Saving Pets » customer service

No Kill webinar; getting to No Kill as an animal control center

savingpets — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 09:10:30 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overcoming resistance;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will 2011 be the year we drop the unhelpful mantras & focus on saving lives?

savingpets — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 06:05:05 +0000

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!

No Kill and the belief in abundance

savingpets — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 02:56:52 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go. Read. This. Blog.

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

if we build it – they will come,

but

if we communicate it – they will listen,

if we ask for it – they will help us,

if we want it – so will they.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big problems; community solutions…

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

What are you inspiring in your staff?

savingpets — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:43:41 +0000

This?

Or this?

From a WA animal shelter’s ‘Adoption Adviser’;

The great offence that these potential adopters committed? To need some support in working to getting landlord approval to have a pet.

When people willing to open their hearts and families to a rescue pet feel the only option they have is to lie to us, then we’ve failed to give them the information they need to have a successful pet ownership experience. There are dozens of resources we can provide to people having landlord issues; with some coaching, a clever pet resume and a reference from the shelter to offer to take the pet back should the adoption not work out, maybe this landlord could be swayed to allowing this pet. Simply denying and scorning people who clearly wanted to adopt badly is petty and unhelpful. Not to mention the likelihood that these potential adopters will now go to a pet shop, the one place we beg people not to go to!

If you allow festering attitudes of ‘us against them’ to live in your shelter, then you will have a team not working to make adoptions happen, but to relish in the chance to refuse them.

More info:

Not being able to find a home that allows pets is one of the most common reason for people surrendering animals; which makes it even more important that we’re proactive at working with landlords to help people adopt (and keep!) their animals.

If we simply refuse an adoption, we send people to pet shops and we’ll almost certainly see their pet in care at a later date. By contrast, a landlord we help convert to allowing pets is one more home for our animals.

The reference documents to help people trying to get landlord approval are here:

Dog – http://www.rspca-act.org.au/pages/images/dogs%20in%20apartments.pdf

Cat – http://www.rspca-act.org.au/pages/images/CatsInApartments.pdf

Details on putting together a pet resume can be found here:
http://www.petfriendlyrentals.com.au/resources/pet-resume/

There’s also some good resources here:
http://www.humanesociety.org/animals/resources/tips/renting_with_pets.html

and here:
http://www.petfriendlyrentals.com.au/blog/2010/02/petnet-tv-series-two-part-special-on-renting-with-pets/

If you’re going to tell people…

savingpets — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:38:20 +0000

… that cats should be indoors, that cats should be registered and desexed by law and that free-roaming cats need to be trapped for their own good; then you can’t say ‘it’s not our job’ when they ask you for help.

Sad abandoned cats cause concerns at Quakers Hill

(Cat pic) It’s hard to imagine that a face like this lives off discarded food scavenged from rubbish bins. Sadly, this is the reality for dozens of stray cats who have sought refuge around the Parkway Rd McDonald’s and the Caltex Service Station at Quakers Hill.

Resident Sarah King says Blacktown City Council and the RSPCA seemed disinclined to help so she has launched a petition urging the council to take action against the growing feral cat population.

Ms King and a group of friends plan to trap as many cats as they can and petition the council to find them new homes or destroy the animals humanely.

She said businesses, the council and the RSPCA were caught up in a game of “finger pointing”.

“The response has been pretty appalling, but something needs to be done,” Ms King said. “These cats are starving, carrying disease and living a … horrible life. They keep breeding and it’s getting worse.”

Driving through the area the Advocate saw cats in bins, kittens hiding in the hedges – even remains on the side of Parkway Rd and a carcass in a garden bed.

McDonald’s hired a private firm to remove kittens and adults but numbers are again getting out of hand and they don’t believe it’s their sole responsibility.

[...]
Two RSPCA spokeswomen told the Advocate the cats were not their responsibility and “economic pressure” prevented them taking further action.

Ms King has now lodged a formal complaint with Blacktown City Council who declined the opportunity to comment when contacted by the Advocate.

Fur flies over inaction on cats

Animal lover Chris Lyall says a cat and her four kittens could be buried alive if the bulldozing of four derelict houses on Woodland St, Balgowlah, continues.

