I received this email last week;

You could really help a dog we have in care at our shelter at Armidale in northern NSW in need of surgery before we can make her available to be adopted.

Neither the shelter nor our RSPCA branch, who are providing support, can afford the amount needed so we have launched a campaign to raise funds for this specific cause. All the details are here. Any help in publicising Millie’s plight will help her get her new home.

thanks
*************************************************
Phill Evans
New England Regional Companion Animals Shelter
http://armidaleanimalshelter.blogspot.com

New England Strategic Alliance of Councils – Balancing autonomy and cooperation to enhance services to our communities
Armidale Dumaresq Council www.armidale.nsw.gov.au
Guyra Shire Council www.guyra.nsw.gov.au
New England Weeds Authority

Millie is a 9 year old labrador who was abandoned by her owners. With the cataracts completely blinding her estimated to cost $5,500 to remove, she could have easily been deemed ‘unsavable’ and euthanased without fanfare. But the unreasonably compassionate staff of the New England Regional Companion Animals Shelter, took it upon themselves to ask the community for help, setting up a blog to promote Millie’s plight, called ‘Help Millie See’.

Launched the end of February, it featured a heart-melting video of Millie which showed exactly how her cataracts effected her quality of life. They used this blog to thank donors as they came forward. They publicised Millie in the local media. They kept the community updated on Millie’s progress and the progress of their fundraising.

Less than 15 days later, the group has raised more than the money needed – they’ve raised nearly $6,000 to Help Millie See… An extraordinary achievement brought about simply by asking the community for help.

A huge congratulations to Phill and his team.

Groups who spend their time criticising their community for their faults are missing awesome opportunities to tap into their compassion. Groups who spend their time ruminating on how the public is the ‘problem’ and advocating for laws to ‘teach them a lesson’ build barriers between themselves and their community, and ignore the reality which is, overwhelmingly, the public are good and kind and pet loving… and the solution to reaching ‘unreachable’ goals.

The shelters who will see success in the future are those that promote saving lives in the face of obstacles. Those groups who will thrive in the future, are those who believe in serving and involving their public and who refuse to be content with ‘blaming and killing’, instead taking the time to advocate to their communities on behalf of the pets. Those groups who will lead us into a future where shelters are a safety net for animals, are those who recognise the ‘good’ people in the community, make up 100 times over for any ‘bad’ people in the community and that engaging the good people should be the focus.

Powerful opportunities for social engagement come from transparency, trust and creativity. This is the new world of animal sheltering.

Everything is conspiring against you.

Your public is unappreciative; in fact many you deal with are genuine scumbags. Your community is demanding, telling you how to do your job.

The rescue groups in your area aren’t perfect and some are downright painful. People you’ve relied on in the past have let you down. Your volunteers are a lot of work; they get too involved, they make trouble.

The laws in your area make change impossible. Those in authority don’t care.

Your animals are different. Your community is different. Your location makes thing harder. You’re too rural. You’re too urban. Your problems are unique.

Your leadership lacks vision. Your boss is unsupportive. You could lose your job.

You’re under-resourced. You’re understaffed. You’re not sure you have the drive to make this happen. You’re feeling attacked. You’re burnt out. These critics should have to walk a mile in your shoes.

All these things are true.

Now what?

Every community who has ever made the change from killing, to not killing, had ‘insurmountable’ issues. Every shelter who has moved from killing, to not killing, has had people inside and out, telling them the changes were impossible. Every person who has ever driven the change from killing, to not killing, felt at times that they were on their own under impossible conditions.

Every. Single. One.

Working to succeed, despite the things that conspire against you is easily the hardest part of the process, because there might not be solutions. The community will never be perfect. Irresponsible people will always exist. Transport issues will always come up. Funding issues will always be a battle. Laws will always need changing. Poverty will always be a hurdle you face. Some pets will always need help.

Endless reasons to maintain the status quo. People telling you; you’re wrong, it can’t be done, not now, you’re not being realistic, you’re wasting your time. Wanting you to join their pity party about how you have it so impossibly tough.

