Just after the new year, a little scrawny cat started appearing around our place. He took off like a shot whenever we went out the front door, but I noticed that unlike the other cats in the neighbourhood, Secret Cat was happy to have him around. I felt I needed to take some action on behalf of this poor bub; everything about his behaviour said ‘displaced untame puss’ rather than ‘cheeky neighbour’s pet’ – in fact the difference between him and Secret Cat (who has definitely been around people since she was young) couldn’t have been more textbook!

Secret Cat vs Other Cat

Since Secret Cat was cool with him, I started giving Other Cat a bit of food. In three weeks he went from a skitty feral, to a chubbabubba who would stay nearby as I filled his bowl… even though he gently hissed at me as I did so! It was sad to see the little guy so fearful.

But you know – just like in the Community Cats campaign – feeding on its own isn’t enough. Fast forward to yesterday when my humane cat trap arrived! Woo!

And as it turns out catching him was easy peasy! I put the trap out early yesterday evening (so he’d have all night to get in there before his appointment first thing today), I walk inside & hear ching! through the open window… success!

One very pissed off cat in a convenient, transportable package…

The vet has been able to confirm that he’s… a he! He’s about three years old and apart from a few fleas is in pretty good health. He’s now had his harblz removed and in a few hours he can come home and go back out into the garden.

Hopefully he’ll forgive me & stick around, but if not that’s fine too. I’m just happy to know he will no longer be the local Lothario.

Long live the Community Cat! <3






*** Update – Saturday ***

Lookit who’s sleeping on my steps – my big tough (ex)tom cat!

For the last several decades, as the animal sheltering system in Australia grew into an industry supporting multimillion dollar charities, we were told the reason for shelter killing was simple; ‘bad pet owners’. We were told the shelters were the victims in the situation, forced to do the irresponsible public’s dirty work and that they had no choice but to kill. In fact, killing was a gift to animals from the shelter workers who cared *more* than the public. We should be thanking them for their efforts.

Now, as the community are able to compare the performance of pounds and shelters across the country and the world, we have been able to see that the responsibility for shelter killing lay solely with those who run the shelters and do the killing. Pounds and shelters who embrace their community, emphasise returning pets to their owners, offer a welcoming and convenient service to potential adopters, and work to keep untame cats from being impounded, have eliminated killing in their communities virtually overnight. Pounds and shelters who choose to run foster care programs and rescue group outreach, provide options for pets other than death. While those who engage pet lovers through social media, clever adoption promotions and local media have harnessed community compassion to give every healthy, treatable pet a second chance at happiness.

So now, pounds and shelters who have failed to embrace this new lifesaving model have a problem.

- How do you defend killing, when your community knows it is no longer necessary?

- How do you defend killing, in the face of proven alternatives to killing?

Unable to continue to blame ‘irresponsible pet owners’ for the killing, they have created a new villain de jour.

‘A lack of collaboration’.

If you’re in animal welfare circles, you will have heard it;

“We can’t save the pets unless we all collaborate and work together. Rescues are unsupportive and critical. The public are misinformed and it’s hard on shelter and pound workers to have to defend themselves. Animal advocates are extremists and cyber-bullies, and shelters can’t be expected to make positive change when they’re being treated like this. Given they’re working under such hostile conditions, we should in fact, be thanking them for their efforts…”

‘A lack of collaboration’ is the new ‘irresponsible pet owner’. It’s code for; we’re not changing and here’s a red herring, the hoop we want you to jump through, that deflects blame away from us and our failings and back onto the wider community.

Most reprehensibly, ‘a lack of collaboration’ lays blame on those in the community fighting hardest for pets; the whistle-blower rescue who shines a light on high kill rates, inhumane conditions or abuse. The animal advocate who compiles stats and information for their own community. The animal lover who takes their concerns about unnecessary killing to their local councillor. THESE people are now being blamed for shelter killing. By defending animals, they are be accused of harming animals by interfering with the process of ‘collaboration’… and it would be laughable, if it weren’t so tragic.

It doesn’t take ‘collaboration’ to extend your trading hours so people can visit on weekends and after work. You don’t need‘collaboration’ before you open your doors to volunteers and foster carers. It doesn’t take ‘collaboration’ to host an adoption event, or create an off-site adoption program or a pet-of-the-week media blast. It doesn’t take ‘collaboration’ to stop sending your rangers to impound healthy, free-roaming cats.

These things take leadership, not collaboration.