The Manly resident said the family of strays has taken refuge under one of the houses with all efforts to rescue them so far unsuccessful.

[...]
Hoping for action to delay the demolition, Mr Lyall contacted Manly Council but claims they are yet to act.

Manly Council general manager Henry Wong said the council was aware of the situation but it was the RSPCA or other animal welfare organisations that were the appropriate bodies to assist with the matter.

The cats’ plight, however, has created confusion, with the RSPCA indicating that the welfare of the mother and her kittens was the council’s responsibility under the Companion Animals Act.

Mr Lyall said the lack of help was frustrating.

[...]
Ellen McGinness, from the Cat Protection Society, said it appeared the issue was being palmed off.

“It should be the council’s responsibility – the RSPCA only deal with owned cats. There is a huge problem with councils not taking responsibility.”

How the New Zealanders zoomed past us in the race to No Kill

savingpets — Sun, 23 May 2010 11:00:55 +0000

The New Zealanders might have just overtaken Australia in the race to modernised animal sheltering industry.

Over 125 years ago, New Zealand opened its first Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or SPCA. Today, proving that even an ‘old’ organisation can lead the way in modern thinking, they have pledged their dedication to a No Kill future for New Zealand.

The Saving Lives philosophy is that every life is precious, and with that philosophy comes the need to help every animal into the fulfilment of life, so long as its quality of life is preserved.

Calling their program ‘Saving Lives’ rather than ‘No Kill’, they reaffirm that they are in the “business of saving lives” and call on their staff to “becomes passionately committed to supporting its philosophy” and “accept the philosophy that Saving Lives is totally achievable”.

But this isn’t just feel-good piffle. To move towards their No Kill goals, they first had to take a long hard look at their policies, identifying the common causes of shelter killing, and take audit of each one’s validity.

One of the major breakthoughs from this audit, was the identification of a cultural problem with exisiting euthanasia protocols. Rather than use the protocols to make compassionate decisions, the documentation and policies had become a way to defend killing and absolve individuals of the responsibility.

The new model asked people to step up and be more than just a ‘rule follower’;

Accountability allows, and indeed requires, flexibility. Too many SPCA centres lose sight of this principle, staying rigid with their protocols, believing they are engraved in stone. They are not.

Where protocols are important because they ensure accountability, protocols without flexibility can have the opposite effect by stifling innovation, causing lives to be needlessly lost, and allowing those who fail to save lives an excuse as to why they failed.”

The organisation’s pledge to maintain protocols and procedures orientated towards preserving life, means they must find solutions to the common reasons for shelter killing.

Beyond killing

Health

“Cat flu is not a reason to kill cats”.

By referring to cat flu as ’snuffles’, a normal and preventable part of caring for shelter cats, the group was able to take a scientific, rather than defensive, approach to managing illness;

In an eight-year study conducted in Auckland, approximately 40% of incoming cats developed ’snuffles’ (in the first year of the survey). Various methods, including efforts to reduce the stressful environment, in addition to cleaning regimes, have reduced this figure to 25%. With the development of isolation areas providing the opportunity to treat those affected, the success rate for treatment has increased from 34% (annual average) to 61%, while euthanasia of snuffles sufferers has dropped from 24% to 3% in the treatment area.

These figures clearly indicate that a combination of stress-free environments, cleaning regimes, strict isolation areas and the correct medical treatment can have a direct effect on saving lives from “snuffles”.

“Ringworm is not a reason to kill animals”. Describing ringworm as a ‘nuisance’ rather than a deadly disease, but recognising ringworm passed to the public is a publicity nightmare, the group recommends the following;

The use of foster homes is ideal in isolating ringworm from an SPCA centre. However, such fosterers need to be dedicated to the task and, due to the length of treatment, are “put out of action” for the fostering of other animals for a lengthy period of time. The use of off-site adoption events to rehome these animals will ensure that they do not return ringworm to the centre.

The use of a team of ’special needs’ foster carers, coupled with a healthy, stress-free environment, strict isolation and treatment regimes mean a commitment that pets with ringworm will be saved.

