Going from strength to strength and proving the power of No Kill.


The AWL’s New Website

The Animal Welfare League exists to:

• Find safe and happy homes with responsible guardians for as many abandoned cats and dogs as possible
• Achieve zero euthanasia of all healthy & treatable cats and dogs
• Prevent the birth of unwanted kittens and puppies
• Improve humans’ attitudes toward all animals through education
• Improve the living conditions and treatment of animals in shelters and pounds
• Find a positive solution for unowned cats
• Raise the value of animals in society so that the intrinsic needs of each species are recognized, respected and met

We Believe:

• Each and every life is valuable
• Zero euthanasia of healthy and treatable companion animals is achievable
• Cruelty is unacceptable
• All animals deserve kind treatment
• Every cat and dog born has a right to live happily in a loving, responsible home

If they can do it, why are we still supporting those who chose not to?

Victoria’s animal welfare organisations top the states in hard-line campaigning for increasingly powerful animal welfare legislation, under the guise of keeping pets safe from ‘irresponsible owners’. So when asked why they are killing tens of thousands of pets annually, they always have plenty of reasons on hand to blame ‘an irresponsible public’.


In 2001, the reason for the killing was ‘irresponsible owners’ dumping their untrained pets;

Victorians are among the world’s worst pet dumpers with almost 30,000 animals being put down each year. And a hard core of ’serial dumpers’ is throwing its animals on the streets year after year, according to animal welfare campaigner Dr Graeme Smith.

More than 22,000 cats and 7000 dogs are destroyed at Melbourne’s three biggest animal shelters every year and about 750,000 pets were dumped in Victoria in the last 10 years.

Dr Smith, managing director of the Lost Dogs’ Home and Cat Shelter in North Melbourne, said it was sickening that some people treated their animals like disposable toys that they could turn on and off. He said winter was the worst time for the dumping of dogs when people who had bought on impulse grew tired of their untrained, adolescent pet bringing mud into the house or becoming too boisterous.
Pet dumping our shame – The Sunday Herald, 17 June 2001

In 2002, the reason for the killing was ‘irresponsible owners’ not registering their pets;

The Lost Dogs’ Home is now doorknocking all homes in select streets in the municipalities of Melbourne, Hobsons Bay and Greater Bendigo. Frankston and Darebin residents face blitzes next month.

Mr Shelton said owners were putting the lives of their pets in jeopardy for the sake of fees of only $22 for most dogs and $14 for most cats.

About 70 per cent of stray animals taken to the council pound are not reclaimed and four in five are destroyed, he said.
Councils collar pet problems – The Herald Sun, 14 June 2002

By 2006, the reason for the killing was ‘irresponsible owners’ not desexing their pets;

The pressure is on Victorian councils to impose mandatory desexing of dogs and cats to reduce the tens of thousands being destroyed each year. The state’s biggest animal welfare organisations The Lost Dogs Home and RSPCA killed almost 9000 unwanted dogs and 19,000 cats last financial year. This is equivalent to 75 a day. The organisations are lobbying councils to introduce new powers forcing pet owners to desex their dogs and cats.
Make desexing a must – Melton Moorabool Leader, 30 May 2006

And in 2008, it’s the failing economy and rental crisis that’s got ‘irresponsible owners’ surrendering their animals.

RSPCA shelters across Victoria received 17,870 cats in the past financial year. Two-thirds had to be put down. The number of cats euthanised at the Burwood East shelter alone increased by more than 80 per cent.

“The current situation is appalling, unethical and unacceptable and the community needs to come to the party and help solve this problem,” Ms Mercurio said.

Economic hard times and stiff competition for rental properties had led to more pets being dumped, Ms Mercurio said.
Cats crisis ’sickening’ – The Age, September 26, 2008

So to force people be ‘responsible pet owners’ these groups lobby the government for laws which make people register and microchip. They push for laws to make owners desex. And to save lives when so many pets are flooding shelters, you’d think they’d also be doing everything they could to help people become reunited with their animals.

But you’d be wrong.

According to the Lost Dogs Home news report on Channel 10, thanks to all these lovely new laws, it’s now council fees that are keeping owners from collecting their pets;


[youtube=http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=jtkdwuf5d18]

Reporter: There’s currently 39 dogs looking for a new home – more than 10 times the average. Staff are blaming pressure on family budgets for the increase, for some it’s just too expensive to collect their precious pooch.

Sue Conroy: If the dog’s going to cost them fines for being out with the council, or microchipping fees and desexing fees, then maybe they’ll opt not to take the dog back home again.

So while rescue groups have been blaming an ‘irresponsible public’ for high impound and low reclaim rates, at the same time they have been killing pets who have homes and families.


In an effort to ‘punish irresponsible owners’ shelters are killing pets whose owners have made an error, had their pet escape and been collected by one of these ‘refuges’ and who now can’t afford to pay the very same fines championed by rescue groups as a way to reduce the killing.

Super backfire!

