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.

I am going to blog out some of the cool webinars and interviews I’ve heard lately. This is from a series of No Kill webinars available for a subscription fee, that is well worth the spend if you are doing any animal advocacy in your community.

‘Getting to No Kill as an animal control center’ was one of the webinars I was looking forward to most, as I found Mitch Schneider incredibly inspirational when I heard him speak last year. No really, in case I wasn’t clear – go. watch. this. webinar.

Reno (Washoe County) takes in more animals per capita than most communities, over two times the national average and roughly 35 animals per 100 people. On top of high animal intake rates, as a tourism based economy it has been very hard hit by the economic downturn and has a high foreclosure rate. Nevada has the highest unemployment rate in the entire country. Washoe County has a city with the highest per capita felon rate in the US, and Reno has been named the second drunkest city in the nation. Sound like a place where a No Kill community could thrive? Luckily for the animals, Mitch Schneider, head of Washoe County Regional Animal Services, uses specific policies and practices that have brought Washoe County to having one of the highest live-release rates in the world.

“We like to think of our animal control program as a win/win approach to animal control” ~ Mitch Schneider, head of Washoe County Regional Animal Services

Washoe County Regional Animal Services, pre-No Kill; thousands of animals were euthanised each year. 2 full time staff were euthanising most of the day, they had a freezer full of dead pets (15 barrels full) which the renderers emptied each day. Staff burned out, while the environment was smelly and disgusting. Staff didn’t like to think of what they were doing as ‘killing’. While Mitch didn’t actually believe that with their high abandonment rate and lack of community affluence, that No Kill would work in their community, he wanted to try. He didn’t like the term ‘No Kill’ but didn’t feel that that was a good enough reason to reject the programs and that if they failed, that there would really be no harm done and they would likely be in a better position than they were in.

The hurdles; checking traditional and programmed thinking and re-analysing entrenched beliefs. When thinking ‘outside the box’ you have to realise you don’t have to resolve every issue before you do something (what if’s?), or nothing gets done. Thinking like a business person by becoming outcomes focused; looking to save money, reduce killing, better the image of animal control, improve staff morale (reduce burnout, retraining) and get the animals home!

The importance of Return to Owner (RTO) policies; While Mitch dislikes the term ‘No Kill’, he hates the term ‘dog catcher’. He wanted to overcome the perception in the community that people feel animal control is an enemy to be feared, rather than a resource. He encouraged staff to be proud of getting animals home, rather than impounding them and began promoting the idea that they shouldn’t be punishing people through their pets. He focused his staff on improving RTO rates as they;
- reduce facility needs
- can save millions of dollars in operating costs
- reduce risk (the less animals handled = fewer accidents)
- reduces abandonment (non-collection) by getting pets straight home
- reduces disease in the shelter/less intakes
- reduced killing and lower euthanasia costs
- lowers staff turnover and improves morale

It starts in the field; the goal should not be impoundment, but to return that pet safely home. While it can be more effort on the part of the field officer (door knocking, scanning, checking ID tags, and looking the pet up on the in-car computer), it reduces the workload at the other end of the process (no impoundment, intake exam, vaccination and you don’t have to feed the pet). It enhances customer service as owners are happy to have their pet returned. And it reduces abandonment (non-collection) which can be around 50%, as people fail to collect their animals, fearing fines, or simply not knowing where to look for their pet. There is no RTO service charge, but citations can be written for repeat offenders.

The officers responsibility when collecting a pet;
- call all numbers on ID tags
- scan for chip (have a microchip scanner on board)
- check lost animal reports (via in-car computer)
- door knock local residents
- leave a notice at the address
- return animal to yard, or leave with neighbour or relative

If the pet cannot be returned, on intake;
- rescan for chip
- photograph and list pets on online public database
- recheck ID and call any numbers
- check the address again at a later time

Other proactive programs include;
- they have a team of volunteer ‘pet detectives’ who double check all the work of the animal control officers, and check lost and found pet listings
- they will waive fees if it means reuniting pet and owner
- they offer safe holds for emergencies (owner in hospital or prison)

Benefits; lots of good PR as pets are returned home, rather than killed. This community satisfaction has even lead to bequests. A reduction in negative media saves time and stress as less effort is put into counteracting time consuming citizen’s complaints. Officers are less stressed and have more personal satisfaction, as they receive more positive feedback from the community and more public support. And because the community sees their department as an important community service, they have more compliance with local laws.

