How do you enforce cat laws? You can’t ask a cat if it is desexed, so do you check the ear of the cat for a tattoo? Check the undercarriage for harblz?

Well, often you won’t be able to catch said cat, so you’ll just have to start heavying people you suspect may be the cat’s owners;

“The State Government’s cat registration laws will turn council workers into “feline fascists” by giving them more powers than police to collect evidence from suspects…

The legislation includes a clause that empowers council workers, once lawfully in a home, to “examine, seize, copy or take extracts from any documents relevant to an offence” or “take photographs, films and audio, video or other recordings”.

It also allows the worker to direct a person to answer questions and take “any other reasonable action” necessary to collect evidence.”

Do councils get these extraordinary powers based on enormous success with these laws in other states? Notsomuch…

Does anyone else see a trend towards extraordinary powers for use against pet owners?

See also: Cat laws are unenforceable
WA cat ‘advocates’ support programs to increase killing

In WA there is a single main resource for caring for stray cats; The Cat Haven. The RSPCA offers only limited owner surrenders and few councils have powers to impound cats or facilities to do so. Currently if residents want help with cats on their property, the council’s only advice is to offer them a cat trap so they can trap the cat and take it to the vet or the Cat Haven.

Despite the lack of infrastructure supporting the ‘catch and kill’ model, the Cat Haven is said to kill up to 4,000 unwanted cats and kittens each year. A new Bill introduced in July is set to expand council powers and has cat ‘advocates’ excited about its potential;

“If it all goes well, initially we might see a leap in euthanasia, in the first 12 months when people refuse to get their cats sterilised.”
Roz Robinson – Cat Haven

Including compulsory desexing, registration, microchipping, and the requirement for cats to wear tags, the legislation is set to be some of the strongest in the country and obviously follows in the successful footsteps of other legislation of its kind…

Well, actually not so much;

“There have been a number of studies done, one in Mt Isa, in Queensland, another in the ACT and in the US. They show that animals have been dumped and then when the legislation is brought in, that number has increased. The follow on is that there will be more feral animals.”
Alison Driver from the Cat Owners Association of WA

The RSPCA is supporting the new laws, adding that only by making them even more draconian can the full effect of the bulk council cat cull be realised;

The RSPCA’s Tim Mayne also advocates for keeping cats inside the walls of the home and recommended that this should be part of the new Cat Bill.

So what are the council’s attitude to cats?

Belmont chief executive Stuart Cole said the City did not have a policy for capturing stray cats, nor the responsibility or resources to do so.
…
“However the City recommends the use of an approved pest control company to resolve these issues.”

Town of Victoria Park chief executive Arthur Kryon said the Town had no powers to capture or impound cats.

“It is hoped that this will change when the State Government passes the new cat laws,” he said.

Cat groups want councils to have expanded powers to impound and kill cats. Councils want expanded powers to impounded kill cats. Seems no one is advocating for anything other than killing cats in WA.

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

Cats out of control in poor suburbs of WA

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

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

However, in 2011 something has changed forever.

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

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

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

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

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

Is it possible?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The No Kill Revolution Starts with YOU

The No Kill movement gains momentum in Oz.

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

Activists to pound for a change at Blacktown

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

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

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

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

Rockhampton’s slaughterhouse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parkes Shire Council unashamedly killing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pressure on Blacktown pound turn the wheels of change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t stop fighting

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

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

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

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

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

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

And we will prevail here in Australia too.

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

See also: How to save 110 pets in three days

Knox Victoria

Knox Council Victoria loves to blame its community for its cat ‘issues’, and under the guidance of cat ‘welfare’ groups in the state, they get to continue this with enthusiasm. A recent media piece focuses on the costs associated with collecting impounded cats and whether that has any bearing on ‘the naughty, uncaring public’ picking up their cats:

Knox Council has admitted a costly release fee could be the reason behind a high number of cats being left on death row at the city’s pound.

Council figures for 2009-10 showed 87 per cent of cats picked up by council officers were left unclaimed at the RSPCA-run pound.

The RSPCA charges an $80 release fee for cats collected from the pound in the first two days after being impounded.

After that, the fee skyrockets. If a cat spends eight or more days at the pound, an owner must pay $152 to get the animal back.

If the cat is not claimed, it is euthanased. Only a limited number are found a new home.

Now no doubt $152 is a hurdle to cats being collected by owners. But 13% isn’t actually that low when it comes to cat reclaims. This is because a Victorian study of 26,000 cat intakes showed 80% of cats have never had owners, so have no hope of ever being collected.

In 2009, this fact was pretty much accepted when the council launched their Domestic Animal Management Plan, with council making traps available to residents to trap wandering feral and wild cats;

A majority of the 370-plus cats trapped each year are semi-owned or unowned. Only 14 per cent of those trapped in 2008 were released to an owner.

More than 94.14% of registered cats in Knox are already desexed, and it would be fair to assume the majority of those would be microchipped – so if the cats in the pound are unmicrochipped and undesexed, council should know they’re most likely ownerless strays.