The group also treat skin conditions (flea allergies and mange) either on site, or in foster. By offering full disclosure and treatment plans to new adopters, pets with skin conditions are able to finish their recovery in their new homes.

Temperament

Pets entering shelters, by definition, have varying backgrounds and requirements for care. The organisation pledge to help all animals, regardless of their condition;

If we are to save lives we need to cater to these special problems by providing facilities that can attend to their needs and, of equal importance, that involve rehabilitation methods requiring the expertise of those qualified to provide the help needed to restore them to normality.

When referring to cats, ‘feral’ is not in the group’s vocabulary.

By definition, “feral” cats do not have contact with or dependency on humans. Accordingly, centres are very unlikely to receive genuine “feral” cats.

Incoming stray cats will normally be abandoned previously owned companion cats or possibly cats from colonies. Either way, they will not appreciate being trapped and will show their displeasure in no uncertain terms. For this reason they are described (incorrectly) as “feral”, when in fact they are “wild” (unused to handling, resenting capture, possibly never domesticated), “scared” (frightened by their captivity and uncertain of their future), or “timid” (naturally mistrusting and unsure).

Such cats deserve the chance to live, and should be given the opportunity to adjust and relax a little over a few days rather than being hastily dispatched.

Dogs get a similar level of respect, with the recognition that the behaviour of dogs is a product of their previous environment and that with time, patience and training – most dogs with perceived temperament problems can be successfully adopted.

Any temperament assessment should be aimed at “getting to know the dog” and whether any behavioural problems might exist that can be treated, rather than being aimed at putting it to the final test to determine its ultimate fate.

Additional to “on-site” facilities, rehabilitation of behavioural problems, particularly with dogs, will include the input of independent and professional individuals.

The variety of temperament problems may call for different advice, from either a veterinarian or a behaviourist.

Correct behaviour adjustment techniques can be taught to staff/volunteers, which can prove a very real asset in the operation of a centre, resulting in the correct and professional handling of animals while in our care.

Age

Recognising the importance of foster care in saving underage animals, this organisation engages the compassion of community;

The inability to save healthy young animals reflects badly on us as a welfare organisation, particularly when there are so many people in the community who would gladly volunteer themselves and their homes to foster the young until ready for adoption.

…………………………….

Getting pets out of shelters

Along with a requirement to overcome killing as a method of managing shelter pets, the organisation also needed to get those pets they have, out of the shelter.

Pet retention strategies

The Saving Lives philosophy calls for a willingness to work with people to help them solve their problems, with the sole aim of keeping people and their companion animals together. In our ethos of “prevention” we need to be seen as a place that people can turn to for advice and assistance, and we need to respond to that. to solve problems

Identifying that the very first call for help is an opportunity for the shelter to lend assistance, the organisation works to develop relationships with local trainers, veterinarians and behaviouralists. These relationships are symbiotic, generating new clients for these businesses, and expanding the knowledge base of the shelter, though simple training for staff.

There is discussion about the development of a general national call number for people with pet problems in the future,

Desexing

High-volume, low cost desexing is at the heart of any successful life-saving programme to substantially reduce the number of unwanted births, and the number of animals surrendered to SPCA centres.

It is fair to say that a proactive high-volume, low/no cost desexing programme is the best investment any centre can make in the fight to save future lives.

Along with community desexing clinic, the organisation desexes all animals before adoption and seeks the support from local council animal management for desexing initiatives. Free, targeted desexing for at-risk pets in low income areas, desexing vouchers for semi-owned cat owners, mobile desexing facilities and proactive education campaigns bring the benefits of desexing to all pets in the community.

An effective desexing programme has been proven in many cities internationally to virtually halve the centre incoming animal population within a decade of its introduction missed.

Improving reclaims

A focus on the importance of microchipping. All adopted pets are chipped and the organisation run ’snip and chip’ promotions.

The requirement that all animals are scanned and that pet owners are contacted promptly. They also list found pets on the internet.

