One of the things I’ve enjoyed most about my time off (apart from the sweet, sweet smell of baby neck!) is getting to watch the snowballing of compassion, as pet lovers and animal welfare advocates join forces like never before. Where the voices speaking up for the rights of shelter pets were once only a few ‘crazy’ fringe pioneers, now the myths and mantras which justified killing for convenience are being rejected by the community at large.

Sides are being drawn; those who seek to continue to kill, hiding behind apologetic slogans of ‘overpopulation’ and continuing to browbeat an ‘irresponsible public’. And those who seek to embrace the resources of the community’s pet lovers, championing the core belief that a new home is a better outcome for a pet, than death in a shelter. The community is speaking up for animals, fighting to overcome the inertia of many pounds in implementing proactive redemption, rehabilitation and rehoming programs. Thanks to this movement, the future is looking bright for Australian pets.

RSPCA ACT continue to lead to way

The RSPCA ACT have released their annual statistics, saving an inspiring 94% of dogs and 65% of cats. Their secret? Attitude!

“Despite the economic down turn and an increase in demand across all services, we just continue to improve. I am incredibly proud of our team.” ~ Michael Linke

Challenging the myth of ‘faulty’ pets

When Geelong Animal Welfare Society (GAWS) was approached by its community to work to reduce their high kill rates, their response was that the animals were dying because they were simply ‘not adoptable’.

“The animals we put down are not rehomeable,” Dr Walter said. “We are not like a pet shop, some of these dogs will have attacked people.

… these cats cannot be re-homed, they will rip your arm off.”

This may have seemed plausible until you consider the organisation killed 852 dogs and rehomed just 487 (they also ‘misplaced’ 217 dogs), and killed 2,426 cats, rehoming just 546.

The organisation is accused by protesters of refusing to implement proactive programs promoting adoption, refusing to working with community rescue groups, refusing to list pets online and acting in a hostile fashion to potential adopters. The community’s animal management problems are exasperated by the organisations support of draconian laws, which predictably drove up impounds.

While GAWS management are resentful of such attention – they have been killing without consequence for decades and wish desperately that their community would just butt out – the saga continues with the latest annual report revealing the organisation declared $2.3 million in financial assets in 2010.

GAW’s community is getting wise that they are not to blame for the organisation’s poor performance in saving lives and that the high kill rates are out of sync with how they want homeless animals to be treated. In short, the community are fighting for the animals, while the animal ‘welfare’ group who should be, fights for the right to keep killing. An abhorrent contradiction.

Community members who would like to join the push for an improvement of services at GAWS can join the Geelong Animal Care Facebook group.

Community push for compassion

With their name rapidly become synonymous with high kill rates, The Lost Dogs Home found itself the focus of locale media;

Pound kill rate sparks concern – THE AGE

A Lost Dogs Home plan to take over the running of more council pounds has alarmed animal welfare groups, who say the strategy will lead to more dogs and cats being killed.

The home has won three council contracts from rival RSPCA Victoria and has plans to take over more pounds as well as expand interstate.

The home has won contracts with Casey, Hobsons Bay and Echuca councils by tender from the RSPCA over the past two years and now runs 17 council pounds in Victoria.

But animal welfare groups have criticised the home’s growth strategy because of its high kill rate of impounded animals.
….
City of Casey spokesman Chris Ryan said tenders were called for all contracts valued at more than $150,000. The Lost Dogs Home was awarded the council’s pound contract, held by the RSPCA for the past 15 years, in December and will begin services on June 1.

Showing just how out of step they are with modern sheltering initiatives, the group blames both the community and the animals themselves for the fact so many pets fail to survive impoundment;

(Lost Dogs’ Home managing director Graeme Smith) ”We’re getting five to six owners per week refusing to come in and collect (their pets). It’s a syndrome that needs some addressing.”

Smith says the high number of dogs deemed not suitable for a new home reflects the area the shelter covers where there are more dangerous and restricted breeds of dogs.

”We have a council in the City of Melbourne that is hot to trot in making sure that we do the right thing and doing the right thing is not rehousing a dog that is going to go out and kill a neighbour’s dog or savage a kiddy,” says Smith. ”I’ve been someone who has been very strong on that.”

It’s worth remembering that this organisation adopted 3,101 pets and killed 13,594 and continues to fail to put animal welfare first, expanding their operations at the expense of animals and failing to reunite pets with owners.