Ignore them. You have to fight to make the changes anyway.

The animals are counting on you.

In the end none the only thing that can make change in your organisation and in your community is you. Whatever issues you face, you are no better or worse than those who have faced these challenges before you. And they have succeeded.

You are not alone. Join us.

Inspired by Copyblogger’s post today; Everything Will Conspire to Stop You …So What?

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So how did they do it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The future is looking bright for Australian pets.

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

When I write this blog, I know I’m talking to people who have taken one step beyond animal welfare clichés and are looking to find answers and resources which can help them make real and positive changes in their own communities. So skip over what we know to be the ‘basics’; I make the assumption I don’t have to tell you the mechanism of why mandatory desexing fails, just provide ongoing news and case studies. I don’t have to tell you why killing cats in an effort to ‘eradicate’ them is futile, just keep you abreast of the changes taking place here and overseas. And I don’t need to tell you what kinds of unhelpful mantras still exist in our industry, because I know you, like me, are dealing with them each and every day.

I know these things about you and it helps us both get the maximum out of our interaction.

But its not always conducive to speaking to the ‘rest of the world’ about our mission. Some of the comments I don’t approve are people at a different place on their animal welfare journey, who are still ‘regurgitating’ rather than thinking (“all the pets given as xmas gifts who end up in rescue, it’s just terrible…”) while others are too far committed to their current emotional state, to be able to open their minds to new information (“rescue are simply doing the irresponsible public’s dirty work”). I encourage these people to go and search and find – but they’re not my audience, so I don’t feel obligated to work for them.

“The moment you speak to the world, you speak to no one. Because, when you try to make EVERYONE happy, you give up your focus…”
~ Jonathan Fields

In my other job I write for people who’ve never had anything to do with rescue. Ever. And the difference is like chalk and cheese. Pet-lovers are a serious asset to our movement; engaging them and giving them good information is the first step to bringing them into our folds to help us with our work. But the message has to be different because they are starting from a different knowledge base. They have less interest in the detail or the science, but more in the ‘community’. They also regurgitate unhelpful industry mantra’s, but they are doing it because they want to fit in – they want to help – they want to be like us.

So what does any of this have to do with you?

Do you know who you’re talking to?

I see groups who’ve got absolutely no idea who their target audience is. Are they talking to other rescuers? Or the public? Are they looking to make friends, or confront people? Are they bringing a message of joy and hope, or do they want to play martyr; sharing their own misery around looking for company?

I’ve seen groups start Facebook pages, then fill them with protests for bullfighting in El Espinar, petitions against animal testing in Cardiff and Craigslist adverts from Sapporo. Like a relative who’s gotten their first internet connection, they send through every bit of animal related spam, rumour and Change invitation, filling up your news thread with gore and horror. Are these issues important? Of course they are. But the question groups don’t ask is; is this important to our own mission and audience?

Who are your peeps?

Understanding who your supporters are needs to be at the core of every piece of information you put out to your public. There are lots of reasons people will connect to you; don’t break those relationships down by ignoring those reasons.

Reasons people connect to animal welfare groups;

Because they love pets
They love their own pets and want to make a difference to the lives of other, less fortunate ones. But they want to make the world a better place, not have it confirmed that their efforts are futile in the big, bad world. For this reason, your positive messages need to be of a ratio of at least 3/1 for your negative messages. If the only time they hear from you, is so you can give them bad news, they’ll be tuning you out in droves.

Because they want to be supported in their beliefs about pet care
They believe every pet deserves a loving, caring home. They are nearly always ‘responsible’ pet owners. Putting out messages that criticise people who don’t care for their pets properly can be a way for people to reaffirm they are part of the ‘Good Owner Club’ with you. But remember, these pieces have to be designed to bring you and your public together, united in good behaviour. Chastising your public thinking it’s ’sending a message’ ignores the fact that those on your mailing list aren’t the ‘bad guys’.

Because they’re a donor and they want to see what you do
It’s never been easier for the ‘little guy’ to have a one-on-one relationship with donors. But along with the benefits of this new level of ‘connection’ to our supporters, comes obligation. Whereas in the past people were happy to donate a couple of times a year to whichever major animal charity got to them first, people are wanting to know more about groups and their work than ever before.