Collaboration is a goal. A nice-to-have. It makes things easier for everyone and is the icing on a mature ‘animal sheltering industry’ cake. But it is neither they key to saving lives – nor a lack of it, a hurdle to saving them. Collaboration must never mean ignoring the ultimate violence against animals – their unnecessary death – in order to all ‘just get along’. And we must reject any suggestion that a lack of collaboration is the reason for animals being killed, or an acceptable reason to continue killing.

**Warning – videos in this post include footage of animals being killed by lethal injection**

It is a pervasive idea that shelters and pounds who kill pets, are doing so with a compassionate heart and after every other avenue has been exhausted. And it has been the doctrine of these same high kill pounds and shelters to continue to push this notion, afraid that should the truth be exposured – that they kill easily, lazily and unnecessarily – that the backlash would be detrimental to their empires.

However, the truth will no longer stay hidden.

GAWS encouraged the trapping, impoundment and killing of feral cats, claimed the majority of the pets entering the shelter were untreatably aggressive, and killed pets for being non-english speaking. In fact, so high on killing were they, that in 2009/10 they killed 852 dogs and rehomed just 487 (they also ‘misplaced’ 217 dogs), and killed 2,426 cats, rehoming just 546.

But even those claims to shame were nothing compared to the behind the scenes videos that leaked onto the internet last week, showing just how callously the unfortunate ‘death row’ animals were being treated before they were killed.

(More videos here & here)

These videos are a window to what is taking place behind the doors of pounds and shelters across the country. Rather than the ‘good death’ so often defended by killing apologists, we’re given a glimpse into a world where killing is antagonistic and methodical. Not only is it accepted, it is promoted in favour of alternatives to killing. Even when those alternatives are literally beating down the door in the form of foster homes, rescue groups and pet lovers looking to adopt.

Watching these videos is difficult. Their release on the internet caused shockwaves through the animal loving community. However, rather than listen to the pleas of pet lovers to change their ways, the staff involved defended their actions.

While the idea of a ‘good death’ at the hands of compassionate staff is the cornerstone of kill-sheltering, these videos show just how far from the truth that story often is. Around Australia, pounds and shelters who claim to ‘care’ for pets, yet kill them with heartstick, shoot them with guns or send them to university teaching hospitals for ‘non-revival’ surgery. They do so in enormous numbers – hundreds per day – while the strategies exist that would eliminate shelter killing overnight, are simply ignored.

But as in the case of GAWS, the community is the key to change;

‘GAWS Exposed’ community rally

Those who champion life over a quick death in a ’shelter’, are finding their voice. Rather than being an anomaly, they are becoming a powerful movement; taking their message to the streets, where they find extraordinary support in the pet loving public. They are compassionate animal advocates, who find themselves working in uncompassionate surroundings. Or they are tax paying citizens who believe their government dollars should not be funding the wholesale slaughter of pets, in the face of alternatives.

GAWS is the first in a long line of No Kill community protests to come. The times are changing for the shelter animals of Australia.

The killing must stop.

Widely celebrated as Australia’s answer to the No Kill movement of the US, the ‘Getting to Zero’ (G2Z) program has been, being developed by the Animal Welfare League of Queensland and claims to “detail the principles, structures and strategies for achieving zero killing of healthy and treatable cats and dogs”.

The AWLQ seems like an excellent strategic driver for the program, having achieved a 91% save rate for dogs and a 76% save rate for cats in 2009/10 in Gold Coast City. And G2Z purports to be both similar and superior to the No Kill movement:

Simultaneously, in the United States of America, the No Kill Movement has been developing. It identifies similar strategies, providing evidence of the effectiveness of these strategies in a range of communities.  However, the G2Z Model also provides the structures needed so that strategies can be applied effectively.

With G2Z being…

…a more comprehensive term than No Kill

and

… providing for a more comprehensive and sustained ongoing cooperative improvement community wide.

Both the G2Z Model and No Kill Equation claim to be working to zero out the killing of healthy and treatable cats and dogs in whole communities. Both programs are based on the belief that 90% of stray and surrendered dogs and cats are either healthy or treatable. And both programs allow for ‘euthanasia’ in the true sense of the word; to relieve irremediable suffering from illness or injury; or because an animal is irremediably vicious. But from there, the G2Z Model and the No Kill Equation deviate significantly.

