of animal ownership; with the word ‘adoption’ now championed by the public, and ‘he’s a rescue’ becoming an oh-so-fashionable claim to fame for every second-hand moggie and mutt.

However, now the Corporate Affairs Manager of the Lost Dogs Home is in contact with our major sponsor, threatening a smear campaign against PetRescue (and by association Pedigree) should I continue to be critical towards their policies in this blog.

It’s a quite appalling proposition; that a group claiming to be advocating for animals, would work to kill a program saving thousands of lives, just to censor community opposition to their own poorly preforming shelter.

It shows a massive lack of compassion towards animals, to be willing to put a hugely beneficial program for small and independent rescue groups and the pets they’re working to save at risk, simply to quash the tide of public opinion against their refusal to contemporarise their own shelter’s programs.

And to threaten this… because of my blog… a blog which is all about is about saving lives, improving animal sheltering, and agitating when groups kill animals, instead of implementing the programs and services that would stop it… is so counter intuitive to promoting animal welfare that it’s gobsmacking.

Especially, when you consider there is an alternative way to quiet criticism. That would be to put those same energies into developing the programs which would save the lives of animals entering their shelter.

The Adoption Drive belongs to all of us. I have been immensely proud to have been a part of the transformation we’re seeing in animal welfare to date, but I am also only one cog in a giant machine that is creaking into life, and that I’m positive will gain huge momentum in this country. Not only are the team I work with, volunteers and advocates, some of the most skilled and dedicated I’ve ever met. Every single rescue group who has taken the time to champion for the behalf of every pet in their care by photographing, uploading and posting animals – more than 100,000 of them all together – not to mention showcasing their animals at events and media launches; we are all part of an amazing movement that is growing exponentially.

Rescue have worked hard. We earned this campaign. But what we also understand explicitly, is the Adoption Drive is bigger than any one of us, or any one animal organisation. To attack it, is to attack us all. And it leaves me deeply saddened that anyone claiming to be in ‘animal welfare’ would separate themselves from the rescue industry so completely, as to feel they have the right to sabotage the outcomes of so many of their peers.

So will this action against me stop me blogging? I’m actually not sure. Saving Pets might not go on, but I know I will keep working for the animals. I know I will continue to focus my energies where I believe they can do the most good. I know I will continue to stand up to bullies and those who put their own drive for control ahead of the animals they purport to care for. And I know that I will never shut up; no matter how influential or rich or powerful the opposition.

The pet-loving public is numerous and passionate. All the work we do is for the animals and our passion burns brightly because of it. We will not stop questioning. We will not stop driving for reform. And we will not ever stop working to save lives. That I know for sure.

Please note: The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the writer and no one else, nor any agency or organisation. All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my peers or employer.

Animal advocates are rumbling about the new ‘Greens supported’ companion animal welfare laws in the ACT as being some of the most important in the country. Those who dare question it, they say, are simply against good animal welfare policy, or are in league with the puppy farmers, or just want to see pets to continue to die in shelters. It’s just one big o’ conspiracy theory.

But what is the actual potential of the legislation in saving lives? To find out, first, we need to get familiar with the laws surrounding keeping domestic animals in the ACT already in existence.

The Domestic Animals Act 2000 requires that along with registration for cats and dogs;

• You can’t keep an undesexed dog without a permit (Part 3, 74-1)
• You can’t keep an undesexed cat without a permit (Part 3, 74-2)
• Dogs must be desexed before 6 months of age (Part 3, 74-4)
• Cats must be desexed before 3 months of age (Part 3, 74-4)
• You must apply for a permit to keep an entire animal for breeding (Part 3, 75)
• All dogs over six months of age and cats over 3 months of age, must be desexed before sale (Part 3, 74A)

While the Domestic Animals Regulation 2001, made under the Domestic Animals Act 2000 requires;

• That dogs that are at least 12 weeks old, or at point of sale, must be microchipped (Part 2, 7-3)
• That cats that are at least 12 weeks old, or at point of sale, must be microchipped (Part 3, 8-1)

So we have laws which say you can’t keep an undesexed adult animal. We have laws which say you must apply for a a permit to breed. We have laws which mandate only very young animals can be sold undesexed (under 6 months for dogs and 3 months for cats) and that all pets must be microchipped before sale.