There used to be ‘broadcasts to supporters’ – now there’s a constant feedback loop. They want to ‘own’ their community organisations. They want weekly or even daily insight into operations. They want to be able to show off their ‘membership’ to particular organisations to their friends. Harness that need to connect, and it’s incredibly powerful.

Because they need help
Your public consider you an expert in your field. When they think this field is animal rescue, veterinary care, behavioural training or fixing-every-pet-issue-that’s-ever-been, is where groups can feel exhausted and used. While you shouldn’t feel like you have to fix every single pet problem (its often better not to, simply to avoid litigation if you’re practicing outside your field), you do have to have some answers. These can often be relationships with other resources in the community. Would your local dog trainer give one free lesson in return for every referral? Do you know where your local dog training schools are? Is there a specialised cat-vet in your area, or someone with a passion for felines?

While its not necessarily in our ‘job descriptions’ to be a central point for pet care resources, not only does it keep pets in their homes, but can earn you fans in the long run.

Because they want to adopt
By far your biggest and most supportive advocates will be people who have, or want to adopt from you. Before you send your messages out, ask yourself; would this speak in a positive way about us to a potential adopter? If the answer is “not really, I just found it personally interesting/compelling/outrageous” then reconsider sending it at all.

Previous adopters make excellent targets for fundraising campaigns, Facebook advocacy and generating new adoptee leads. Could you invite every one of your previous adopters to ‘recruit a friend’? Foster? Buy a ‘I adopted from’ mug? Anything that makes them feel that they are playing a part in the success of your organisation.

Know who you’re talking to

Have a clear purpose to speak to your supporters in ways that compels and engages them. You know your supporters better than anyone else, so its a huge, missed opportunity every time a group forgets who they’re talking to.

Busy leading up to xmas? Of course you are!

Do you;
a) bitch about how irresponsible your community is in the local media?
or
b) do something fun to show just what a hoot you and your staff are, and how your shelter is an awesome place for pet-seekers to visit?

The RSPCA ACT chose (b)

Not only does an event like this boost staff moral, you can gain loads of stuff for your social media pages, hit the media with your ‘fun/happy’ story and then invite people to act as ambassadors after they’ve adopted.

If you’re in the ACT, be sure to go along and show your support for a group that it going out of its way to save lives this xmas.

When you’re a No Kill advocate, you are faced with a standard patter of protests for why it can’t work in whichever particular instance you’re in;

- There are too many pets and not enough homes: all the while puppy farms exist/ breeders breed/ irresponsible people don’t care/ the government doesn’t do something…

- No one wants to adopt: cats/ staffies/ big dogs/ old dogs/ a dog that needs training/ working breeds…

- Our community is different: it’s rural/ it’s low income/ it’s full of bogans/ it’s full of full time workers who don’t understand what it takes to care for a pet/ they buy their pets from pet stores/ they don’t desex/ they just don’t seem to care…

- Our pets are different: they’re stray cats/ they’re unsocialised dogs/ they’re not what people in our area want/ they’re not easy to move…

- We’re different: we’re really small/ we’re really large/ no one knows about us so no one comes/ everyone knows about us so they give us their pets…

- We can’t do better: because we don’t have the resources/ we take in too many pets/ we work under restrictive legislation/ we are no worse than anywhere else…

Of course every shelter, everywhere has these same challenges. Some kill, some find ways not to. The difference is how they choose to approach their work and their communities. It doesn’t matter where the shelter is located or what resources they have available to them, the biggest hurdle any organisation has to setting themselves on a No Kill path, is overcoming the belief that their situation is so different and uniquely terrible and their community so irresponsible and unsupportable that any change in approach would be futile.

However, the sad reality is that an organisation cluttered and hamstrung by a culture of ‘there is nothing we can do, we are simply the victims here’ is deadly to pets.