Maximising adoptions

Focusing on promoting the benefits to the adoption of shelter animals:

- unique ‘feel good’ factor
- the use of the term ‘orphan’ rather than ’stray’
- great value (desexed, vaccinated, microchipped)

They also make the following requirement of their shelters:

SPCA facilities should be a great place to visit, with staff/volunteers happy and helpful professional people who are keen to assist as best they can because they want to, not only for the people they are serving but also for the animals they are dedicated to saving.

Adoption areas need to be clean and contain contented, well-presented animals in bright and airy surroundings, rather than the “prison behind bars” that the public envisage we are. Public facilities in cared-for grounds and surroundings must abound, to help add to the enjoyment
of their visit to the SPCA.

Hosting adoption areas with staff/volunteers who are helpful and knowledgeable is essential. Make sure that staff/volunteers are easily recognisable with suitable clothing and name tags.

There is nothing worse than having the public looking for animals when there is no one they can find to help them with their selection.

They ask that shelters name the pet to engage potential adopters (even if the animal is a stray) and that an information sheet is provided on the animal. These sheets are designed to accentuate the positive (“Not good with children” becomes “good with adults”) and all pets must be ready for adoption (behavioural and health problems resolved).

Opening hours must be convenient for potential adopters, including seven-day-a-week adoptions and early evening opening hours. They also endeavour to provide a wide range of animals:

A centre with a wide choice of animals is a successful centre, providing variety for “discerning shoppers”. If low on animals, source them from elsewhere (other SPCAs, pounds, rescue groups, etc).

Dogs being walked, all wear ‘adopt me’ jackets to attract attention and a database of people looking for a particular ‘kind’ of animal is kept. Profiles of adoptable animals are also posted to the web.

Price is presented as a recouping of a set amount of ‘adoption costs’ and special pricing promotions are used to attract adopters. ‘Two for the price of one’ kittens, special pet care giveaways, free food promotions.

A ‘14 day’ guarantee, helps adopted pets stay in their homes:

Inevitably, some animals (particularly cats) may be slow to adapt to their new surroundings, and may even become stressed, bringing on other “ailments”.

New “owners” are generally nervous and may panic at such behaviour, often rushing off to their vet for advice and incurring associated costs which they may endeavour to recover from the SPCA.

Provide a 14-day period where the animal will be covered for any associated costs at a set ceiling price (say, $50) at your expense. You will find that few people will claim this and, by setting a maximum, considerable money will in the end be saved from over-exuberant vets and anxious “owners”!

Off-site adoptions

Adoption vehicles in shopping centre car parks and outside pet shops or the use of retail space, display pets for adoption. Partnerships with local businesses can help get pets ’seen’, and off-site adoption attracts people who may not even be considering adopting an animal.

Where this has been practiced, it has been noted that off-site adoptions can account for between 20% and 40% of total adoptions achieved, and accordingly is well worth the effort.

These promotions not only raise awareness, but are a great opportunity to fund raise.

Working with rescue groups

There are a large number of animal welfare groups and individuals who, in their own way, undertake the rescue and rehoming of many animals and to whom we should look to assist us in our mission of saving lives.

These groups and individuals should not be viewed as “the competition” (as is sometimes the case), rather they should be seen as allies undertaking the same work for the same reasons we do. For, as long as unnecessary killing occurs in our own centre, rare would be the case where we would not utilise their assistance in taking custody of and rehoming those animals we have whose life is at risk.

Get to know them all, and work with them to save lives.

Working with foster homes

Proactive recruitment of foster carers, advanced levels of support and training opportunities and a positive regard for the contribution they make is vital to the success of their foster care program;

Training, equipment, food, litter and any medication required are all supplied by the SPCA to its foster homes, and a full support network of helpful staff or volunteer supervisors is also important to the programme. Keeping our fosterers happy is as important as keeping our animals happy!

They also offer innovative foster programs, like ’seniors for seniors’ and the adoption of foster pets by the foster homes.

Working with volunteers

Volunteers have been described as a dedicated “army of compassion” and are the backbone of a successful centre operation.

The organisation engage volunteers for animal care, but also public interaction and adoption support.

…fortunately there are a large number of people who gladly give of their time to help animals – however, we need to ask them, train them, assign duties to them and look after them.