Pounds may not be responsible for the pet ending up in care, but what happens next is completely in their hands. With the LDH refusing to modernise or work with local breed clubs, foster carers & rescue groups to maximise life saving, the community has the right to & should be demanding better. Killing pets while blocking these community relationships is no longer tolerable.

The community demands better for Victorian shelter pets

With the blessing of major shelters working to maintain control of valuable animal control contracts, the Department of Primary Industries proposed a highly restrictive new Code of Practice to become the blueprint for rescue in the state.

However, in a fantastic win for pets, the government listened to community feedback (over 500 submissions and more than 2,500 signatures in the PetRescue recommendation) and made significant changes to the original proposal. These changes allow shelters to work freely with foster carers and removed restrictions which forced shelters to kill pets after arbitrary time limits.

Not only does the new Code of Practice acknowledge the vital and significant contribution community rescue and foster care groups make in the modern animal sheltering model, it obligates high kill shelters to fully implement comprehensive foster care programs to save all healthy and treatable pets. A huge thank you to everyone who contributed in standing up for homeless pets and the amazing rescuers working to save them!

Busting myths

Rather than the usual suspects busting out tired old mantras of an ‘uncaring and irresponsible public’, new animal welfare players are finally being given the chance to spread the No Kill message, showing the community how to build a better future for pets. Vix from PetRescue was given the opportunity to discuss companion animal management on the 7PM Project recently. She used the opportunity to discuss modern sheltering practices and the innovative programs which are ensuring pound and shelter pets get a second chance at happiness.

Congratulations to Vix for such a groundbreaking interview.

Must attend conference announced

Continuing the theme of the new generation of inspired and inspiring animal welfare advocates leading the way in animal sheltering practices, the rock star line up for this year’s NDN has been announced.

Some of the international guests include:

- Richard Avanzino (President Maddie’s Fund USA)
Read more about Richard

- Robyn Kippenberger (CEO RNZSPCA NZ)
Read more about Robyn

- Bob Kerridge (Executive Director SPCA Auckland & National President, RNZSPCA)
Read more about Bob

- Mitch Schneider (Director Washoe County Animal Management Services USA)
Read more about Mitch

& Dr Jeff Young (DVM Planned Pethood Plus USA)
Read more about Jeff

And a host of amazing local speakers including;

- Michael Linke (CEO, RSPCA ACT)
Presenting; Change for the better

- Corinne Alberthsen & Jacqui Rand (University of Qld)
Presenting: What can 191,000 cats tell us about saving lives?

- Dr Kate Hurley (Director Shelter Medicine Program UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine)
Presenting: Feline Health in Shelters and Pounds Workshop

- Kate Mornement (Monash University)
Presenting: Behavioural Assessment Research

and Mike Bailey (Good for Dogs), Saskia & Meaghan Adams (Fundraising extraordinaires!), Tim Rickman & John Bishop (Pedigree Adoption Drive/PetRescue), Christine Yurovich (Cat Alliance of Australia) and Cathy Craw & Geoff Clarke (Tasmanian Canine Defence League).

For more information and to reserve your seat, visit: The National Desexing Network Conference page

Animal advocates are rumbling about the new ‘Greens supported’ companion animal welfare laws in the ACT as being some of the most important in the country. Those who dare question it, they say, are simply against good animal welfare policy, or are in league with the puppy farmers, or just want to see pets to continue to die in shelters. It’s just one big o’ conspiracy theory.

But what is the actual potential of the legislation in saving lives? To find out, first, we need to get familiar with the laws surrounding keeping domestic animals in the ACT already in existence.

The Domestic Animals Act 2000 requires that along with registration for cats and dogs;

• You can’t keep an undesexed dog without a permit (Part 3, 74-1)
• You can’t keep an undesexed cat without a permit (Part 3, 74-2)
• Dogs must be desexed before 6 months of age (Part 3, 74-4)
• Cats must be desexed before 3 months of age (Part 3, 74-4)
• You must apply for a permit to keep an entire animal for breeding (Part 3, 75)
• All dogs over six months of age and cats over 3 months of age, must be desexed before sale (Part 3, 74A)

While the Domestic Animals Regulation 2001, made under the Domestic Animals Act 2000 requires;

• That dogs that are at least 12 weeks old, or at point of sale, must be microchipped (Part 2, 7-3)
• That cats that are at least 12 weeks old, or at point of sale, must be microchipped (Part 3, 8-1)

So we have laws which say you can’t keep an undesexed adult animal. We have laws which say you must apply for a a permit to breed. We have laws which mandate only very young animals can be sold undesexed (under 6 months for dogs and 3 months for cats) and that all pets must be microchipped before sale.