You have to market your value; they ran campaigns selling the benefits of their RTO programs (pet protection) and found that people don’t mind buying a dog licence if there is a perceived benefit – your pet will be returned straight home which is convenient, keeps them safe and saves you looking for them. If a dog licence is ‘just another tax’, they will only pay it if you catch them out. Using technology (online pet listings, in-car scanners and computers) meant the program was so successful and popular, cat owners came forward wanting the same benefits for their cats.

They had to recognise that a pet getting out is usually an accident, and while they can punish repeat offenders later with a citation if required, that they shouldn’t be punishing people through their pets as this simply increases abandonment.

Billing; the idea of holding a pet to ransom until the owner can pay in full, simply means that pet is at risk of being killed. It is not customer friendly and doesn’t generate community support. It also leads to increased non-collection of pets, driving up killing. The pet is better off at home, whether or not the owner can pay.

The shelter offers billing, backed up by a collections department. If the owner can or can’t pay, it doesn’t really help either way to kill the pet.

Overcoming resistance;

“We’ve always done it this way” – never justifies anything
“Every day I come in, something has changed” – it takes a desire to better today than yesterday to deal with change. Most resistance is simply laziness.

Trap, neuter, return (TNR) and community cats; the shelter has embraced TNR and is working collaboratively with local community cat groups. This wasn’t always the case, but now the National Animal Control Association and most other groups have moved away from trap and kill programs. Traditonal approaches of trap and kill are costly and ineffective, “it’s a fight you can’t win” as there are simply more ferals than pet cats. They believe that TNR is the humane and common sense approach.

When people inquire they are given information on community cats and the groups that work with them. They have community education programs which include how to live peacefully with community cats (including how to discourage them with sprinklers etc). 90% of people don’t want anything bad to happen to the cat, so are happy to get support and to be given alternatives. This saves the animal being impounded. For the last 10%, who don’t care about the cat or want it removed, they can impound the animal and offer ‘barn cat programs’.

Working with regulations; Mitch says, make sure your regulations support and are in harmony with your mission; have your laws reflect your philosophy. Don’t form your mission around the limitations of the laws. Mandate rescue access laws and collaborate and form partnerships with existing community groups.

Collaboration; working with rescue, which in turn saves taxpayers the money it would cost to euthanise pets. Unless the animal is dangerous, government (the temporary guardians of the animal) should never refuse access to a bona-fide rescue group, or stand in the way of an animal being rescued.

Never stop improving and have a willingness to embrace change. Play well with others and know that you don’t have to resolve every fear before trying something new. Fear, concern and objections will stifle improvement.

A German philosopher once said that all truths go through three phases (paraphrasing);
1) ridicule
2) violent opposition
3) finally acceptance as the obvious

Moving forward; You can’t fix what you don’t measure so keep accurate records. Share this information openly with the public, as the community can’t help you fix what they don’t know is broken and it will take the whole community to fix it.

Summary;
- Return to Owner policies reduce load on the shelter and improve animal outcomes.
- Embrace technology; online photos of impounded pets, scanners in the field, computers in vehicles with access to databases
- Use volunteer pet detectives as a proactive way to reunite pets and owners
- Collaborate with rescue groups and other animal welfare groups
- Provide billing for services; stop holding pets to ransom

Their hard numbers (can also be found on their website); 5,000 – 6,000 animal intakes each year. Including surrenders and community wide, animal intakes are between 15,000 – 20,000 per year. Despite these huge numbers, 91% walk out the front door alive.

About 1,400 of these pets will go straight home. If the non-collection rate averages 50%, than means 700 extra pets that may not have been collected and would need care.