It’s why you see groups lobby hard for new laws ‘if only we had XXX law, then we’d see an improvement here at the shelter’ only to get that law, and see things remain exactly the same as before. Because the real change, the most significant change, has to come from within the organisation. You can’t influence and lead your community to No Kill goals, if you, in your heart believe they are your biggest problem.

So how do you redesign your own organisations to effectively harness the compassion that seems so available to successful shelters? You have to choose to believe in abundance:

More people want to help us than we believe.
….

We have to think not just in terms of what we can do, as individuals, within our organization, but we have to believe that the necessary skills are out there — we just need to find them.
…

Believing about abundance is very much believing in the possible and in setting up organizations that are geared for it. It doesn’t mean that work is easy — the problems are still hard problems. But it does mean belief that real help is available from outside the organizational walls.
…

So, if we are building organizations on the abundance of goodwill, energy and eager hands — and if we are thinking of ourselves, organizationally, as platforms for change rather than agents for change. If we thinking that way, what are the organizational structures that we have to build?

Go. Read. This. Blog.

No Kill is cemented in the belief of abundance. Of not only,

• if we build it – they will come,


but


• if we communicate it – they will listen,




• if we ask for it – they will help us,




• if we want it – so will they.

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

You’re not building a ‘No Kill shelter’, but a No Kill community, which has free access to your organisation, an understanding of your achievements and failures, and an open invitation to not only contribute and support, but to involve themselves as much, or as little as they would like.

All the while we believe the public ‘are the problem’, we sit as gatekeepers behind self-created walls, gnashing about how no one cares and no one supports our work.

The drive of the No Kill movement has created an exciting new future for rescue. We’ve seen we don’t have to be angry to be effective – in fact those groups who have moved towards embracing their public are kicking huge goals. We don’t have to make it our job to punish people – we can accept that some people are simply shitheads and move swiftly on to finding hundreds of people who are compassionate, like us, to help us with our work. We don’t have to show people the horrors of rescue – we can instead celebrate the positives, the happy endings and the beauty of second chances.

Deciding to have and maintain a positive outlook isn’t simply being naive, but choosing to believe in abundance and becoming more effective for doing so.

Our most important work now, is to take advantage of the opportunities a belief in abundance offers and design and build the kinds of organisations for the future that will both embrace and lead the revolution. What will our shelters look like, when they are a reflection of the progressive values of the pet-loving community?



Big problems; community solutions…


WHAT’S MINE IS YOURS from rachel botsman on Vimeo.

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
~Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

Animal welfare groups often talk about using ‘incentives’ to change owner behaviour and improve the situation for pets. And used correctly, incentives do have a powerful effect on human behaviour. But often we mix up and misunderstand the difference between what we think we’re offering – an incentive to ‘good’ behaviour – and what we’re actually offering – a disincentive to ‘bad’ behaviour. This mistake in our approach, can have disastrous results.

If you encourage or reward something (incentive), you get more of it. If you discourage or punish something (disincentive), you get less of it. Simple.

But its it’s actually not really that simple. Whether dog training, kid wrangling or sorting out the mother-in-law, incentives and disincentives work differently.

How?

Incentives (rewards) can be small if the behaviour you want is easy, palatable and your ‘target’ motivated to please you/comply. Incentives have to be large if the behaviour you want is hard, inconvenient or your target doesn’t really care to do what you want them to do.

If you use disincentives (punishment) against your ‘target’ when they are motivated to comply, you can actually reduce compliance as they rebel against you. When you use disincentives against unmotivated targets, the punishment has to be so large and so unpleasant so as to make not complying, less pleasant than complying.

Disincentives are generally less effective, since they involve ‘enforcement’ (ongoing punishment) which is labour and energy intensive. There is also the potential for the situation to get worse if your target becomes resentful to your punishment and you can need stronger and stronger punishment to get the same level of compliance in future.

For example; You need your teenager to clean his bedroom. If he’s a tidy kid, a small reward (like a please and thank you) may be enough. If he’s unmotivated, a larger reward (like the promise of being able to do something fun later) would be needed to get him off the couch. To punish a compliant teenager makes no sense whatsoever and may very well lead to resentment and less room cleaning in future. While a punishment for an unmotivated teenager, would conceivably need to be so enormous and well crafted, that the effort expended might actually be more than that needed to clean the room in the first place. The cost is more than the result!

