As anyone who opens their homes to a foster pet knows, community rescue and foster groups save lives. Effective shelters and pounds recognise this, developing relationships with community rescue to manage capacity and bring down kill rates. The belief that the community can be trusted with pets, and that pets are better off in homes than killed in a shelter, is at the core of these programs. Without the belief that the community are the solution, not the problem, a pound or shelter remains an island – blaming the community for its problems, its lack of capacity, its failures… and for its killing.

With the new wave of No Kill initiatives sweeping Australia, pounds and shelters who choose not to work with rescue have a problem; how can they maintain their monopoly, stifle community discussion about policies and procedures that need improvement, keep new non-profits from ‘competing’ for donation dollars (though the No Kill movement has a belief in abundance) and maintain the status quo, when the public has heard that by opening their doors to foster groups, shelters can save every healthy, treatable pet? There is this conundrum. How can they still champion killing, in the face of alternatives?

There is only one solution; paint the alternative darker.

Only by convincing the public that foster care groups are dangerous mavericks with malicious intent, can a pound or shelter continue to kill pets while simultaneously blocking access to rescue. Only by fear mongering over the risk to a pet should it be given to a member of the public, rather then kept ’safe’ in a shelter, can a pound or shelter kill that pet without the community asking, ‘why wasn’t it given a chance with community rescue?’ And this is exactly the approach being used in Victoria right now.

Over the weekend, while championing the new changes to the Code of Practice which effectively wipe out community rescue, Graeme Smith of the Lost Dogs Home, coined a disturbing new abstraction… ‘the backyard rescuer’ (mp4).

“Let me just say there still has to be regulation. You can’t let every backyard individual set up an animal shelter”

This is a deliberate misconstruction of what the community is asking for. Community foster groups are exactly that – foster groups made up of community members. We know an unclaimed pet is at a very high risk in a pound or shelter. We know a ‘death-row’ pet is at an extreme level of risk in an animal shelter. If a community foster care group is willing to take that pet, treat it at their own cost, give it a temporary home, rehabilitate and find it a new family, how can any risk possibly be seen as ‘more risk’ than the risk it faces of death while in the hands of the shelter?

What’s more, the experience nationally actually shows the risk to the pet of being in the community is a very low risk indeed. Thousands of pets are being cared for by foster families at this very moment. And these carers are not hoarders or abusers, or any of the other words shelters like to throw around to defend their position of killing pets rather than releasing them. In fact they’re normal people. They’re pet owners who love their pets. They’re compassionate people who want to help one extra. They’re people who learn and grow and become more capable, the more they work under the guidance of experienced groups. They’re people with skills, who get these pets out into the community and find them homes. Hundreds of thousands of people who would be willing to lend a hand, should the shelters allow it.

Despite what the shelters claim, giving absolute discretion to shelters as to the fate of animals, doesn’t protect pets. We know that because of the enormously high kill rates we’re seeing across Victoria as regressive shelter directors blame the community, block access to rescue groups and keep right on killing. While this new Code that is getting so much support from these very same pounds and shelters, seeks to further erode any rights the community have to save animals. We musn’t be hoodwinked into believing this is good for pets. We must demand access for and recognition of community foster care and rescue groups in Victoria.

When a horse died on the first day of the Victorian jumps season, the RSPCA pronounced loudly that these animals deserved protection from those who cause them an unnecessary death.

When the duck season started and the hunters opened fire, the RSPCA declared loudly that shooting animals was barbaric.

When cats were injured last year by callous abusers, the Cat Protection Society spoke loudly in condemnation of anyone who would take a loved family pet and kill it.

And when Buckley, a small puppy with hacked off ears was found, the Lost Dogs Home campaigned loudly about the rights for animals to be kept safe from harm and given a chance to live.

All of these animal welfare mantras were championed loudly because they are at the heart of animal welfare lobbying.

Demanding that animals don’t suffer unnecessary death.

And the right for pets to receive treatment and be given a second chance with a new family.

So in the face of the new Code of Practice for Pounds and Shelters; which protects pounds who unnecessary kill pets, protects shelters who choose shooting as their preferred method of killing, allows pounds to hold pets with no obligation to make an effort to find their families, and allows killing to be the preferred method of animal management, rather than mandating that pets be offered treatment, care and release to a loving foster home… one might have assumed that these groups would be speaking very loudly indeed.

After all these groups, the largest pounds in the state, claim to have lobbied for these rights for animals for decades.

But no. When it comes to speaking up for animals, loudly is reserved for outsiders. Loudly is neither political, nor profitable when the mandates for compassion and life saving are being turned inwards and upon the animal welfare groups themselves. The same animal rights that are campaigned for loudly and rightfully in other animal industries, are forfeited once a dog or a cat enters an animal shelter in Victoria.