For the full webinar visit; http://www.animalarkshelter.org/webinars/

For even more information on Mitch Schneider’s work visit: Compassionate animal management – how ‘the system’ can be designed to save pets

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.

I saw Mitch Schneider speak last year – he wasn’t a ‘rescuer’, but the upper management of animal control. He had realised that treating the community like the enemy and blocking rescue was leaving his pound full. He said “what kind of crap boss am I, if I’m forcing my staff to kill pets, be stressed out and traumatised – when there’s an alternative?”

This interview is awesome.
………………..

This week we hear from an animal control director known for his innovative, yet very common-sense business model for animal control, Mitch Schneider of Washoe County Regional Animal Services in Nevada. His approach serves both the public safety and the welfare of animal, which the traditional model of animal control treats as incompatible.

Schneider was initially skeptical that No Kill could work in Reno, but didn’t want the initiative to fail because of him—you can’t know it won’t work if you have never even tried it. He agreed to try and Reno, Nevada now has one of the highest rates of lifesaving of any community in the United States, saving all healthy and treatable shelter pets, which turns out to be literally 95% of them. His model represents a better future for animal control—one in which animals’ lives are saved, and animal control works collaboratively with the animal rescue community and the animal-loving public, rather than treating them as adversaries. As an added bonus, this results in a cost savings to the taxpayers, better relations with the public and an improved image for animal control, all the while remaining consistent with their public safety mandate.

He is a strong believer in collaboration, but also understands that collaboration isn’t always possible. That was one of the things he sought to change when he became manager of WCRAS. In the past, leadership at animal control refused to work fully and collaboratively with the Nevada Humane Society. Sadly, that is true in many communities around the country, as traditional animal control shelters simply refuse to collaborate with rescuers and animal advocates, throwing away opportunities to save lives.

He has said, “In some ways, I see part of my job as getting out of the way of people who want to save lives.”

Mitch Schneider will be giving a webinar entitled ‘Getting to No Kill as an Animal Control Shelter’ on January 28, 2011 and will also be presenting at the No Kill Conference in Washington, D.C., July 30-31, 2011.

Animal control in Washoe County, Nevada follows a very different business model from any other animal control unit in the country. How did it come to be so different from animal control across rest of the country and what key things set it apart?

My fundamental belief is that one should try to do the right things for the right reason. With that in mind it makes sense to work with all the stakeholders in the community to achieve the best for the community. It’s amazing what you can accomplish when everyone respects one another (even differences) and works together toward a common goal (keep your eye on the ball, so to speak).

Many animal services programs and animal rescue groups focus on the difference in their primary missions; animal services’ focus is public safety and animal rescue groups’ focus is saving animals. By doing so, they often fail to recognize the commonality in their missions and resist working with each other, either intentionally or due to conflicting policies and practices. As a result, some animal services programs may be overlooking a significant opportunity to reduce costs and increase community support.

Compounding the problem, many traditional animal services programs follow an approach that parallels parking enforcement. In some parking enforcement situations, a vehicle is towed and impounded and held until the costs of the towing and impound fees are collected. This makes sense when you have a vehicle that is worth a substantial sum of money. But it doesn’t work quite as well when you’re talking about an animal that, more often than not, has little or no monetary value. This approach to recovering costs of animal services often increases the need for more shelter space and increases the abandonment and death rates, which in turn increases the cost of the program. Additionally, this approach fails to recognize that most people consider pets to be a family member and therefore, the traditional business model does little to garner public support.

To reduce the likelihood of needing a larger shelter facility in the future, at a cost in the millions of dollars, WCRAS policy directs Animal Control Officers to make every reasonable effort to return animals to their owner instead of impounding the animal. In addition to checking the pet for identification (tags or microchips), officers will check lost reports and speak with area residents in an attempt to determine if anyone knows where the animal lives. Besides reducing shelter costs, this policy also reduces animal abandonment and enhances public support. A dog license is promoted as “Your Dog’s Ticket Home”; providing a true benefit for licensing increases voluntary compliance, further reducing shelter needs and the inherent potential for abandonment. In 2009, officers returned nearly 1,000 dogs directly to their owners without impounding them, reducing shelter space needs, stress to the dogs and their owners and reduced shelter staff and supply costs. Upon returning the animal to the owner all laws are enforced and warnings or citations issued as deemed appropriate.