Saving the strays

There are a vast number of people who voluntarily tend to stray cats in the community, normally in a “cat colony” (which can be small or large) or in a controlled situation or on their own property. Such cats were mostly once companion cats who have been abandoned, while some are the offspring of those cats who were not desexed prior to abandonment. They assemble in colonies, requiring the support and assistance of humans for their ongoing sustenance and welfare.

These people are dedicated to their task, spending many hours (and much of their own money) to care for these cats. Their sole objective is to save lives, and accordingly they are an essential part of this programme and deserving of our full support.

Recognising the contribution of community cat carers is vital to reducing intakes and the number of cats dying in shelters. This organisation embraces their work and offers them the support they need to continue in their life-saving work.

They formed the ‘Cat Coalition’, assisting with donated food and desexing vouchers and support to manage problems as they arise. The coalition members, in addition to being supported, also operate under protocols designed with the ongoing welfare of the cats and their care in mind.

They expanded the program to include those people looking to surrender a ’stray’ cat. Rather than accept a fractious cat from a surendee’s own property, the organisation offers the chance to adopt the cat as a ‘barn cat’, have it desexed and save its life.
………………….

No Kill is about what you DO, do

This organisation has taken on every aspect of the No Kill equation, and reclaimed its role as a life-saving resource in the community. What their experience has shown is that No Kill isn’t about what you don’t do (kill), but what you do, do… execute a series of proven, modern animal sheltering techniques that simply run in a contrary manner to convenience killing.

The fact that one of the oldest and largest animal welfare organisations in the country has taken the lead in moving New Zealand towards its No Kill future, is testament to the dynamic leadership of the organisation (see my previous article on Bob Kerridge from the SPCA here).

The ‘Saving Lives’ plan from the SPCA New Zealand could be rolled out in any shelter tomorrow.

It’s time that every Australian demands the same level of performance from our own animal welfare groups and seek out and support those organisations who are already on a No Kill path.

Australian shelter pets also deserve a No Kill future.

Are Australians really ‘irresponsible’ dog owners?

savingpets — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:18:52 +0000

There’s lots of talk lately of licencing schemes for dog owners, to counter high numbers of ‘irresponsible owners’. The Lost Dogs Home recently introduced its own pilot pet ownership licencing scheme, while the RSPCA have been working to bring in ‘responsible dog ownership’ legislation in an effort to reduce the number of dogs abused and abandoned. And each and every week articles, like this one from WA, are published in local papers around the country:

Dumped – Dog owners shame

Dog owners are being urged to consider the consequences of abandoning their pets after new figures revealed about 1000 dogs a year were impounded in Stirling alone.

RSPCA spokesman Richard Barry said that the high rate of stray and abandoned dogs was disappointing.

“It’s of great concern to us that some dogs are simply abandoned for myriad reasons, ranging from a change in location through to a change in financial circumstances,” he said.

“One has to consider what their pet will go through once they have turned their back on it.”

He said a lack of desexing had a ‘tremendous influence’ on the high number of animals needing a home.

Stirling community development director Trevor Holland urged people to be committed to pet ownership before taking on the responsibility of owning a dog.

“Owning and caring for a pet comes with responsibilities, and these are for the duration of their lives, not just the holidays.”

And it sounds fair enough. The pounds are full and dogs are being euthanased so it’s a natural progression to start thinking that the public must be terrible and that they’re abandoning pets at enormous rates.

So, do the public really suck?

The article went on to present the following statistics:

2007
Total number of dogs impounded – 976
Reclaimed by owners – 596
Rehomed – 213
Killed – 167

2008
Total number of dogs impounded – 1015
Reclaimed by owners – 647
Rehomed – 190
Killed – 178

2009 (to October)
Total number of dogs impounded – 744
Reclaimed by owners – 500
Rehomed – 142
Killed – 102

Now, the City of Stirling has 84,000 people, and 17,000 registered dogs. They get, according to these statistics, around 1,000 dogs impounded each year. That’s about 5% of the total dog population.

So 95% of owned dogs live in their homes, without needing to go to the shelter.

That’s not terrible – that’s freaking fantastic!! And is it possible to improve on this? Probably not much.