These are a lot of the laws that groups in other states are beavering away to enact as the ‘solution to pet overpopulation’ in their communities – how’s it worked out here?

Are these laws working in the ACT?

Well, cat numbers have remained high, with ten years of mandatory desexing failing to decrease cat numbers;

“That figure has been growing, 5, 10, 15 per cent per annum over the last five years, so there’s a significant issue with regard to kitten desexing or cat desexing in Canberra”.
Michael Linke – ABC: RSPCA ACT overrun with kittens

And realising that there are genuine hurdles to desexing, and probably a not insignificant number of unowned cats, they have called for more support services.

“We need the Government to police the legislation that’s in place and we need them to work with the local veterinary community to try to make desexing more accessible.”

The conclusion that compulsory desexing does not reduce cat intakes mirrors a report by By Dr. Linda Marston, Dr. Pauleen Bennett, Vanessa Rohlf and Kate Mornement in 2008 which showed the following intake information for the ACT:

Corresponding data for cats show that the number of cats that were euthanised closely paralleled the number admitted.

There was a decreasing trend in cat admissions observed between 1997 and 2000, which was accompanied by a reduction in euthanasia (49.2% in 1997­ 1998 and 38.1% in 2000-2001).

Importantly, in 2001-2002, the year after the DAA (2000) legislation was introduced, the euthanasia rate jumped to 62%, although it decreased back to 36.3% in the subsequent year. This may indicate that a temporary increase in cat euthanasia is likely to follow the introduction of mandatory desexing legislation.

Since 2002, admissions have increased and the number of cats that are euthanised has increased accordingly, although not to quite the same extent. This is due to an increased number of cats being rehomed over the last two years. However, the proportion of cats’ euthanised has risen in recent years, perhaps because 474 feral cats were admitted in 2007. This is an 8% increase on 2006, when 440 feral animals were admitted (M.Linke, pers.comm.). Reclaim rates have remained relatively low compared to dogs.

While in the case of dogs,

(The graph shows) an overall decrease in the number of dogs admitted to shelters in the ACT each year for the past decade. This trend commenced two years before the introduction of the DAA (2000) legislation but was temporarily interrupted by a substantial increase in dog admissions which occurred just before the legislation was introduced.

In the first 18 months of implementation there was a dramatic decrease in admissions, but this has slowed somewhat since then. Generally, the patterns for rehoming and euthanasia parallel the admission data, although there was a spike in the number of dogs reclaimed in 2001-2002. This can be attributed to greater public awareness resulting from the publicity associated with the new legislation (M. Linke, pers.comm.). At this time there was also a reduction in the number of dogs rehomed, which mirrored the spike in reclaims. This is important data. Even though there were fewer dogs for potential adopters to choose from, the fact that numbers rehomed decreased may indicate that those available for adoption may not have been suitable to rehome.

Current euthanasia rates at the RSPCA (ACT) are about half the level they were in 1997-1998 i.e. decreasing from 26% in 1997-1998 to 13% in 2006-2007.

So the RSPCA ACT, who balance animals between their shelter and the major pound (DAS), have a euthanasia rate of around 13%,

“Our homing rate is based on the formula whereby animals put to sleep are divided by all animals received. Some animals that go to DAS are included in this number, but not all as in some cases the animal goes directly to DAS from our holding kennels and does not enter our computer system. DAS’s homing rate is also in the 90% range.”
Michael Linke – DOL forums April 2010

These impressive dog figures could be attributed directly to this legislation, except that is not the conclusion drawn by the by the Marston report:

The ACT experience has also shown that the introduction of mandatory desexing legislation may affect the euthanasia rate of dogs, although this may also be explained by other initiatives put in place by the two shelters in this region in the past decade. It does not appear to have affected the euthanasia rate for cats. The numbers of kittens admitted has not decreased and the admission rate of feral cats has increased. This observation could be attributed to the following factors:

1) The reduction in shelter admissions of dogs resulted from a pre-existing trend and the temporary increase in admission rates resulted from the introduction of the legislation.