Another traditional practice in animal services that increases abandonment is the policy of not allowing an owner to redeem their pet if they can’t pay all of the fees at the time of redemption. Continuing to hold the animal until all of the fees are collected simply increases the redemption fees for the pet owner and increases the need for greater sheltering space, reduces public support and increases abandonment and the [kill] rate and associated costs. To address this issue, Washoe County has established a billing system, which is only used with supervisor permission to ensure that this option is offered as a last resort; unpaid bills are turned over to collections.

Disclosure of statistics is an area that requires some mention. It’s not uncommon for agencies to be reluctant to publish their statistics. However, WCRAS feels that by publishing detailed statistical information citizens can see the problems that need to be addressed within the community; this type of transparency can also help in gaining the trust of the animal rescue groups.

Rest of the article

With the dawning of a new year, we have the chance to reflect on the ideas of the past and take a serious look at what has worked and what hasn’t. It makes sense that things that aren’t working get ditched – though this is often easier said than done. Some of our most unhelpful mantras are so pervasive, so ingrained, that we do not even recognise them as on the table for change. Here are my top shelter mantras that we should all chuck out in 2011.

“Banning pet shop sales is the only way to stop impulse purchases ending up in shelters and increase adoptions”

“As a society, we can no longer accept that thousands of animals in need of homes are being euthanased while profit-driven breeders continue to churn out puppies”

Pet shops are located in convenient places, where people go. Being visible the community attracts potential customers, while the animals are presented in clean, well lit and well ventilated enclosures, all at eye height to maximise impact.

They offer convenient opening hours, 7 days a week 9-5 and ‘late night trading’ nights where they stay open 7pm and later. These extended hours attract customers who work, who have families (and money to pay for lifetime care!) and who are looking for a pet.

But even if pet shops stopped selling pets tomorrow, we wouldn’t see a surge in adoption – with the hurdles of of the way locales of most pounds, the inconvenient opening hours, shelter environments that are loud and confrontational and the difficulties in getting pounds to work with their communities, rather than against them – it’s a wonder that any pets get adopted at all.

Banning pet shop sales isn’t going to lead to more adoptions – people looking for a pet will just move to other, convenient sources of pets; newspapers, the internet and BYB. The only thing that can increase adoptions and reduce the killing of pets in pounds and shelters is, is shelters acting more like pet shops. And whether or not this happens, is in no ones hands except the shelter management.

Rescue groups also have a part to play in attracting and retaining potential adopters;

“… brick and mortar shelters quickly adopt out the highly adoptable, small fluffy dogs. Small dogs languish in rescue organizations longer than shelters – mostly because of the restrictive adoption policies imposed by the rescues on the adopters. The rescue groups still don’t seem to understand how this perpetuates the cycle. Denying adoptions and/or overly restrictive adoption policies drives people to the very same pet stores that the rescuers abhor. Many dog rescuers are pet store protestors on the weekend. This doesn’t make sense to me.”
~ Wisconsin Watchdog ~

If a potential adopter is not suitable for a particular pet, spurning their ownership capabilities, or simply ignoring their application is not helpful. In fact its counter intuitive to our mission to get pets out of shelters and into homes. Have a list of high-volume local shelters on hand that you can return mail, so that these potential owners aren’t lost and can visit to find a suitable pet.

Finally, there are a lot of good, ethical reasons to ban pet shop sales. But their existence does not prevent No Kill. Nothing will change in pounds and shelters, unless we change the pounds and shelters. Right now in some organisations, if you send them 100 pets, they’ll kill 90 – if you send them just 10 – they’ll still kill 9… it’s not about numbers, but a belief that the best and most appropriate response is to kill.

There are changes that could and should be made TODAY that would make our community pounds a safe place for animals. And its about pound and shelters taking on responsibility and accountability for their performance.