In the shire each year around 600 dogs are collected by the owners (lost dogs) and of the 400 left, about 200 are rehomed and about 200 are killed.

Now just think about that for a second. They kill 200, save 200. They kill one for every one they save. That’s a 50% fail rate!

If I ran a business that made cakes and I failed to sell every second one; I’d go out of business.

If I was a teacher and every second child I taught couldn’t read; I’d (hopefully) get the sack.

If I was a fireman and every second fire burnt the building to the ground; my manager would be examining whether we had enough training, enough skills or whether other fire stations were doing any better.

You get the idea. Meanwhile pounds fail one in every two times, throw their hands up in the air and go ‘our public sucks – whattaya gonna do?’

And not much changes.

But there’s not enough homes!

Well, lets look at it. If a dog lives an average 10 years, and assuming most people replace a dog within a few months of it passing:

Stirling’s population 17,000 dogs with 10% dying each year means there are approximately 1,700 new homes becoming available each and every year.

Stirling have just 400 dogs each year to rehome, there’s more than 4 times more homes available, than dogs they need to place. Not counting new homes or moving outside of their shire.

So they only need to convince one in every four people actively looking for a new dog, to adopt. Or another way, they need to complete just two adoptions a day. And it doesn’t need to be just adoptions; it can be handing them over to rescue, or networking with other Shires to ’swap’ animals, or just handing them over the local pet shop. Anything but killing them.

These guys are open for 3.5hrs weekdays, while potential adopters are at work (2.00pm – 5.30pm), and they’re open for 1hr on weekends. So, they offer working families, exactly 2 hrs per week to adopt.

Imagine if a pet shop was open these hours. And located in an industrial area. Would we be shocked if it didn’t have any customers? Not very.

The myth that owners are to blame

There is an awful lot of good to comment on about Stirling Council. They work with local rescue groups, have a volunteer program and they put their lost dogs on the web. And they made their annual figures available. But they’re still trapped in that blame culture which looks to punish the community for the number of pets killed in the shelter, rather than examining whether it needs to happen at all.

The scary thing is, if you do this with nearly any shire pound in Australia, you’ll find a similar story. They’ll say ‘we’re swamped; there’s so many irresponsible people in our area’ but then when you look at their intakes, they’re some tiny, insignificant number of the overall dog population. And the number of pets they do manage to save is tragically small.

While we’re often keen to get on board legislative solutions that target the public, targeting the community, who is overwhelmingly responsible and compliant, is both insulting and futile. Meanwhile, even in the face of incredibly high kill rates, we’re reluctant to cast a similar critical approach to the operating procedures of pounds in this country.

If we ever want to see a reduction in shelter pet killing, we must start calling these councils on their lack of performance; and they need to stop blaming pet owners for the killing and start taking those steps necessary to stop it.

Inefficient council turns people off reporting lost pets

savingpets — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 05:27:28 +0000

One of the biggest obstacles to lost dogs being reunited with their owners, is animals not being handed into the pound as soon as they’re found.

Worried that the pound will simply euthanase the dog, the finder holds onto the animal. Then, when they are unsuccessful in their search for the owner, they drop the dog off at the pound a few days or weeks later. By the time the dog arrives, the once frantic owner is no longer out looking. Without identification, the chances of pet and owner being reunited is almost zero.

Laws were created requiring lost pets to be impounded when found, in an effort to overcome any public resistance to handing pets into the pound. And while these seem like a good idea in theory, like many things in government, laws designed to mandate compassion becomes perverted and bureaucratised to the point where they couldn’t be less helpful;

Crazy laws mean people finding stray dogs can be fined for helping

It seems like a simple matter – a lost dog is found by a person who has no luck tracing the owner and wants to adopt it.

But as Simone Strong, of Blackwall, learnt, once the dead hand of government regulation gets in the way it’s not that easy.

Instead you are told you will be fined unless you hand the dog over so you can buy it back later.

Ms Strong found an abandoned brindle staffie-cross two weeks ago and, with a vet unable to trace the owner through its microchip, took it home.

“It was riddled with fleas and obviously underfed and although the vet found a chip they couldn’t find an address,” Ms Strong said.