How can groups kill pets who have families, yet still purport they exist to save lives? How can they claim to be leading the way on animal care and compassion, taking donations from a pet-loving public to shelter and protect animals, while they busy themselves killing the pets of disadvantaged and struggling families?


But undeterred these groups continue, ignoring the contradiction and championing even more draconian laws, greater penalties and putting even more pets in danger of being seized and killed should their owners be in violation or unable to pay. And as people don’t get their new pet from those people who killed their old pet (or their neighbour’s, or their friend’s pet) they cement the divide between themselves and the public and move even further away from being the number 1 source of pets for adopters.

Legislation is often thought of as a quick solution to the high rate of shelter killing. “If only we had a law,” the argument goes, “all the bad, irresponsible people would have to take care of their pets properly, and shelters wouldn’t have to kill so many animals.” If that were true, given the proliferation of punitive mandates nationwide, there should be many No Kill communities. There is not because experience has proven that legislation is far from a cure-all. In fact it often has the opposite effect.

Nathan Winograd – Redemption

We as a nation of pet lovers need to ask; if the pets are being surrendered because of a lack of training, being unregistered, being undesexed or any of the other ‘irresponsible’ reasons used by these groups to inspire sympathy in the pet-loving community, and not because they’re vicious or sick… why are they be being killed at all? Where is the accountability to these groups for their own performance in their mission “to save the lives of pets”? And should we be supporting groups with millions of dollars in donations annually, who are failing in that mission?


Until they can prove to be more than efficient killing machines, we need to halt the march of more laws, more fines and more powers for them to impound animals. Especially when those laws fail to return pets home and instead sees them killed.

Considering the limited revenue available to non-profits and the incredibly limited resources available to animal rescue groups, should the many independent rescuers be working to consolidate their efforts and would we be more effective if we merged our operations?


Less groups = less duplication of services + less overheads and stronger organisations with conceivably more ‘clout’ in both fundraising and advocacy. Grant makers tend to favour groups effectively using resources and who appear to be above ‘turf wars’. And with more members from more backgrounds comes an expansion of knowledge and capacity.

So should we all become one?

Well, first we have to realise that not all duplication is bad. We live in a democracy where anyone can start a business, be it non-profit or commercial. This is great as it allows the consumer (or service beneficiary and financiers) to choose exactly whom they want to support. And groups live or die by their performance keeping everyone striving to be better, smarter and more efficient.


Its called healthy competition.


Sometimes, there are express reasons why groups can’t work together; from irreconcilable differences in ideology, to simple disharmony among certain personalities. This doesn’t mean each or any group is undeserving, but simply that life isn’t always neat, or people compatible.


Also, nuances between groups often allows for better coverage for a particular service. In rescue one group may specialise in rescuing small dogs, other groups have a policy of focusing on older pets and others may have capacity to help foster mums with newborns. In this case, consolidation to a ‘one size fits all’ approach may actually see special needs pets fall outside ’standard’ parameters and be disadvantaged.

So when SHOULD we work together?

In short: wherever possible!


Just because we don’t want to merge our identities, doesn’t mean we can’t help each other in our missions. In fact, as groups who use public funding we have an ethical obligation to use our resources as effectively and efficiently as possible, be aware of other groups working in similar areas and actively seek out compatible groups to engage in facilitated discussion about causes, rather than any operational differences.


Collaborating in a mature fashion with other groups with shared values, can lead to huge advances in innovation, capacity and make the industry as a whole more effective.

But isn’t it risky?

Looking outside your group and joining forces with another is a risk. But in today’s market not taking risks is a much bigger one;

There are the fear-mongers who find reasons not to make progress. They have an audience because they promise to lower risk. What they never mention is the monster of risk they create: stagnation. These are hard times. It may be that some nonprofits are going to fold in the coming months or years. I don’t know which ones those will be, but I can tell you which ones they won’t be: It won’t be the inventive, adventurous, full-speed-ahead organizations. Get rid of your fear-mongers and charge ahead.

While not always easy, the benefits of a symbiotic working relationship, based on mutual respect can be enormous. And very much worth the risk.

I think as agents of change, we’ve all felt like this little fishy at some point…

It seems simple, but here’s the thing; consumer behaviour drives change far more effectively than lobbying for legislative solutions.


So when it comes to pet stores we have to remember these are businesses and profits matter. But while we boycott their stores, many are still unaware why they are losing customers. We have to spell it out.

Introducing the Where do puppies come from?
Pet store feedback card


Dozens of people dropping in feedback cards will speak volumes to the store owners about the wishes of their customers.


Drop it off politely directly to the store, or post it to them. Include as much or as little contact information as you’re comfortable with. We’ll be hitting the media over the next few days just asking people; if this is something you care about tell your local pet store directly.

They can take their cards and look for more information (get better educated on the issue), or they can go one step further – change their policies and be promoted via the Where do puppies come from? website. We’ll even help them reach their local media!

Encourage store owners to make the change and get pets out of stores – it’s good for business, it’s good for communities and
it’s very, very good for pets.

When we started PetRescue there was a huge resistance to the project by people who firmly believed it would never work. Rescue would never pull together, no one in rescue had the time and who the hell were we to be telling them how to rehome animals!