“Christmas surrenders are unwanted presents”

“Every year, people leave the unwanted animals they have received as Christmas presents. An influx of abandoned or unwanted animals over the Christmas period has put a strain on the shelter.”

While shelters harp on about ‘unwanted presents’ every year, despite there being little evidence that gifts are at risk of abandonment, a much larger issue continues to be ignored.

Nearly every animal boarding facility in Perth is booked out.

While those in Canberra were booked out months ago.

Chief executive of RSPCA ACT Michael Linke said the shortage of short-term accommodation was causing major problems for the Canberra organisation.

”We’ve seen a tremendous increase in the number of animals being surrendered over the last few weeks,” Mr Linke said.

”This problem will probably go until mid to late January.”

………

”We definitely need more [suitable pet accommodation in Canberra] at this time of year,” Mr Linke said.

”It would stop people giving up animals.”

The same problem is national – running a pet hotel in the off-season can be unprofitable, and then suddenly during the holidays there is a rush of bookings. Simply saying “you should have booked earlier” does little to help owners who have Christmas commitments make other arrangements.

So there’s the problem – what’s our solution?

“Pets are ‘dumped’ shelters by irresponsible owners”

“A kitten abandoned for playing with decorations is among those pets dumped at shelters since Christmas. And the excuses are flowing in almost as quickly as the animals themselves, as frustrated shelter workers predict more animals will be dumped on their doorsteps by the end of January.”

‘Shelters’ should be a place of safety for pets; the giveaway is in the name, an animal shelter. In Australia we also call them ‘pounds’, but the premise is the same – a place where pets go, where they are cared for, while we work out what we should do with them next.

If a women’s shelter said “our shelter is full because of ‘irresponsible’ women”, there would be an uproar. “These women should have made provision to not end up at the shelter, they should have made different choices, they should have cared more”. These kinds of beliefs run counter intuitively to the shelter’s mission as a place of safety for victims.

It seems crazy to us now, but it wasn’t so long ago that women were blamed for domestic violence as ‘they brought in on themselves’. The approach of offering judgment instead of compassion, blaming clients for their situation, rather than working to empower them to find a better future is Victorian and desperately unhelpful. And yet, animal shelters – the place we beg people to take their pets if they can no longer care for it – offer condemnation, describe the reasons people give for surrendering as ‘excuses’ and work to alienate their public by painting everyone who uses their services as simply and arbitrarily ‘dumping’ their pets.

One of the key differences, however, between open-admission shelters that continue to kill animals in high numbers, and those that dramatically reduce shelter killing, is that the progressive shelters don’t waste time blaming anyone for anything; they find it isn’t productive, and it certainly doesn’t solve the problem.

Instead of looking for someone to blame or shame, they look for a way to help.

Instead of shaming a local resident who brings in kittens from her cat, progressive shelters convince them to bring in the mom so they can spay her for free. Instead of castigating the public for failing to spay or neuter their pets, progressive shelters offer free and low-cost spay neuters. Instead of punishing someone whose dog escaped from his or her backyard, progressive shelters knock on doors and talk to neighbors in order to return the animal to its owner without removing it from the neighborhood and subjecting it to illness and stress at a shelter. And instead of embarrassing someone who considered surrendering a pet to an animal shelter, progressive shelters offer solutions to common pet problems and seek out positive ways to help keep animals in homes.
~ Ryan Clinton ~

And if all efforts to keep the pet in the home have failed and the animal must be surrendered, then that owner must be acknowledged as doing exactly what we asked them to – bringing the pet to the shelter. Not letting just turning it loose or giving it away free in the newspaper. I’ve even heard shelters say that owners should be made take the vet to have the pet killed themselves to ‘teach them a lesson’ – how incredibly unhelpful to be of the belief that an unwanted pet should be immediately killed, rather than offered a second chance at an animal shelter.

“Dogs go into shelters because we’re breeding too many of them”

“It seems inconceivable that as a society we have come to accept the killing of thousands of healthy companion animals for whom no homes can be found—rather than demanding proactive solutions by government to stop the unrestricted breeding and selling of companion animals.”