Softly is the approach now. No outrage. No media campaign. No graphic photos of dead and dying animals. No community call to arms. No petitions. No Facebook announcements. No fanfare. Not so much as a position statement. Just three animal welfare groups on the board that advises on this Code, quietly negotiating the best outcomes for themselves. Three groups with the ability to, and a history of, drawing attention to unjust and cruel practices and from all three, radio silence. Not one wanting to be seen to be publicly supporting this legislation in the eyes of the community, but none willing to stand up and condemn it.

Protecting animals has a place. After protecting empires. After protecting fortunes. And after protecting pounds and shelters rights to kill without question.

Further reading: Changes to VIC code of practice for shelters (and why you should care)

There is just 30 days to comment on changes to the Code of Practice for the Management of Dogs and Cats in Shelters and Pounds.

From the DPI e-Newsletter:

Code of Practice (Revision Number 1)

For your information – the Minister gave notice today 31 March 2011 of the proposal to make the Code of Practice for the Management of Dogs and Cats in Shelters and Pounds (Revision Number 1) and announced a call for public submissions for a period of 28 days as required by s.60 of the Domestic Animals Act 1994.

The current Code of Practice has been in place since November 1998 and has been recently reviewed by the Department with the assistance of industry stakeholders. The primary objective of this review and public consultation is to provide for agreed minimum standards for the accommodation, management and care appropriate to the needs of dogs and cats housed in shelters and pounds.

Public submissions are invited on the proposed Code of Practice for the Management of Dogs and Cats in Shelters and Pounds (Revision Number 1) and must be provided in writing.

This new Code is nearly identical to the proposal that was leaked last year to great criticism from the wider rescue industry and the public. At that time, in response to the intensely negative feedback, the Code was quickly shelved. What is interesting *this* time is that despite the promise that there would be big changes made in the re-writing of this legislation before it was resubmitted, Victoria is still at risk of having the same majorly flawed legislation passed.

Compared to the existing Code, the new Code has some significant changes which seem to be designed to cripple both independent rescue and foster groups, and restrict the life saving programs of large shelters to the point where programs become unworkable. In the ultimate effort of ‘legislating the status quo’; the DPI has further expanded pound’s capacity to kill, protection for pounds and shelters from community backlash about killing and even continued to mandate killing – further reducing protection for pets in what is already a failing pound system.

Intakes

Just as the previous COP gave free reign to pounds and shelters to deem cats ‘feral’ and immediately kill them, the new code maintains the same lack of protection;

(2.2) Admission: Every animal admitted to the establishment must be examined by a veterinary practitioner or by an experienced person, who is responsible for classifying the animals into the health status (table 1) for appropriate action:

Table 1 – Health status and appropriate action to be taken upon admission

In regional locations, this means cats can be shot with a firearm, while in city shelters it allows unchipped cats to be disposed of immediately without offering owners, the community or rescue groups an opportunity to act to save them. To be building such ‘extermination’ powers into animal management plans in 2010, is staggeringly counter intuitive to animal protection.

This is especially revolting given that of the 14 highly restricted seats on the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC), (of which only 3 are held by ‘animal rescue’ organisations) one is held by Dr Carole Webb of the Cat Protection Society. With a 91% kill rate for the nearly 12,500 cat intakes at the organisation, protection for shelters from public criticism over killing seems to be a higher priority than lobbying to protect cats from a mandated or even violent death.

Releasing to rescue

(2.6) Euthanasia or removal of an animal from the establishment: At the conclusion of the statutory period specified in the Domestic Animals Act 1994 for seized or surrendered animals, animals must be:
- rehomed to a new owner, or
- euthanased because of disease, injury, behaviour, age, unsuitability for sale, or
- placed in appropriate foster care and returned at an appropriate date for rehoming, or
- released under a written agreement to a person or body which operates in accordance with the Act to care for and dispose of the animal, at the discretion of the operations manager or veterinary practitioner.

There are two options for ‘rescue’ to access a pet under this new directive; either the rescuer is a foster carer for the pound or shelter (more on that below), or the group is authorised under the Domestic Animals Act 1994. The Act makes no reference to private or individual rescue groups, only specifying ‘domestic animal businesses’ – which most rescue groups are not:

“domestic animal business means— (a) an animal shelter, Council pound or pet shop; or an enterprise that is run for profit which carries out all or any of the following activities— (i) the breeding of dogs or cats, (ii) the rearing, training or boarding of dogs or cats”.

As private rescue groups (foster care, individual rescues etc) don’t so much as rate a mention in the Act, rescue groups could well be refused access on the basis of them not being a ‘domestic animal businesses’. Essentially putting all relationships between pounds and local rescue and foster groups in breach of the new legislation.