The No Kill Equation

The No Kill equation calls for the comprehensive implementation of 11 mandatory programs;

1. A feral cat TNR program
2. High-volume, low-cost desexing programs
3. Working relationships with community rescue groups
4. An internal foster care program
5. Comprehensive adoption programs
6. Pet Retention strategies
7. Medical and behavioral rehabilitation programs
8. Public relations strategies and community involvement
9. A comprehensive volunteer program
10. Proactive redemptions for lost pets
And finally, 11. A hard working, compassionate shelter Director

“To succeed fully, however, shelters should not implement the programs piecemeal or in a limited manner. If they are sincere in their desire to stop the killing, animal shelters will implement and expand programs to the point that they replace killing entirely. Combining rigorous, comprehensive implementation of the No Kill Equation with best practices and accountability of staff in cleaning, handling, and care of animals, must be the standard.”

The No Kill Equation works. No Kill communities have been created in;
- Tompkins County, NY
- Austin, TX
- Benzie County, MI
- Berkeley, CA
- Charlottesville, VA
- Chippewa County, MI
- Copper Country, MI
- Duluth, MN
- Fluvanna County, VA
- Grosse Ile, MI
- Hastings, MN
- Kansas City, KS
- King George County, VA
- Lynchburg, VA
- Marquette, MI
- Otsego County, MI
- Porter County, IN
- Reno, NV
- Seagoville, TX
- Shelby County, KY
- Terre Haute, IN
- Williamsburg, VA
- Williamson County, TX
- Allegany County, MD
- Arlington, VA
- Georgetown, DE
- Longmont, CO (dogs only)
- Prescott, WI
- Emeryville, CA
- Piedmont, CA
and
- Wilmington, DE

Last month the City Council in Rockwall, Texas voted unanimously to become a No Kill community and achieved a 97% save rate. And according to the No Kill Advocacy Center more than 30,000 shelters, rescue groups and animal lovers have signed the No Kill declaration.

The No Kill equation has become the backbone of the ‘Saving Lives’ program of New Zealand; with a near identical set of 10 steps making up the program. When Saving Lives was launched in 2010, some of the organisations 48 centres were killing as many as 87 out of 100 of animals they were taking in.

Royal New Zealand SPCA national chief executive Robyn Kippenberger says SPCAs must save lives, that they can save lives, and that they should adopt their way out of killing. She says there are many humane alternatives to putting down animals.

“We are now in the “business of saving lives”. We are working to make New Zealand the world’s first ‘no kill’ nation.”

The immediate goal of the program was to achieve a situation where no animal coming in to an SPCA was killed because of a lack of space. In less than a year at least two SPCAs reported zero euthanasia rates, with more in single figures and some in the 20-30% range.

It must be noted, none of these cities enacted mandatory desexing laws to achieve these goals. These communities have seen that these laws have never worked in any community to either increase desexing rates or to decrease shelter intake. Not only that, but such laws have actually increased shelter intake and killing as pets are either surrendered or seized for failure to pay regressive fees. It is also believed that such laws may reduce veterinary care and vaccination rates. In fact, nearly every single national animal welfare organisation in the US is against mandatory desexing laws, including Alley Cat Allies, Best Friends Animal Society, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and the No Kill Advocacy Center among many others.

Instead of passing regressive laws that criminalise pet ownership, the No Kill movement recognises the true cause of pound killing is the refusal of pounds and shelters to implement the programs that would stop it. We know that if No Kill is going to be achieved, shelters must put in place key programs, such as a commitment to Trap, Neuter and Return (TNR) for feral cats, a foster care program, a comprehensive adoption strategy and working with community rescue groups.

The proof we see in city after city, is that these programs can eliminate shelter killing overnight. With the general public’s support, the No Kill movement has managed to reshape the thinking of many larger organisations and change community expectations of animal shelters and pounds. No Kill has brought about a new hope for companion animals worldwide. Given the overwhelming success of communities who have implemented the No Kill Equation, it would make sense that those driving for change here in Australia would want to follow in their footsteps.

Is Australian smart enough to follow success?

While the blueprint for No Kill success is written in history, the G2Z program has deviated and its aim is based on an entirely different premise:

Getting to Zero (G2Z) aims to increase responsibility for companion animals so that every city and shire can achieve zero euthanasia of all healthy and treatable cats and dogs.

In short, the G2Z major driver is to get pet owners to be more responsible, moving away from the key programs proven to eliminate shelter killing, back to ideals that have failed us for decades; the belief that ‘irresponsible owners’ and ‘pet overpopulation’ need to be eradicated before the killing can end.