These are a lot of the laws that groups in other states are beavering away to enact as the ‘solution to pet overpopulation’ in their communities – how’s it worked out here?

Are these laws working in the ACT?

Well, cat numbers have remained high, with ten years of mandatory desexing failing to decrease cat numbers;

“That figure has been growing, 5, 10, 15 per cent per annum over the last five years, so there’s a significant issue with regard to kitten desexing or cat desexing in Canberra”.
Michael Linke – ABC: RSPCA ACT overrun with kittens

And realising that there are genuine hurdles to desexing, and probably a not insignificant number of unowned cats, they have called for more support services.

“We need the Government to police the legislation that’s in place and we need them to work with the local veterinary community to try to make desexing more accessible.”

The conclusion that compulsory desexing does not reduce cat intakes mirrors a report by By Dr. Linda Marston, Dr. Pauleen Bennett, Vanessa Rohlf and Kate Mornement in 2008 which showed the following intake information for the ACT:

Corresponding data for cats show that the number of cats that were euthanised closely paralleled the number admitted.

There was a decreasing trend in cat admissions observed between 1997 and 2000, which was accompanied by a reduction in euthanasia (49.2% in 1997­ 1998 and 38.1% in 2000-2001).

Importantly, in 2001-2002, the year after the DAA (2000) legislation was introduced, the euthanasia rate jumped to 62%, although it decreased back to 36.3% in the subsequent year. This may indicate that a temporary increase in cat euthanasia is likely to follow the introduction of mandatory desexing legislation.

Since 2002, admissions have increased and the number of cats that are euthanised has increased accordingly, although not to quite the same extent. This is due to an increased number of cats being rehomed over the last two years. However, the proportion of cats’ euthanised has risen in recent years, perhaps because 474 feral cats were admitted in 2007. This is an 8% increase on 2006, when 440 feral animals were admitted (M.Linke, pers.comm.). Reclaim rates have remained relatively low compared to dogs.

While in the case of dogs,

(The graph shows) an overall decrease in the number of dogs admitted to shelters in the ACT each year for the past decade. This trend commenced two years before the introduction of the DAA (2000) legislation but was temporarily interrupted by a substantial increase in dog admissions which occurred just before the legislation was introduced.

In the first 18 months of implementation there was a dramatic decrease in admissions, but this has slowed somewhat since then. Generally, the patterns for rehoming and euthanasia parallel the admission data, although there was a spike in the number of dogs reclaimed in 2001-2002. This can be attributed to greater public awareness resulting from the publicity associated with the new legislation (M. Linke, pers.comm.). At this time there was also a reduction in the number of dogs rehomed, which mirrored the spike in reclaims. This is important data. Even though there were fewer dogs for potential adopters to choose from, the fact that numbers rehomed decreased may indicate that those available for adoption may not have been suitable to rehome.

Current euthanasia rates at the RSPCA (ACT) are about half the level they were in 1997-1998 i.e. decreasing from 26% in 1997-1998 to 13% in 2006-2007.

So the RSPCA ACT, who balance animals between their shelter and the major pound (DAS), have a euthanasia rate of around 13%,

“Our homing rate is based on the formula whereby animals put to sleep are divided by all animals received. Some animals that go to DAS are included in this number, but not all as in some cases the animal goes directly to DAS from our holding kennels and does not enter our computer system. DAS’s homing rate is also in the 90% range.”
Michael Linke – DOL forums April 2010

These impressive dog figures could be attributed directly to this legislation, except that is not the conclusion drawn by the by the Marston report:

The ACT experience has also shown that the introduction of mandatory desexing legislation may affect the euthanasia rate of dogs, although this may also be explained by other initiatives put in place by the two shelters in this region in the past decade. It does not appear to have affected the euthanasia rate for cats. The numbers of kittens admitted has not decreased and the admission rate of feral cats has increased. This observation could be attributed to the following factors:

1) The reduction in shelter admissions of dogs resulted from a pre-existing trend and the temporary increase in admission rates resulted from the introduction of the legislation.