If shelters were full of puppies and pet shops couldn’t sell a pup, then ‘there are too many puppies bred’ would have some credibility. But this isn’t the case. The dogs entering shelters go there for many reasons, just off the top of my head;

The owner can’t find pet friendly accommodation – the owner can no longer afford the pet – the owner can’t find a solution to issues like digging, escaping, barking or inappropriate toileting – the pet needs vet care the owner cannot afford – the owner has holiday commitments and cannot find a pet hotel – the owner doesn’t really like the pet – the owner got the wrong kind of pet for their lifestyle – the owner’s relationship has split – the owner has a new child – the owner has less time for the pet – the owner moves to a place where less pets are allowed – the owner loses their house/job/spouse – the owner gets sick and goes into hospital – the owner dies – the owner doesn’t realise the importance of pet desexing and has an unwanted litter/behavioural issues – the owner neglects to go to complete basic training/socialisation – the owner’s circumstances change and the pet is no longer wanted – the owner’s neighbours are making it hard to keep the pet – the owner had unrealistic expectations of living with the pet type they choose – the owner has lost interest in the pet – the owner tried to fix a behavioural problem with or without professional assistance and made the problem worse – the owner thought it would be more like in the movies – the owner took the pet from a friend/relative and it was the wrong match…

Notice I’ve framed all of these as ‘owner’ problems – which they all are – so as not to be seen as ‘letting owners off the hook’, but by realising that all of these are issues with different solutions, we can see how naive the idea of shelters being full because of ‘too many pets being bred’ really is.

Solutions include pre-purchase education on choosing the right pet, early intervention with good training options, after purchase support, taking in pets in crisis situations, recognising that 15 years is a long time and sometime things just come up and other times people make bad choices (just like in human relationships) and that the relationship between pet and owner is never going to work.

But the biggest reason pets enter shelters? Because they’re lost. Surrenders make up just 15% of dogs entering shelters, with 85% entering as strays. Proactive redemption strategies including; putting photos of impounded animals up on the internet, returning animals with identification directly to owners, and eliminating hurdles to collection like breed bans, high impound costs and fines and inconvenient opening hours, are vital to reducing shelter killing. Getting pets home is core – reducing surrenders is very much a secondary role.

“Cats go into shelters because we’re breeding too many of them”

“Only by eliminating the indiscriminate breeding of cats, can we stop the the annual destruction of tens of thousands of unwanted cats and kittens by animal welfare organisations.”

Contrary to popular belief, it is not a “cat breeding problem” causing high levels of killing in shelters – it is a cat shelter intake problem causing high levels of killing in shelters. Presently, the only option we have for unowned and undomesticated cats is death in a shelter. Until we’re willing to provide services which keep cats out of shelters we will always see high kill rates. Why? Because without these programs (TNR, semi-owned cat desexing and free-roaming cat programs) which give options other than death for these cats, we will not see a reduction in killing. With enormous numbers of undesexed, unowned cats breeding in the environment, the only solution to cats being killed in shelters, is finding other solutions for these animals.

“We should be trying to reduce the community’s need for animal shelters”

“If people were responsible, then perhaps we would need shelters less, and they would truly become safe havens.”

We cannot aim to ‘fix’ the community to the point where we will not need shelters. Nor should we aim to. What we can do is change the wider community’s regard for us and our animals. We can become a resource for pet owners needing assistance. We can change our policies to be proactive, rather than reactive. And we can follow the path of others who have found success by embracing their public.

If anything, pounds and shelters need to play a larger part in their communities. Shelters should be a place of refuge and help, providing a safety net for animals. Our mission, to serve our communities, and our community’s pets.

Yes, there will always be deadbeats and jerks, and yes, sometimes people could have done something sooner, or harder, or better. Who the hell cares? That’s just the reality of the world we live in. Our communities need to help people and animals as they ARE, not as we think they should be.
~ Christie Keith ~

Will 2011 be the year Australian pounds and shelters embrace their public…

… dropping unhelpful mantras and replacing them with progressive solutions?

I guess we’ll wait and see!

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

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

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