This is obviously a boon for pounds and shelters who would rather have the protection of this legislation to kill pets at will, than work with local groups to save them. It is also a bonus for those pounds and shelters who often kill for ’space’ during busy times like Christmas and NYE’s celebrations; with a way to block access by community rescue groups working in a volunteer capacity (ie. not registered as a Domestic Animal Business), pounds can continue to kill due to ‘overpopulation’ without consequence.

Foster care

There is a whole new section on foster care. This applies specifically to the foster carers of ‘animal shelters and pounds‘, but with no provision for private foster organisations, that may be the only foster care left able to legally operate.

Foster care is highly restricted and not able to be used simply to ‘make space’ or save lives;

(2.8) Foster care: This section provides minimum standards for the operation of foster care conducted by establishments. The only time an animal can be placed in foster care is on the grounds of juvenile, veterinary rehabilitation or behavioural rehabilitation foster care.

Instead it must be for the purpose of ‘rehabilitation’, includes strict veterinary and reporting requirements and is generally being considered an extension of pound process, rather than an important community service that moves pets directly from home to home;

The animals placed in foster care must be permanently identified by microchip and they remain the property of the establishment. Animals in foster care must be returned to the establishment for rehoming as foster care must not be considered as the animal being ‘permanently removed’ from the establishment. An animal in foster care must not be sold or rehoused from the foster care premises – the animal must be returned to the establishment for the rehoming process.

Foster care can be used for young animal rehabilitation, but has a time limit of 3 months;

(2.8.1) Juvenile foster care: The purpose of juvenile foster care is to allow a healthy kitten or puppy to be cared for off site in preparation for sale: to ensure the kitten or puppy is the health, age and weight required for vaccination and desexing prior to being sold by the establishment.

Kittens and puppies must be returned to the establishment when it is deemed appropriate by the veterinary practitioner to desex the animal post vaccination. The time an animal is in juvenile foster care must not exceed three months.

Foster care for those diseases which can cause shelter outbreaks (ringworm, FIV) is forbidden and again the time limit for foster care is three months:

(2.8.2) Veterinary rehabilitation foster care: The purpose of veterinary rehabilitation foster care is to provide an opportunity for animals with a recoverable injury or non-infectious illness to be rehomed by the establishment. Animals that have infectious diseases must not be placed in veterinary rehabilitation foster care.
…..
Animals placed in veterinary rehabilitation foster care must be returned to establishment for the purposes of desexing and rehoming. The maximum period allowed for an animal to be in medical rehabilitation foster care is three months.

Foster care for behavioural rehabilitation is extremely restricted, given a ‘failed’ temperament test is actually grounds for refusal for the program and again the time restriction for a pet to be in care is three months;

(2.8.3) Behavioural rehabilitation foster care: The purpose of behavioural rehabilitation foster care is to provide an opportunity for animals be retrained to rectify a behavioural trait restricting the animal being rehomed by the establishment. Animals that have medical issues or infectious diseases must not be placed in behavioural rehabilitation foster care. Animals that fail temperament tests must only be placed in behavioural rehabilitation foster care under recommendation from an animal behavioural specialist.

But even these restrictions aren’t the worst of the new Code of Practice; new requirements for carers go well beyond what would be acceptable to most volunteers lending a hand to their local pound or shelter – namely, that by becoming a volunteer foster carer, you’re opening your home to ‘big brother’ as determined by the DPI.

Foster carers conducting juvenile foster care for an establishment must:
……
* permit their premises to be audited for compliance with the Act and Code by an authorised officer.

Who is an ‘authorised officer’?

Authorised officers as authorised by the Minister, including authorised officers who are not employees of the Department. Then there is authorised Council officers, which also includes persons who are not Council employees.

So become a foster carer for a pound or shelter and you have to be willing to open your home to a host of people with the authorisation to audit your home. This is over and above the normal and adequate rights for Council or animal welfare to visit the home of any animal owner if you are suspected of animal abuse; instead this allows them access to check on smaller transgressions; keeping undesexed animals in areas with mandatory desexing, extra animals in places with pet limit laws, cat confinement capacity in places with night time curfews and registration and identification.

Even dedicated animal lovers are going to baulk at giving council free reign to enter and audit their pet keeping. Remembering that these aren’t people who have been accused of abuse, convicted of any transgression or even had a noise or other neighbourhood complaint…. these are people who just want to volunteer open their homes to a homeless pet for a short time to save its life.

Instead of celebrating these people, this legislation looks to drive them away with heavy handed bureaucracy and unnecessary restriction. The Code supports the pet staying in the shelter and protects the shelter should they decide to kill it.

Euthanasia

Extra provisions for shooting pets have been built in, expanding a pound’s protection should their community look to challenge their use of firearms;

(2.6) Euthanasia or removal of an animal from the establishment: If a proprietor decides that a gunshot is the only practical method of euthanasia, shooting must only be performed by an experienced operator trained in the use of firearms and only in locations where firearm use is permitted. Staff, public and nearby animal safety must be considered. This procedure must be performed away from the public and other animals.