2) The large numbers of stray kittens admitted to the RSPCA in the last two years suggests that mandatory desexing is not targeting the source of the cats admitted. This hypothesis is supported by the increase in the number of feral kittens admitted (M.Linke, pers.comm).

3) The reduction in dog euthanasia rates may be due to better rehoming practices and greater commitment to maintaining the health and well-being of the animals impounded.

Both governmental and welfare agencies stressed that the introduction of mandatory desexing without appropriate resources made the legislation virtually unenforceable.

So that is where we are in the ACT – where are we looking at going?

What new laws are the Greens proposing and are they necessary?

(RSPCA ACT) CEO Michael Linke says thousands of animals are offered for sale in classifieds and on the internet each year in Canberra.

He says 5,000 animals were listed in the classifieds of one local publication in 2009.
…..

“It’s just making a mockery of the laws in place in Canberra where we have compulsory microchipping, compulsory desexing and licences available for breeders.”

“The laws are good, we’re got some of the strongest animal welfare laws in Australia … but there is no policing, there is no follow-up,” he said.
Pet laws need policing – ABC

Enforcement has always proven to be an issue with these kinds of laws, not only because cat laws are largely unenforcable, but because funding this enforcement becomes a major issue for local council. If you have a council with animal laws that aren’t being enforced and add more laws, the result is simply more laws not being enforced.

But despite this experience, more laws is where they’re planning on going anyway. In December last year, the Greens supported bill in question, was introduced into the ACT Assembly with the backing of the RSPCA. The bill would:

• Ban puppies and kittens being displayed in the front windows of pet shops – shops could still sell pets, they just have restrictions on the way they can be displayed
• Ban the sale of pets at markets – which is probably a good thing, though conclusions about the influence on animal euthanasia rates would be speculative
• Prohibit the sale of pets to children – good, but probably a negligible problem in relation to euthanasia
• ‘Mandatory desexing’ of all pets at point of sale – effectively mandating ‘early age desexing’ for all pets. Which may be fine, if the surgery was risk free, but it’s not. Animals can also be sold under a ‘desexing voucher’, further reducing any potential effectiveness of this mandate.



Having recognised these kinds of laws are ineffective in targeting cats, and the low rate of euthanasia for dogs… not to mention ongoing problems with enforcement, it seems these small and incremental changes seem to be based on hype and politics, rather than a genuine desire to improve animal welfare outcomes.

From the Australian Companion Animal Council:

“Experience has shown that an over-reliance on a purely regulatory response to animal management issues results in disappointing outcomes for both the animals and the people who care about them. This is particularly the case when the underlying drivers are not well understood as is the case with shelter overpopulation.”






Keeping on doing what doesn’t work (but with more gusto!)

We know what the solutions are to eliminating the killing of animals in animal shelters. None of these proven solutions have been based on a creative new laws punishing the community, or incrementally enacting more and more draconian legislation targeting owners and their animals. Almost despite their laws – thanks to innovative animal sheltering and the setting of No Kill goals – shelter animals in the ACT are probably safer here than anywhere else in the country. And yet the ‘punishment-based’ thinking is so entrenched, that animal advocates still champion the idea that the public is the problem, that their community will buck the trend and create an utopian set of laws, that will drive them to No Kill.

There seems to be an overwhelming focus on emotions, rather than solid deliverables in this ‘Greens’ legislation debate. Polarising and branding people as ‘for the animals’ or simply ‘profit motivated’ depending on whether they support, or question, the effectiveness of these new laws. While it can make for exciting advocacy, popular politics and satisfying opportunities to sling mud at the pet industry… seems none of these pastimes are based on improving animal outcomes, or getting pets out of shelters alive.

The legislation in the ACT is already incredibly restrictive and largely unenforced, which would surely leave anyone asking; could improving services to help the community comply and improved enforcement of existing legislation, be more effective that pumping even more resources into shiny new laws?

That’s no conspiracy – it’s simply common sense.

Everything is conspiring against you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

All these things are true.

Now what?

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

Every. Single. One.

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

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

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

The animals are counting on you.

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

You are not alone. Join us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overcoming resistance;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

… is now available. Get it here!

The community is realising that there are many skills needed in driving change for animals. The contribution of a marketer, or a researcher, or a foster carer or political advocate, can be just as vital as that made by someone who works directly with animals in the shelter, or a shelter CEO. We all have a role to play in creating a better future for the community’s displaced companion animals.