“I left my details and a few days later a Gosford Council ranger left a message with one of my children saying he would be in touch soon.

“Another week went by and then he contacted me and said I had to take the dog to the pound where it would stay for two weeks before being taken to the RSPCA, when I would have the opportunity to buy it.”

Ms Strong rang the RSPCA, which said it was the owner of the dog, which had been rehoused once before, and she was welcome to keep it. But both Ms Strong and the RSPCA were then threatened with prosecution if the normal channels were not followed.

“I was told if I didn’t surrender the dog to the pound it would be taken by force.”

So after allowing the family to care, feed and become attached to the pet for near on two weeks, the council then demands the dog be impounded;

Gosford Council education and compliance manager John Parkes said the council was bound under the Companion Animals Act in its dealings with Simone Strong and the rescued dog.

“There seems to be some confusion over the onwership of this dog,” Mr Parkes said. “But the law says it must be surrendered to the council pound so we can conduct a search for the rightful owner.

“If that is unsuccessful, after 14 days it will be taken to the RSPCA, which will then become the rightful owner of the animal with the power to place it in a new home.”

Mr Parkes said the law could appear to be too bureaucratic but was in place in the interests of all pet owners. He said Ms Strong could surrender the dog after Easter without the fear of incurring a fine.

Given the importance of the first couple of days in helping people find their pets, it would be assumed that councils would be doing everything in their power to encourage people take lost dogs to the pound asap. While Ms Strong did the right thing in reporting this dog to council, their convoluted and inefficient response, only serves to discourage other animal lovers to from contacting council at all, when they find an animal. Letting her keep the dog for two weeks is completely unfair on both the dog and her family – he should have been impounded immediately, or not at all.

Hopefully the RSPCA will take the lead in ensuring Ms Strong and her family get to adopt this guy. And shame on Gosford Council for taking such an uncompassionate stance towards their communities homeless pets.

Michael Linke rocks my socks!

savingpets — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:27:33 +0000

Check out this CEO Update from the latest RSPCA ACT e-newsletter. Doesn’t it just make you want to dance and sing?! (bolding mine)

From the CEO…

As CEO people often ask me if it is sad working at RSPCA. My response is always the same, no. RSPCA is a happy, warm and supportive place to work. We home a greater percentage of animals than any other open admission Australian shelter and we are influencing dozens of shelters and pounds across Australia and internationally to improve the number of animals homed. We are always innovating and looking at positive ways to find homes for animals. We are also working on a number of strategies to help keep people and their pets together.

Strategically there are two ways forward for animal welfare. One is adoption matching and ensuring an animal goes to its forever home and will never be surrendered again. The second is reducing surrenders of unwanted animals and working with families on the brink of surrender.

We are well on the way to solving the first one as our Find-a-Friend system is now the national standard for RSPCA’s Australia wide. We do need to do extensive work however with the whole issue of pet acquisition. Pet shops, classified advertising and market stalls remain a key source of pet supply and in most cases the match is a bad one. If you want to help us continue this battle a donation to our forthcoming appeal would be very much appreciated.

The second strategy is more problematic and involves real estate agents, land lords, unit title holders and people who move house putting in a little bit more effort to ensure when they relocate their pet is catered for. Moving house is the single biggest reason people cite as a factor in surrendering their pet. Again you can help by donating or supporting RSPCA in a number of other ways.

Read on for more interesting information about RSPCA and the work we continue to do for our community.

Michael Linke
CEO

See more of the goodness that is the leadership of Michael Linke below. See how everyone is smiling? That’s because they like what they do.

The ultimate failure: when pets with owners are killed by pounds

savingpets — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:07:24 +0000

A council’s animal management department can be a huge asset to its community; working to keep its public safe, offering a service that protects people and their animals and leading the way in compassion. Or it can work against its public, seeing them as an enemy that needs to be coerced with more laws, more fines and convoluted bureaucracy.

And sometimes it sits in the grey area between.