And you know what? It could have just as easily failed as succeed and JB and I could have returned to our regular jobs and the story would have ended there. No harm no foul.


But PetRescue does work for precisely the same reasons the naysayers thought it wouldn’t – it was really, really different.


In the year since Nathan Winograd’s Redemption was published an awful lot has happened to the rescue industry. Almost overnight all the people who had visions of a better way, but who’s opinions had always been quashed by ‘it will never work’ found a voice which says we are allowed to believe we can do it better and that we are allowed to try new things.


So why still so much resistance within the rescue industry to trying anything new? As the ones encumbered with the killing, shouldn’t we most want to see animals saved and the most keen to do anything in our power to do so?

Why? Because we value our competence

Competent people have a predictable, reliable process for solving a particular set of problems. They solve a problem the same way, every time. That’s what makes them reliable. That’s what makes them competent.

Competent people are quite proud of the status and success that they get out of being competent. They like being competent. They guard their competence, and they work hard to maintain it.

Seth Godin – Change Agent

So with this call from the No Kill movement to start trying new ideas, suddenly there is a chance of failure. People who are competent resent the stress this puts on them; Adopting outside our area? Too risky. Starting a foster program? Too hard. With competence stifling any chance to be innovative they’re stuck; unable to move forward and clinging to the way it is now. It’ll never work! they chime We know what we’re doing, how dare you question that we’re not doing enough! and then the deflection which give them permission to keep on being competent; why don’t you blame those truly responsible, the public for the death of these poor animals.


But No Kill with it’s newly found voice and creative ideas challenges us to identify new opportunities to save lives. No Kill advocates  believe ‘good’ pet owners far outnumber the ‘bad’ and that all of the people who walk into a shelter are potential adopters, foster homes or volunteers. We believe that engaging our community in life saving programs can make our shelters a hub for all pet-lovers.  And that by getting people help when they need it, not judging them, allows more pets to stay in their homes.


But most of all No Kill demands more than competence from rescue organisations. Instead it requires us to raise the bar and embrace proactive thinking and innovative action. And that can only be a good thing for the pets presently dying through competence.

“There should be a law against that” – rescuer


The speakers at the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy Conference were from an incredibly broad spectrum of animal related backgrounds; from groups working to improve the welfare of animals in zoos and laboratories, in beef and milk production, chicken farming and rodeos, right through to groups who work on the frontline of animal rights. Two major conference sponsors were the RSPCA and the AWL, another was Meat & Livestock Australia. But although every one of these groups had their own positions, some directly opposing – the level of ‘crazy’ was incredibly low.


Why? Because those most connected to the law process don’t have the luxury of relentlessly pursuing a particular view point – they realise they have to work together with the industry to bring about change.


That’s not to say these individuals aren’t driven by a dream of their own idea of animal welfare utopia, it’s just that the law can only move as fast as society. There’s very rarely a law enacted that is unpopular with the majority of the population; that’s simply not good politics.


Say, I think all dogs should be brown. I have a whole bunch of reasons why being brown is better for the welfare of dogs. But if most in the community don’t care about dog colour and those in the dog industry don’t support my ideal, rest assured there will never be brown dog enforcement.


Cue the effective industry participant. They work with multicoloured dog breeders to find out their motivations and work to show the benefits of breeding brown dogs. They educate the community to their point of view with research and clever messages. They accept that there will never be a law that can make the change overnight – and that any law is simply a way to gather up any laggers once the commuity has already changed.


If your plan for success hinges on getting a new law, then you’re likely to die waiting. Like living a life hoping to win the lottery, if you find yourself thinking ‘if only we could get the government to bring in a law’ – take it as a sign that you’re in a impotent frame of mind and are probably not doing enough to bring about actual change.


You can’t beat them – you must join them. Walk into the den of the enemy, sit quietly and listen to their point of view. Engage the community with your message. It’s only once you stop calling for the heads of the people who have a different point of view to you and instead work to engage them, that you’ll have the chance to bring about change.

The Australian Animal Welfare Strategy or AAWS (pronounced ‘aws’) is an initiative of the Australian Government’s Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, with input from state and territory governments, industry and community. The AAWS and has the goal for producing a national strategy for animal welfare in Australia.


Today was the first day of their first ever conference, put together to give the opportunity for all stakeholders to have input into the way they will shape new national legislation in regards to animal welfare.


Disappointingly, although well represented by the RSPCA and the AWL (the latter using the opportunity to present to these influential parties their new national strategy which includes the Lort Smith), noticeably absent were – well, pretty much all the other rescue groups bar a couple.


Sure, a function like this can seem beyond the reach of independent rescuers, but if you’re part of an industry about to get a facelift with new government imposed legislation, you should probably be having input.


I’ll blog about the content of the conference over the next few days, but lets hope there’s enough people speaking on behalf of rescue that we get the result we need to be able to continue to do the work we do.


Sadly though, it looks like we’ve left these very, very vital decisions in the hands of the rest of the animal industry. And rest assured change is in the air.