However, while the No Kill philosophy and No Kill equation makes perfect sense to the community who want to see the lives of pets saved – and new No Kill advocates quickly move towards a single, important goal ‘how can we get these life-saving programs up and running tomorrow‘ – what is noticed pretty quickly by these same advocates, is that the shelters themselves often don’t like the programs being called ‘No Kill’.

“We don’t like that term,” they gripe. “We won’t work with you if you call it that.”

Then they’ll often wax lyrical about the pet loving public being too stupid to understand the term, or that they’ll want to be allowed a ‘transition’ period of still using killing as a tool so they can’t be ‘No Kill’, or that their community is different; “they’re too irresponsible”, “the pets are unadoptable”, “that there is a lack of compassion” or “that only new laws can stop the killing”. They cross their arms and close their minds and maintain that there’s nothing they can do to stop the killing pets in their shelter – No Kill is simply impossible until their community learns to behave itself.

So animal advocates trying to make change in their community face a roadblock – shelter management won’t negotiate with them until they drop the ‘No Kill’ term, which puts the responsibility for killing firmly on the shoulders of the shelters who won’t implement the programs which would save lives – meaning the programs which would save lives fail to be implemented and the killing continues.

That’s when these advocates come to me with a single question; can’t we just call it ’something else’?

Their thinking is sound; maybe if the terminology was rebranded into something that the shelter management found more acceptable, maybe if we just conceded this one detail we could get our foot in the door and start the process of change, maybe if we allowed shelters to maintain their belief that they and the animals are victims of a ‘throwaway society’ and that they are simply doing the dirty work of a ‘irresponsible public’… maybe that’s not so bad if it gets us a seat at their table so we can show them just how these programs can help. If the leaders want to make themselves feel better by calling it something else, then who cares as long and the programs get off the ground… right?

Why No Kill works

Christie Keith wrote a fantastic piece back in 2008 called ‘Don’t Surrender the Power of No Kill’. It told the story of how one of her friends found a litter of kittens and asked Christie to give her the contact details of the local ‘No Kill’ shelter – not because she followed Nathan Winograd or had ever heard of the No Kill movement, but simply because she cared and wanted to see those kittens saved:

… all my friend knows is these kittens she saved need shelter and help. She knows that “no-kill” is good. It’s what she wants for those kittens. And she’s willing to wait, and to drive for hours, if I can just tell her where to go.

She knows she wants those kittens to live, not die. She knows she doesn’t want them killed. It’s really that simple. And that powerful.

To suggest that this animal lover would be ‘too stupid’ to understand that if these kittens were untreatably ill and suffering that a No Kill shelter would euthanse them on compassionate grounds is simply setting up a straw-man argument of community objections that don’t exist in reality. Given this person is compassionate enough to pluck these kittens from her backyard and care where they end up, it would be reasonable to assume she wouldn’t allow her own pet to suffer irremediably. Why then would we think she would want this forced on other pets?

What she wants to know that these kittens won’t be killed for convenience. That they will be given every chance to find new homes; even if that means they go into foster care, or are transferred to rescue, or their pictures are circulated on social media sites or bows are tied around their necks and the local media asked to come take pictures of them. The community understands the difference between ‘killing for convenience’ and true euthanasia, much more completely than we give them credit for.

So that takes us back to our shelter manager, who rejects No Kill. If the real issue is not the ’stupidity’ of the public, what is really going on? And what happens when we ‘rebrand’ No Kill to appease their sensibilities?

First is to understand the nature of ‘Resistance’ – I wrote a whole piece on the topic here:

Shelters can’t openly reject the notion that pets should be offered foster care instead of death, that pets should be given a chance with a rescue group rather than be killed, that pets should be kept healthy instead of allowed to have their health and behaviour deteriorate whilst in care, that pets should be promoted off-site, online and in the local media rather than summarily killed, or that pets should be allowed to go into new homes rather than have potential families turned away by uncaring or bureaucratic staff… because if they reject these notions then they put themselves firmly in the firing line of their community.

Given the loss of support, donors and resources is crippling, they find themselves left with two choices; change or resist. And often, entrenched in the status quo, offended that people are criticising their performance and scared of being forced into transparency and accountability, they choose to resist.