The four programs of G2Z are:
1. Community vet clinic
2. Shelter vet clinic
3. Community education, legislation and support
4. Rehoming

So, desexing, desexing, berating an irresponsible public, new laws… and finally, adoptions.

Which is exactly the strategy of the traditional high kill model; Legislation, Education & Desexing (LES). We can’t save all the pets until all the pets are desexed, we have the right laws and people are responsible. However LES has proven to be a failure, and is debunked in Redemption as never having achieved a No Kill goal being met.

… familiarize yourself with the opposition’s purported alternative strategy: Legislation, Education, and Sterilization (LES).

The opposition will say that the real keys to saving lives are tough mandatory laws (like pet-limit laws, licensing, bans on feeding outdoor cats, and mandatory spay/neuter laws), humane education, and sterilization. It’s a strategy they’ve been pushing for over 30 years, but that has never created a single No Kill community.

Remember, while increasing spay and neuter rates is an important part of saving lives, and community outreach is a fine goal in theory, ‘LES’ has never achieved No Kill success anywhere in the country. In fact, most communities that have achieved No Kill success did so even before a comprehensive, high-volume spay/neuter program was in place. Moreover, some programs of this strategy – like mandatory pet-limit laws or mandatory spay/neuter requirements – have actually increased shelter killing by increasing the number of animals surrendered to or seized by animal-control authorities. What works is the proven, cost-effective programs and policies of the No Kill Equation. It represents the future of lifesaving success, not the history of failure resulting from ‘LES’.

To be fair, a lot of the programs of the No Kill equation are outlined under G2Z; but they’re presented as suggestions, not requirements. There is no mandate for pounds to offer TNR to untame cats. There is no mandate for pounds to work with rescue groups. There is no mandate to expand adoptions to include all healthy, sociable dogs including pit bulls. There is no mandate for pounds to work collaboratively and transparently with their public. In fact there is no less than 55 optional programs and services for pounds to pick and choose from, under the banner of “getting” somewhere. . not actually achieving, but simply “commiting to achieving”, “focussing on” improvements and “progressing toward zero”.

While squandering the opportunity to drive for proven and effective internal shelter improvements, the G2Z program simultaneously emphasizes the very same laws that have been shown to drive up impounds: mandatory desexing and expanded licencing.

So how’s it working?

AWLQ has been working intensively on two key goals over the last 8 years:

- To achieve zero killing of healthy and treatable cats and dogs in one large Australian city, and

- To develop a strategic model that can be applied in other cities and shires around Australia to Get to Zero nationwide.

And in this 8 years;

Zero euthanasia of all healthy sociable dogs and cats in a whole city has been achieved.

while

Saving every treatable cat and dog in a whole city is the next goal, which is getting closer.

So while they’ve made an enviable improvement using the program, they’re yet to actually achieve No Kill.

The organisation is currently processing 7,000 stray and surrendered cats and dogs in Gold Coast City. Washoe County, NV, takes in 15,000 with a save rate of 91%.. Austin, TX is saving 93% despite 25,000 intakes a year. The Gold Coast is at most a medium sized city.

When collaboration means defending the status quo

The G2Z program is about building alliances and relationships. They boast that their program; “is relevant to state governments, local government animal management departments, pounds, shelters, rescue groups, breed organisations, breeders, pet shops, animal trainers, groomers, wildlife organisations, veterinarians, and all community members who are concerned about better management and welfare of cats and dogs.” This broad desire to include ‘everybody’ in incremental improvements has evaporated the G2Z program’s ability to bring about a true revolution in sheltering practices.

Everyone in the industry having nice comfortable relationships with each other, has never stopped the killing. Animal advocates ‘getting along’ has never stopped the killing. Conferences where everyone networks and designs new ways to target pet owners has never stopped the killing. Groups putting up a nice front and agreeing not to speak of the unspeakable or challenge each other, has never stopped the killing. Communities supporting animal welfare groups with multi-million dollar fundraising budgets has never stopped the killing. Allowing groups free reign to lobby politicians directly for more and more draconian legislation around pet ownership has never stopped the killing. Even huge amounts of money spent on ‘public awareness’ has never stopped the killing.

The only thing that has ever stopped the killing is the implementation of the No Kill equation and a community brave enough to speak out and demand the killing stop at their local pounds and shelters.

Certainly, if the pound or shelter is being driven internally by compassionate staff who are willing to step up and make the changes needed to bring about No Kill outcomes in their shelter – such in the case of the Animal Welfare League Queensland – then just about any program can lead to good outcomes for pets. But no amount of ‘collaboration’ will work to change a pound or shelter who believes the killing is not only necessary, but a integral part of their sheltering processes.