Improving owner behaviour

In the animal welfare field, things get even more murky.

Let’s look at Mandatory Desexing. It is often billed as an ‘incentive for people to get their pets sterilised’; it’s not. What it actually is, is a disincentive to people having an undesexed pet.

A true ‘incentive for people to get their pets desexed’ would be something positive to inspire people to comply. Free or discount desexing would be an incentive for people who wouldn’t normally get their pet desexed. A discount on pet registration, would be an incentive for people who already get their pets desexed, when they register it. Rewards for responsible pet owners in the community like a raffle for movie tickets or some other kind of recognition can be used to motivate. Using incentives can bring about changes in behaviour, or reinforce existing behaviour.

The problem with using disincentives to achieve the same outcomes is thus; motivated individuals don’t need punishing, they need help with overcoming obstacles to compliance, while unmotivated individuals need such a large punishment, that its hard to think of one that would do the job.

What could you conceivably do to an owner who doesn’t comply with your mandatory desexing directive?

Take their pet away? Will they care? Do you really need more impounds?
Fine them? Can they just deny that the animal is theirs? Will it just lead to the pet being impounded?
Berate them? Shame them? Do they care what you think?

This is where these kinds of initiatives fail and why mandatory desexing is often billed as ‘unenforceable’. You cannot reasonably make the punishment so large and so unpleasant so as to make not doing, less pleasant than doing.

Another example is Nillumbik Council’s decision to refuse to register undesexed cats. This is deemed as ‘an incentive for owners to desex their cats’ – but there is absolutely no incentive (reward) offered! What it actually is, is a ‘disincentive for owners of undesexed cats to register them’. Surely, the intention should be to get more cats registered, and more cats desexed. More compliance with responsible pet ownership behaviour, not less.

Mostly carrots; sometimes sticks

Using disincentives definitely has a place in animal welfare law. In the case of serious breaches of welfare or abuse, then laws should be in place to make disincentives (punishments) large for transgressors. A large enough disincentive can act as a warning to others.

But in the case of small or incremental improvements in owner behaviour, disincentives are ineffective, simply because the resources available for enforcement is generally small, the disincentives (punishments) are minor and those most negatively effected are motivated, but non-compliant owners (those people who would comply if someone would help them to). Meanwhile, seriously non-motivated pet owners (the truly ‘irresponsible’) are very unlikely to care what law you dream up.

Take the time to think hard about the laws you advocate for; are you really advocating for is an ‘incentive to pet owner behaviour improvements’, or are you really trying to push through an impotent ‘disincentive, punishment-based mandate’, which will drive a wedge between you and your community, and likely fail to achieve its aims.

Knowing can make the world of difference.

The San Francisco SPCA have begun featuring adoptable dogs and cats at Macy’s in San Francisco’s Union Square as part of the 24th annual Macy’s Holiday Windows, which will run through to the new year.

The pet display has been a winter staple since 1987. During that time, more than 2,000 animals have been adopted and $250,000 has been raised to support the SF SPCA’s hospital, shelter and community initiatives. This year, the goal is to find homes for 320 animals. Almost 300 were adopted last year as part of the event.

The environment is temperature controlled and has comfortable spots for catnaps, according to SF SPCA. They even have a live webcam feed .

Some pictures from this and previous years;

Image: http://sfcitizen.com/blog

Image: http://sfcitizen.com/blog

Image: www.newyorksocialdiary.com

Image: www.newyorksocialdiary.com

Image: www.newyorksocialdiary.com

Image: www.newyorksocialdiary.com

Image: www.newyorksocialdiary.com

Image: www.ptank.com/blog

Image: www.sfgate.com

Image: www.sfgate.com

Image: www.sfspca.org

Image: www.sfspca.org

Image: www.sfspca.org

Image: www.sfspca.org

Image: www.sfspca.org

Image: www.sfspca.org