We know this resistance exists because this information on how to run these life saving programs successfully has been around for decades; shelter dog rehabilitation, outreach desexing, working with volunteers, saving lives through foster care, relationships with the community and foster groups, good media interactions and adoption promotions, conferences, magazines, volunteer train-the-trainer programs, have all been available to groups who wanted to move away from killing. While for the last five to ten years the internet has allowed the immediate access of the best of sheltering practices, and connection to specialists from around the world running effective programs. No Kill hasn’t created this information; it’s been around (and could have been used) for as long as most shelter managers have been in their positions. And yet in 2011 we are still have trouble getting shelters and pounds to invest in, and fully implement, those programs and practices which save lives.

Until now

Why is it, that groups are now falling over themselves to do things other than run down their community and lament high kill rates, and to be seen to be ‘life-savers’ where just two years ago, they were still defending killing and bagging the community for being ‘irresponsible’? Why is it all changing?

Because of No Kill. Because despite shelter manager’s resistance, the community aren’t too stupid to understand it. In fact they thought No Kill programs were what shelters had been doing all along and frankly, they’re pissed off to find out that the tens of millions of dollars they have been contributing annually has often been invested in making groups rich and powerful, not saving lives.

The same shelter managers who arrogantly proclaimed that they ‘had’ to kill 90%+ of cat intakes, or that pit bulls should be wiped out, or that we need mandatory desexing laws and pet ownership licences to save lives… are all suddenly floundering, as an educated community pushes back on the myths and mantras and bullshit from the industry. And the public doesn’t care whether shelter managers ‘feel good’ or comfortable with these changes – they don’t care whether egos are bruised or whether these ’sheltering professionals’ would rather we were kinder to them, or gave them more credit. They don’t care because the public see it’s about the animals – not appealing to the sensibilities of puffy, self-important CEO’s who have been ignoring all this good information for all this time, in favour of killing.

No Kill advocates need to value this change

When we think about calling No Kill something else, what we’re really considering is whether rather than continue this momentum, we should agree the term ‘No Kill’ is too controversial and appease those very same CEO’s who have failed animals, by diluting the message that got them to start making changes in the first place. Why on earth would we do that?

No Kill is a movement for the people. Programs which call No Kill by another name, may be an attractive ‘baby step’ for advocates stymied by unwilling shelter management, but getting a resistant shelter onside by agreeing to their terms, is dangerous. Because they can then use the language of No Kill, use the power of No Kill and create double-speak like ‘working towards saving pets’ to appease their supporters… all the while keeping their belief that they know best, the community shouldn’t say anything contrary to their ‘expert’ opinion, and that killing is simply an unavoidable part of animal sheltering.

To think you’ll get compliance from those groups who’ve come out saying ‘we don’t support No Kill because we don’t like the name of it’ by pandering to their egos in designing a less confronting, more stealthy program is unrealistic. While it would be nice to think all we have to do is give the blueprint to shelter management in a palatable format; the truth is the system is presently so monopolised and self-serving that the only way to bring about change is to target those who continue to champion killing head on, by showing the public how their attitude and their failures continues to kill animals unnecessarily.

They could have already implemented the programs to stop killing if they thought saving lives was their goal (calling it whatever they like in the process), but they haven’t. They could already be lobbying against the laws which mandate killing here in Oz, but they aren’t. They genuinely believe killing is a necessary part of their job, and to now admit that it isn’t, is a blow to their authority that most will never submit to. Waiting five, ten years while they pretend to be on board, dithering about the name and detail, while finding every reason in the book for ‘resistance’ is simply time wasted. We need to continue to shake the thrones of these kings from the outside in – through public awareness of No Kill programs and grass roots advocacy for change.

No Kill – can’t we just call it something else?

We could, but we shouldn’t. We should be about is what gets results, not what makes the defenders of killing feel the most comfortable. Claiming the No Kill movement as our own in Australia is a vital step to bringing about change in a system which is failing; by contrast, giving up the power of the No Kill movement accepts the excuses and the allows the unnecessary killing of shelter pets to continue.

“Mark my words, there will be an end to needless killing of healthy/treatable shelter pets. And when that happens, which side will history put you on? Will you have been an advocate for no kill or will you have remained a loyal enabler to those who needlessly killed untold millions of pets in shelters?”
~ YesBiscuit

Get No Kill news from Australia and around the globe – get the Saving Pets newsletter!