An opportunity squandered?

There is the chance for Australia to learn from the past and not make the same mistakes that the U.S. collaborate-even-when-they-refuse-to-do-what-it-takes-to-stop-killing school have done.

We are at a crossroads. We can always come back to this crossroad – so it is not a point of no return – but for every unsocial community cat killed because council has followed the LES model, for each dog killed because a pound refuses rescue access and for every other animal killed because the No Kill Equation was a mere suggestion – there is no return. Once dead, they can never be brought back. Each time we choose the wrong road, the body count gets bigger. And given the evidence before us, that is just unforgivable.

ABC’s 7.30 Report…

Robyn Kippenberger, Richard Avanzino & Joy Verrinder

NDN Opening – G2Z elements

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…

Earlier in the year I wrote about the stats coming out of NSW, which showed that not only does dog ‘overpopulation’ not exist in the state, but that small changes in council policy could see shelter killing eliminated overnight. However, the figures I was quoting were being collated by independent groups which can sometimes mean they’re discounted as inaccurate by those pushing the ‘overpopulation’ angle.

But the NSW Government has now made public a hefty set of stats which come directly from council pound records; Analysis of Council Data Collection System for Seizures of Cats and Dogs 2005/2006 to 2009/2010, a complete breakdown of all pound intakes in NSW. It gives a in-depth snapshot into both public behaviour and pound performance, which really does confirm what we knew all along – the biggest predictor of whether a dog will die in a pound isn’t the animals breed, behaviour or the owner’s profile, but simply which pound impounds the pet.

.

Less than 10% of dog intakes are surrenders

The average percentage of dogs surrendered according to the report is 9.8%. So the idea the pounds are overflowing with callously dumped pets is simply untrue. What’s more, in all apart from the very largest pounds, the number of intakes of surrendered dogs are only a couple of dozen a month; and really not adding much to the shelter load. Programs which help pet owners keep their pets; community dog training schools, behaviour helplines, dog socialisation opportunities and help for owners who rent, all help cement bonds between pets and owner and could be used to reduce abandonment.

So if the dogs aren’t being surrendered, where are they coming from?

.

80% of dog intakes have owners looking for them

The average percentage of dogs returned to owners according to the report is 43%. It is fair to assume those pounds with lower rates (23%, 28%, 30%) do less to reunite pets with owners, than those who have higher rates of reclaims (50%, 52%, 53%).

But what is *really* interesting is the Sydney North entry; 82% of their dogs went home.

So why do Sydney North dogs do so well?

According to the report, the Sydney North entry is made up of; Hornsby, Hunters Hill, Ku-ring-gai, Lane Cove, Manly, Mosman, North Sydney, Pittwater, Ryde, Warringah and Willoughby

The largest council – Hornsby – sends their pets to the Sydney Dogs and Cats Home, a No Kill shelter in Carlton. The rest of the pets (about 60%) are impounded at local vets (Pittwater Animal Hospital, Collaroy Vets, Warringah Animal Hospital, North Shore Veterinary Hospital and Vetfriends Veterinary Practice), while a handful go to Blacktown.

Why is this significant? Because vets have all the proactive procedures we beg pounds to implement; friendly customer-centric animal loving staff,  convenient locations and opening hours and a motivation to reunite pets with owners.

Could it be that the best performing pounds, aren’t pounds at all?

82% is a figure which reflects what we suspected all along; with the right systems in place, the majority of people can be (and want to be!) reunited with their pets. Because their reclaim rate is so high, their kill rate is an inspirational 3% and shows what can be achieved, when those processing pets look beyond killing as a solution.

.

When relationships with rescue save lives

Central Coast (made up of Gosford and Wyong) have discovered an efficient way to bring down pound kill rates; do something other than kill. Not only do 53% of dogs go home, more than 12% of them are adopted direct to the public. But what is truly inspiring, is that through relationships with the community 22%, or more than 1 in 5, are released for rehoming by a rescue group.

This has allowed their kill rate to drop to an admirable 8%.

Only once a council puts the excuses for killing aside and start to develop relationships with its community, can the killing end.

.

Using smart advertising to save pets

While not a feature of this report, there has been another breakthrough in a NSW pound worth mentioning. Back in January, Camden Council made a commitment to their community’s homeless pets by supporting a year-long trial designed to increase the number of pets adopted from their tendered pound (Renbury). In 2009/10 131 unclaimed cats and 66 unclaimed dogs were destroyed, while only 12 cats and 65 dogs were adopted in the same year.