2) The large numbers of stray kittens admitted to the RSPCA in the last two years suggests that mandatory desexing is not targeting the source of the cats admitted. This hypothesis is supported by the increase in the number of feral kittens admitted (M.Linke, pers.comm).

3) The reduction in dog euthanasia rates may be due to better rehoming practices and greater commitment to maintaining the health and well-being of the animals impounded.

Both governmental and welfare agencies stressed that the introduction of mandatory desexing without appropriate resources made the legislation virtually unenforceable.

So that is where we are in the ACT – where are we looking at going?

What new laws are the Greens proposing and are they necessary?

(RSPCA ACT) CEO Michael Linke says thousands of animals are offered for sale in classifieds and on the internet each year in Canberra.

He says 5,000 animals were listed in the classifieds of one local publication in 2009.
…..

“It’s just making a mockery of the laws in place in Canberra where we have compulsory microchipping, compulsory desexing and licences available for breeders.”

“The laws are good, we’re got some of the strongest animal welfare laws in Australia … but there is no policing, there is no follow-up,” he said.
Pet laws need policing – ABC

Enforcement has always proven to be an issue with these kinds of laws, not only because cat laws are largely unenforcable, but because funding this enforcement becomes a major issue for local council. If you have a council with animal laws that aren’t being enforced and add more laws, the result is simply more laws not being enforced.

But despite this experience, more laws is where they’re planning on going anyway. In December last year, the Greens supported bill in question, was introduced into the ACT Assembly with the backing of the RSPCA. The bill would:

• Ban puppies and kittens being displayed in the front windows of pet shops – shops could still sell pets, they just have restrictions on the way they can be displayed
• Ban the sale of pets at markets – which is probably a good thing, though conclusions about the influence on animal euthanasia rates would be speculative
• Prohibit the sale of pets to children – good, but probably a negligible problem in relation to euthanasia
• ‘Mandatory desexing’ of all pets at point of sale – effectively mandating ‘early age desexing’ for all pets. Which may be fine, if the surgery was risk free, but it’s not. Animals can also be sold under a ‘desexing voucher’, further reducing any potential effectiveness of this mandate.



Having recognised these kinds of laws are ineffective in targeting cats, and the low rate of euthanasia for dogs… not to mention ongoing problems with enforcement, it seems these small and incremental changes seem to be based on hype and politics, rather than a genuine desire to improve animal welfare outcomes.

From the Australian Companion Animal Council:

“Experience has shown that an over-reliance on a purely regulatory response to animal management issues results in disappointing outcomes for both the animals and the people who care about them. This is particularly the case when the underlying drivers are not well understood as is the case with shelter overpopulation.”






Keeping on doing what doesn’t work (but with more gusto!)

We know what the solutions are to eliminating the killing of animals in animal shelters. None of these proven solutions have been based on a creative new laws punishing the community, or incrementally enacting more and more draconian legislation targeting owners and their animals. Almost despite their laws – thanks to innovative animal sheltering and the setting of No Kill goals – shelter animals in the ACT are probably safer here than anywhere else in the country. And yet the ‘punishment-based’ thinking is so entrenched, that animal advocates still champion the idea that the public is the problem, that their community will buck the trend and create an utopian set of laws, that will drive them to No Kill.

There seems to be an overwhelming focus on emotions, rather than solid deliverables in this ‘Greens’ legislation debate. Polarising and branding people as ‘for the animals’ or simply ‘profit motivated’ depending on whether they support, or question, the effectiveness of these new laws. While it can make for exciting advocacy, popular politics and satisfying opportunities to sling mud at the pet industry… seems none of these pastimes are based on improving animal outcomes, or getting pets out of shelters alive.

The legislation in the ACT is already incredibly restrictive and largely unenforced, which would surely leave anyone asking; could improving services to help the community comply and improved enforcement of existing legislation, be more effective that pumping even more resources into shiny new laws?

That’s no conspiracy – it’s simply common sense.