I’m going to start putting out a regular newsletter, now I’m winding back the blogging. Sign up to stay up to date with No Kill developments in Australia.

http://eepurl.com/cC9Jw

Two years ago, a major animal welfare group could put out a piece in the media stating “we have massive irresponsibility in our community and we need X law” (insert mandatory desexing, pet owner licencing, cat curfews etc) and pet lovers, who believed everything they’d been told by these animal welfare leaders without question, would jump in and fully support whatever was being proposed. I mean, why wouldn’t they? These people were ‘on the coalface’ of welfare and they would know.

Two years ago, a major animal welfare group could put out a piece in the media stating “we have massive overpopulation in our community and so we have no choice but to kill thousands of pets” and pet lovers, who believed everything they’d been told by these animal welfare leaders without question, would jump in and offer condolences to the poor animal welfare workers. These people are professionals who must be exhausting every avenue to save animals… mustn’t they?

Two years ago, a major animal welfare group could put out a piece in the media stating “our community is worse than any other; the pets aren’t rehomable and the community doesn’t care enough to help us save them” and pet lovers, who believed everything they’d been told by these animal welfare leaders without question, would agree wholeheartedly that their situation was unique and their pets were unsavable and their problems were insurmountable and that the only solution was in fact, to continue to kill animals.

But today, things are different.

Those same pet lovers who believed everything they’d been told by the animal welfare leaders without question… are connecting with each other. They are able to see that they have not only been shut out of the decision making of these community funded organisations, but that these groups have been hiding facts and figures and performance behind the mantras of ‘public irresponsibility’, ‘overpopulation’ and ‘unique and insurmountable problems’, which when critically examined, prove to be false.

Whats more, by believing killing was the only way, the shelters themselves have created systems and procedures which ensure the killing continues. Cat ‘welfare’ groups who accept paid council tenders to trap and remove cats, despite killing 9 out of 10 intakes. Mega pounds which pull in stray pets from dozens of councils, cherry pick the best and kill the rest. Pounds which block access to community rescue groups, preferring the simplicity of killing unclaimed pets. Shelters who refuse to implement basic programs like foster care, off-site adoption and extended trading hours. Shelters who choose to kill, rather than offer free and discount desexing to at-risk pets. Shelters who kill unweaned kittens and untame cats. Shelters which lobby for laws that kill bull breeds. Shelters who kill rather than offer behavioural and veterinary rehabilitation. Shelters who continue to choose killing over implementing the programs that could stop it.

But now, thanks to the ease of which pet lovers can communicate, the community are getting wise. They can compare the performance of their own local pound or shelter, with those in other communities – both here and around the globe. They can see the results of the implementation of new legislation on other communty’s kill rates with a few clicks on the web, rather than relying on just what the shelters tell them. They expect that their local shelter will speak to them directly about which life-saving programs and services they are implementing and how the community can be involved. They expect council funded pounds will be more than just another ‘garbage disposal service’. And they expect transparency in performance and outcomes like never before.

No longer can a pound or shelter complain about their ‘high kill rates’ without a community backlash – of both frustration and assistance. The community don’t want pets to die in shelters. The community will support programs which reduce intakes and rehabilitate pets. The community will foster and be involved with their local community rescue groups. The community, when offered convenience and a friendly welcome, will adopt in droves. The community will volunteer and fundraise when they can see the resources are being spent on caring for animals, not killing them. The community want shelters to be a place of safety for pets.

A community who no longer believes the myths, mantras and excuses of shelters who defend killing in the face of alternatives, have the power to bring about the change needed to save the lives of pets. So while the shelters defend killing and continue to lobby for laws to punish the ‘irresponsible’ and ‘reduce overpopulation’, the community’s pet lovers are realising that because the problems exist inside the shelters – the solution lay there also.

The No Kill Primer – a beginners guide to making any community No Kill

I saw Mitch Schneider speak last year – he wasn’t a ‘rescuer’, but the upper management of animal control. He had realised that treating the community like the enemy and blocking rescue was leaving his pound full. He said “what kind of crap boss am I, if I’m forcing my staff to kill pets, be stressed out and traumatised – when there’s an alternative?”

This interview is awesome.
………………..

This week we hear from an animal control director known for his innovative, yet very common-sense business model for animal control, Mitch Schneider of Washoe County Regional Animal Services in Nevada. His approach serves both the public safety and the welfare of animal, which the traditional model of animal control treats as incompatible.