But what is certain amongst all pounds and shelters in 2010 is that the public are informed about, comparing and critiquing their local animal organisation’s performance like never before. Online discussion and the community’s feeling that pets are ‘family members’, combined with the realisation that other countries have made huge advancements in sheltering techniques that save the lives of animals, has lead to pet owners questioning the role of modern animal management. If people feel they aren’t getting the best from their local departments, they’re starting to ask why?

When family pets entering the pound system, fail to make it out alive (especially when the reason they’ve lost their lives are the cost of impoundment fees, paperwork mix-ups or short holding times) distraught pet owners are fighting back. And when they do, they’re taking their message to the masses.

When Michala Herbert discovered her kitten missing just before Christmas, she door knocked her neighbourhood, finding her kitten hand been handed into the RSPCA by a neighbour. Although the family went to claim the cat nearly immediately, the shelter staff suspected ringworm and it was killed on arrival;

A wandering kitten has caused heartache for the Herbert family after the cat was put down after just a few hours at the RSPCA.

Ms Herbert claimed when she arrived at the shelter she was told her kitten, Lucky, had been put down as there were too many kittens at the shelter.

In the same month, a golden retriever cross named ‘Brindle’ entered the Lost Dogs Home Cranbourne pound two days before Christmas.

Ms Bierman received a call from the pound telling her Brindle was there, but despite offering to collect her straight away she was told she couldn’t because Brindle was registered in her former partner Paul Lindley’s name.

The next day, when Mr Lindley went with their children to collect Brindle they were turned away because her microchip details were in Ms Bierman’s name.

Despite being just 30 minutes from closing for the Christmas holiday period, the pound refused to give the children their dog.
…..
After repeated phone calls between Ms Bierman, the pound and animal welfare officers at Frankston Council, Ms Bierman was told on New Year’s Eve that Mr Lindley could collect Brindle.

Less than 10 minutes later she received another call from the council to tell her Brindle was dead.

Another miserable Christmas for a family in Ipswich, where the pound killed a dog that had been a family Christmas present, ordered from a purebred breeder interstate.

The family had only had ‘Josephine’ a few days over the holiday break, before she escaped. The family reported the loss to the RSPCA, but with limited knowledge of the pound system, mistakenly believed they would be contacted if their dog was found. They weren’t and Joesphine was killed after the pound’s three day holding period.

Ipswich City Council Pound did not cross reference with the RSPCA before they put her down otherwise Josephine would have been returned to us. I would have thought the RSPCA would be the first place they would liase with.
.

And in our newest case of an owned pet losing its life, is the story of ‘Biscuit’ – killed by Mount Isa City Council.

Mount Isa Isa City Council pound has killed a dog who escaped from its owners yard during last Wednesday’s thunderstorm, after taking money from its owner for its release.

The Jack Russell-cross named Biscuit was destroyed despite its owner, Georgie Martin, identifying the dog as hers.

The council has a policy of putting dogs down if they remain unidentified after three days, but Biscuit was not even given that long.

Ms Martin found Biscuit in the pound the day after she went missing.

“She was so happy to see us, but there was nobody there,” she said.
….
“My husband went down there on a Friday and he could see (Jacqueline) in the cage. I rang the pound and asked if I could come get her tomorrow. But because it was Friday, they said I’d have to come get her on Monday,” Jacqueline’s owner said.

“I went in to get her on Monday and she wasn’t there.”

The experience of Jacqueline’s family did not go unnoticed, with the story leading to other owners coming forward to sharing their experiences of pets being held to ransom.

While each of these stories are littered with failures – the result is the same. Pets with owners who loved them are dead. It’s worth noting all of these cases have happened in just three months.

Our pets deserve better.

All avenues must be exhausted to keep pets from becoming lost, and when they are, every effort made to reunite them with their families. Whether it’s keeping pets longer, making it easy for people to register their pets through online systems, lost pet databases or promotions highlighting the value of a collar and tag, these stories of heartbreak should serve to re-enforce the notion that impounded pets are nearly always lost family members. Killing a pet who has an owner should be regarded as the ultimate failure of an animal management system, and when it happens pet lovers everywhere have the right to question why.

With stories are being brought into the public domain for discussion, killing is no longer happening behind closed doors. And this new wave of people questioning why the system fails is vital to continuing to improve outcomes for shelter pets.