The approach was two-fold. Four animals should be selected each week to feature in colour weekly  ‘Adopt a Pet’ advertisements in the local newspaper (The Camden Advertiser) to improve awareness of adoptable pets. Council would also pay the $24 a day per animal in accommodation cost to hold the pet up to six days over its impound period.

The proposal was raised by deputy mayor Lara Symkowiak as a way to reduce the killing rate of impounded animals.

“The number of impounded animals is certain to increase due to the dramatic growth in population our [council area] will experience,” she said.

“This campaign is a proactive measure by council to raise awareness of Renbury Farm and promote responsible pet ownership.”

“It would be a fantastic outcome if Camden Council could boast that it does not [destroy] any healthy, re-homeable animal.” ~ Cr Lara Symkowiak

.

The program started in January this year.

.

By March they were seeing results:

“Renbury Farm staff have told me that the weekly advertising is generating more enquiries and people come into the shelter to view an animal they have seen advertised. In some cases, our advertising has drawn people into the shelter, but the person has ended up adopting an animal that has come from Bankstown, Fairfield or Liverpool council. Although the person has adopted an animal, it is not reflected in our statistics as a “Camden” animal was not adopted. This is still a huge win as it is our advertising that has drawn someone in and an animal has been adopted that would normally have been euthanased. So we are getting wins even though not all of these are reflected in our stats.”
Cr Lara Symkowiak

.

And last month:

Camden Council’s Adopt a Pet initiative has had its most successful results yet with not one dog at Renbury Farm Animal Shelter being put down in the first week of June.

Deputy mayor Lara Symkowiak said advertising Renbury Farm’s Adopt a Pet program in the Camden-Narellan Advertiser each week was showing positive results.

“To have that week less than six months into the campaign is good,” she said.

.

“Good” is obviously a huge understatement by this awesomely proactive councillor. Not one dog is a kill rate of 0%! The result show that simple, compassionate changes by councils lead to huge benefits for pets and amazing successes like this invigorate staff and the community.

.

So what about ‘overpopulation leads to shelter killing’ can we finally put that to rest?

From the stats above we can see that shelter killing can be overcome with the right mix of procedures – so what about ‘overpopulation’? Is there evidence of it within these stats?

Based on the table above we can see that 48,321 dogs were processed by pounds over the year. While this includes the majority of intakes by major animal welfare groups (RSPCA, AWL NSW, SDCH etc), there would be a percentage of pets going direct to community rescue groups. This would not be a high number however, as most groups are only able to take on limited private surrenders.

According to last year’s Contribution of the Pet Care Industry to the Australian Economy (2010), there are 1.1 million dogs living in NSW. That means less than 5% of dogs are using pounds or shelters. If half of them are collected by their owners, just 2.5% of dogs are needing to be rehomed each year.

Christie Keith introduced a new concept with her recent blog post at Pet Connection; ‘low hanging fruit’

She suggests that we’ve got desexing rates to a rate of saturation;

Although there are places in the country where there’s still a good amount of lifesaving potential in increasing spay/neuter accessibility and prevalence, in most communities, we’ve already harvested the low-hanging fruit. Most pet dogs and cats are already spayed or neutered, and spending huge resources chasing down the tiny number who aren’t is going to result in ever-dwindling returns, particularly when it’s done at the expense of better sheltering and better adoption, as is so often the case.

.

And that now our energies need to be turned to those areas where we can make huge percentage increases; ensuring lost pets are going home, and that pounds are either rehoming unclaimed pets, or are supporting rescue groups to save them.

It would take a very small increase in that rate — to save the lives of every healthy pet, as well as every pet with a treatable or manageable health or behavior problem, in every shelter.

.

‘Low hanging fruit’ is the pound who only sends 20% of pets home. ‘Low hanging fruit’ is the pound who blocks access to rescue groups. ‘Low hanging fruit’ is the pound who refuses to open at times that allow working families and adopters to visit. ‘Low hanging fruit’ is the pound who refuses to list lost pets online, or keep lost pet databases. ‘Low hanging fruit’ is the pound who refuses to advertise available pets in local media in a positive way.

If we put as much effort into pursuing ‘Low hanging fruit’ in our own communities and at our local pound, as we do in beating the ‘desexing’ drum, the ‘anti-impulse buy’ drum, then we could make enormous inroads into saving lives.