Schneider was initially skeptical that No Kill could work in Reno, but didn’t want the initiative to fail because of him—you can’t know it won’t work if you have never even tried it. He agreed to try and Reno, Nevada now has one of the highest rates of lifesaving of any community in the United States, saving all healthy and treatable shelter pets, which turns out to be literally 95% of them. His model represents a better future for animal control—one in which animals’ lives are saved, and animal control works collaboratively with the animal rescue community and the animal-loving public, rather than treating them as adversaries. As an added bonus, this results in a cost savings to the taxpayers, better relations with the public and an improved image for animal control, all the while remaining consistent with their public safety mandate.

He is a strong believer in collaboration, but also understands that collaboration isn’t always possible. That was one of the things he sought to change when he became manager of WCRAS. In the past, leadership at animal control refused to work fully and collaboratively with the Nevada Humane Society. Sadly, that is true in many communities around the country, as traditional animal control shelters simply refuse to collaborate with rescuers and animal advocates, throwing away opportunities to save lives.

He has said, “In some ways, I see part of my job as getting out of the way of people who want to save lives.”

Mitch Schneider will be giving a webinar entitled ‘Getting to No Kill as an Animal Control Shelter’ on January 28, 2011 and will also be presenting at the No Kill Conference in Washington, D.C., July 30-31, 2011.

Animal control in Washoe County, Nevada follows a very different business model from any other animal control unit in the country. How did it come to be so different from animal control across rest of the country and what key things set it apart?

My fundamental belief is that one should try to do the right things for the right reason. With that in mind it makes sense to work with all the stakeholders in the community to achieve the best for the community. It’s amazing what you can accomplish when everyone respects one another (even differences) and works together toward a common goal (keep your eye on the ball, so to speak).

Many animal services programs and animal rescue groups focus on the difference in their primary missions; animal services’ focus is public safety and animal rescue groups’ focus is saving animals. By doing so, they often fail to recognize the commonality in their missions and resist working with each other, either intentionally or due to conflicting policies and practices. As a result, some animal services programs may be overlooking a significant opportunity to reduce costs and increase community support.

Compounding the problem, many traditional animal services programs follow an approach that parallels parking enforcement. In some parking enforcement situations, a vehicle is towed and impounded and held until the costs of the towing and impound fees are collected. This makes sense when you have a vehicle that is worth a substantial sum of money. But it doesn’t work quite as well when you’re talking about an animal that, more often than not, has little or no monetary value. This approach to recovering costs of animal services often increases the need for more shelter space and increases the abandonment and death rates, which in turn increases the cost of the program. Additionally, this approach fails to recognize that most people consider pets to be a family member and therefore, the traditional business model does little to garner public support.

To reduce the likelihood of needing a larger shelter facility in the future, at a cost in the millions of dollars, WCRAS policy directs Animal Control Officers to make every reasonable effort to return animals to their owner instead of impounding the animal. In addition to checking the pet for identification (tags or microchips), officers will check lost reports and speak with area residents in an attempt to determine if anyone knows where the animal lives. Besides reducing shelter costs, this policy also reduces animal abandonment and enhances public support. A dog license is promoted as “Your Dog’s Ticket Home”; providing a true benefit for licensing increases voluntary compliance, further reducing shelter needs and the inherent potential for abandonment. In 2009, officers returned nearly 1,000 dogs directly to their owners without impounding them, reducing shelter space needs, stress to the dogs and their owners and reduced shelter staff and supply costs. Upon returning the animal to the owner all laws are enforced and warnings or citations issued as deemed appropriate.

Another traditional practice in animal services that increases abandonment is the policy of not allowing an owner to redeem their pet if they can’t pay all of the fees at the time of redemption. Continuing to hold the animal until all of the fees are collected simply increases the redemption fees for the pet owner and increases the need for greater sheltering space, reduces public support and increases abandonment and the [kill] rate and associated costs. To address this issue, Washoe County has established a billing system, which is only used with supervisor permission to ensure that this option is offered as a last resort; unpaid bills are turned over to collections.

Disclosure of statistics is an area that requires some mention. It’s not uncommon for agencies to be reluctant to publish their statistics. However, WCRAS feels that by publishing detailed statistical information citizens can see the problems that need to be addressed within the community; this type of transparency can also help in gaining the trust of the animal rescue groups.

Rest of the article