So something has changed at Knox for them to start declaring ‘cost’ and lack of owner redemptions, as the reasons for high rates of killing. Are they simply priming their community for their upcoming compulsory desexing launch in April? Or is something more afoot?

Mr McKail said council would look at alternative options when the contract for the pound ran out in the next 12 months.

He admitted a change in management was likely to be the only way the fees would be lowered, but did not commit to altering the RSPCA model.

“That will involve a bidding process, which will be a chance for them to reduce the rates,” he said.

The council uses the RSPCA Animal Rescue Centre in East Burwood to house stray pets.

I predict there’s a shakeup happening behind the scenes and we’re about to see the Knox RSPCA tender move to the LDH. You heard it here first!

———————————————————————-

Wyndham Victoria

I’ve written about the refreshing honesty coming from Wyndham Council previously, where council’s dawn to dusk curfew (that its had since 2006) had done little to reduce the 1200 cats impounded (781 killed) each year. The reason the honesty is refreshing, is that they’re not hiding ‘killing’ under euphemisms like “encouraging responsible pet ownership”, or “improving cat welfare” , but simply calling a spade a spade, giving traps to the public and expanding killing;

Stray cats are rife in Wyndham, the city’s deputy mayor says.

Cr Bob Fairclough said just 55 of 1100 cats impounded in 2009-10 were registered, indicating “a very large feral cat problem in our municipality”.

Alarmingly, 935 of the impounded cats were put down.

The council last week approved plans to manage the city’s cats and dogs over the next four years.

Plans to reduce stray cats include temporarily reducing the bond residents pay to hire traps to catch strays on their property and offering residents who take ownership of a stray cat a discount on having it desexed.

Cr Fairclough welcomed the plans.

He said stray cats spread diseases such as feline Aids and ringworm to domestic cats.

Cr Heather Marcus said two strays she took in last October had ringworm.

“I have ended up with ringworm in my household and it has taken me three months of very hard work to clear the animals of this dreaded fungus,” she said.

“This is one of our biggest issues and certainly is one of the biggest concerns for this council.”

Much better that community cats are all dead, than have ringworm. Got it.

See… honesty.

While Wyndham has kept their killing high by giving traps to the public, they’ve had little success in actually enforcing their cat laws and are understandably leery of committing to more;

The city’s cat control order, or curfew, expired in 2010 after 10 years, without a single fine being issued.
….
Cat owners will not be forced to desex their cats under the plan.

The council has said this was not needed because 95 per cent of Wyndham’s 5415 registered cats were already desexed.

Stay tuned for more killing in Wyndham, as they continue to do what they’ve been doing, verbatim.

———————————————————————-

Whitehorse Victoria

Mirroring Wyndham’s ’success’ in their cat curfew not being enforced against a single cat owner in 10 years, Whitehorse is also leaving their cat management up to community vigilantes;

No night cats have been nabbed during the first five months of Whitehorse Council’s controversial curfew.

The council has not issued any fines or warnings since the cat curfew came into effect last October. The new laws required cats to be locked in their homes from 8pm to 6am.

The council has employed a full-time staff member to administer the program and spent $9000 on 30 cat traps.

Much easier to outsource cat management to people who hate cats, than get those annoyingly expensive and qualified, not to mention humane council officers out of bed after hours… I mean come on people!

Cat owners are obviously nervous

Burwood East cat owner Ursula Kolecki said a blanket curfew across the entire city failed to serve the needs of the wider community.

“It’s a system that is not enforceable and there are cat owners who are anxious about there being cat nappers out there,” she said.

But cat ‘welfare’ groups are decidedly upbeat;

RSPCA animal shelters manager Allie Jalbert said the curfew promoted responsible pet ownership and positive cat welfare. “Cats are less likely to be injured, spread disease, kill wildlife, fight with other cats or breed indiscriminately if they are kept indoors at night,” she said.

Not to mention less likely to fall into the hands of crackpots with council provided, welfare group approved cat traps and grievous intent.

The cats really seem to be the losers here.

———————————————————————-

Western Australia

Does this sound like a quote from a) a moderate, science-based animal advocate, or b) a burnt out misanthrope?

He said 90 per cent of cat owners were responsible, but he had heard “the whole gamut of excuses” from the other 10 per cent.

“Mainly they want their children to see ‘the miracle of birth’, or (say) they can’t afford (sterilisation).

“I suggest they go and watch some of the thousands of healthy but unwanted kittens that are euthanased every year and experience the ‘tragedy of death’ instead.

“Anyone who allows their cat to breed adds to the genocide.”

If you guessed neither a) nor b)… but c) a politician who’s been spending too much time with burnt out misanthropes, you’d be right!

Jandakot MLA Joe Francis said cat laws were in the final stages of drafting, and would focus on de-sexing and micro-chipping, with exemptions only for licensed breeders. “I expect a State cat act will be introduced in the near future,” he said.

Can you imagine any other instance where a politician would say;

“Mainly the small section of the public who doesn’t comply say they can’t afford to comply… so we as a government felt rather than work to help them, we thought it important to ignore their plight and bring in a universal law, in an effort to punish them.”

Yeah, no.

We know where the cats are coming from in WA. Poor suburbs. Of the 7773 cats brought to the Cat Haven, (3137 of which were adopted) in 2010, the biggest sources were Cannington, Willagee and Balga.

So what do you call a law that is used to target these vulnerable and disadvantaged people? One that effects those people living in poorer suburbs exponentially more, because they are overrepresented as to be breaking the law?

Discrimination.

———————————————————————-

Ipswich, Queensland

Showing that enforcement and coercion is a really hard and expensive way to move the community forward, Ipswich council has a low uptake for cat registration;

Figures show only about 15percent of felines in the region have been registered despite the State Government introducing mandatory registration in 2009.

Nearly two years after the scheme began, Health and Regulation Committee chairman councillor Andrew Antoniolli (pictured) admitted only 5011 of the estimated 32,000 cats in the council area have been registered.

“The population of Ipswich reached 165,000 last year and it was estimated the combined dog and cat population of the city was around 58,085 or just over one-third of the human rate,’’ he said.

“The current registration of cats is 15.7 percent of the estimated cat population in Ipswich.’‘“The community is reminded that our animal management officers are in the field on a daily basis and may issue infringement notices on people who have unregistered cats, just the same as those who have unregistered dogs.’‘

Cats laws are tricky to enforce; even if you have the budget to go door to door, how do you prove that a cat belongs to a household? Maybe you can scan it for a microchip… if you can catch it. But are the microchipped cats even your problem? Assuming registration is to “reunite cat and owner to reduce kill rates” and not simply revenue raising or a chance to beat up on cat owners, microchipped cats are the least of your worries… it’s the unowned and unchipped cats that are the issue.

Soooo… what is a council to do? Stop with the threats. Stop with the mandatory laws. Stop with the idea that you can heavy the cat owning community into compliance. And simply offer your community a service they believe in.

———————————————————————-

Final thought – has anyone else noticed there is an awful lot of cat killing going on in the name of ‘cat welfare’?

Dear Sir / Madam,

I need help or some advice? I work in the Coburg area and behind my work is a family of cats (dad, mum & one kitten left) living in the lane way behind a number of shops. Some of the shop owners have built a shelter (which is quite good) The mother cat is expecting again any day. I have been feeding the cats every now and then as they are also fed by a local shop keeper (given fresh meat and chicken). They don’t really belong to anyone. I am willing to pay for the female cat to be spayed once she has her new batch of kittens but I don’t know what to do with the kittens once they arrive. Previously some of the shop owners have taken the odd one or two. I have contacted the cat protection society and another similar organisation who inform me that they would just put them all down. I would appreciate any advice you may have. As I stated I am willing to pay for the female to be spayed – do you know of a vet that would do this for an alley cat? Thanks and any advice appreciated.

What you have – a compassionate person looking for help, willing to act as a cat caregiver.

What Victoria cat ‘welfare’ groups have offered her – to kill the cats.

This isn’t even close to good enough. This is the kind of person you should be grabbing and engaging and using to better the lives of cats in your state; not fobbing off by telling them you’ll kill the kittens she’s willing to help you to save.

If your state’s laws aren’t what you need, then every Victorian animal group who is killing because of this outdated legislation, should be on the streets protesting until the laws are changed. You, as the spokespeople for cats, need to be demanding that these cats are offered protection and that you are granted permission to care for these animals.

If your shelters are full in 2011, just as they were in 1970, then guess what… you’re doing it wrong. If the best you can offer a compassionate community member looking for help, is to offer to kill some cats, then guess what… you’re doing it wrong. If you’re killing kittens, when other communities have all but dried up their kitten supply through outreach desexing and community cat care, then guess what… you’re doing it wrong.

The cats of Victoria need groups who do more than claim to care, and take millions of dollars from the community in the name of ‘cat welfare’, bu then in reality do little more than act as garbage disposal for local councils, taking on trapping contracts and killing thousands of cats annually.

The cats of Victoria need groups who genuinely champion those policies that protect cats.

The cats of Victoria need a hero.

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.

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

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

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

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

Banyule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bass Coast

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brimbank

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

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

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

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

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

“It’s terribly sad.”

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

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

Campaspe

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

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

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

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

Cardinia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frankston

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greater Dandenong

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

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

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

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

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

Greater Geelong

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greater Shepparton

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

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

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

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

Kingston

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knox

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

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

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

Latrobe

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

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

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

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

Melton

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

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

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

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

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

Moorabool

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

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

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

Mornington Peninsula

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

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

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

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

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

Pyrenees

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strathbogie

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

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

Wodonga

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

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

Yarra (City)

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

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

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

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

Yarra Ranges

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

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

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

Yarriambiack

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

Conclusion: Nil info available

What does it all mean?

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

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

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

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!