At the very least the other two ‘animal welfare’ representatives on the AWAC board should be outraged at this; the RSPCA and The Lost Dogs Home should both be looking to eliminate the use of guns in the process of domestic animal control, no matter how regional the location.

Ok, what can I do?

The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee & Domestic Animal Management Implementation Committee (DAMIC) are the two committees who have major influence on whether this legislation gets passed quietly, or is resoundingly rejected again. It is especially important that the companion animal welfare groups involved publicly speak out against the flaws in this Code, so contacting each of them individually for their positions becomes vital.

Their contact details (via their websites) are available at the following link; DPI Committees

Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC)
Mrs Carmel Morfuni Chairman, c/o Bureau of Animal Welfare, DPI
Carol de Fraga Animals Australia
Vacant Animals used in scientific procedures
Prof Paul Hemsworth Animal Welfare Science Centre
Dr David Rendell Australian Veterinary Association
Dr Carole Webb Cat Protection Society of Victoria
Ms Sara Reid Dogs Victoria
Vacant Department of Sustainability and Environment
Vacant Municipal Association of Victoria
Dr Hugh Wirth Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Dr Caroline Butler The Lost Dogs’ Home
Mr Chris Wallace-Smith Victorian Farmers Federation – extensive industries
Ms Claire Penniceard Victorian Farmers Federation – intensive industries
Ms Nicola Fanning Victorian Horse Council

Domestic Animal Management Implementation Committee (DAMIC)
Ms Rosemary Barker Chairperson Department of Justice
Ms Tracy Helman Bureau of Animal Welfare Bureau of Animal Welfare
Ms Liz Alexander Department of Planning and Community Development Department of Planning and Community Development
Mr Stewart Martin Municipal Association of Victoria (Peri-urban) Municipal Association of Victoria
Ms Elke Tapley Municipal Association of Victoria (Metropolitan) Municipal Association of Victoria
Mr Graeme Murphy Municipal Association of Victoria (Rural) Municipal Association of Victoria
Mr Peter Shelton Victorian Local Governance Association (Council) Victorian Local Governance Association
Ms Gen Hindman Local Government Professionals Organisation Local Government Professionals Organisation
Mr Kevin Apostolides Animal Welfare The Lost Dogs Home
Dr Carole Webb Animal Welfare Cat Protection Society
Mr Frank Valastro Applicable Canine Organisation Dogs Victoria
Mr Mark Eade Municipal Association of Victoria (Rural) Municipal Association of Victoria
Dr Truda Straede Applicable Cat Organisation Feline Control Council Victoria Inc.
Vern Ryan Pet Industry Association Australia (PIAA) Pet Industry Association Australia
Mr Tom Maloney Victorian Local Governance Assocation (VLGA) Community Victorian Local Governance Association

If you are a community rescue group that will have to work under this new Code, I highly recommend making a formal submission from your group.

Written submissions on the proposed Code should be sent:

By post to the Code Review Project Officer, Bureau of Animal Welfare, 475 Mickleham Road, Attwood, Victoria, 3049; or

By email addressed to animal.welfare@dpi.vic.gov.au

The call for submissions has been advertised in the Government Gazette and Herald Sun and submissions will only be accepted until end of business 29 April 2011. Department employees will not accept verbal submissions from stakeholders or members of the public, response to telephone enquiries will be limited to providing information on the process for making submissions on the proposed Code.

Finally, you can also can also join the Dog Rescue Association of Victoria Inc. on Facebook to be kept up to date on developments on the Code.

I urge everyone with an interest in animal welfare, even those outside of the state of Victoria, take the time to familiaries themselves with the plight of animals in this state. Unfortunately these bad initiatives have a tendency to spread if left unchecked, and Victoria’s fight may very well become your own in the near future.

Truth is an important and rarely used tool. Secrets are usually good indicators that foul work is afoot. Exposing the truth is like letting the sunlight in. I realise most people don’t share my love of truth an openness. That’s OK. They can go fuck themselves.

My favourite quote of the day – anon

Displeased with me highlighting their end of year figures, showing The Lost Dogs Home rehomed 3,101 pets and killed 13,594 last year. And annoyed that their history of supporting campaigns which mandated the killing of pit bulls and drove the community to vilifying unowned cats is now being questioned by the public – the Lost Dogs Home have begun working behind the scenes to try and ‘muzzle’ Saving Pets.

As you may know, for the last seven years, I’ve been working with rescue groups across the nation get pets into homes through the website, PetRescue. For the last two years, the team I work with have secured a relationship with Pedigree, to work on a major national adoption promotion, the Pedigree Adoption Drive.

This promotion allows hundreds of small and independent rescue organisations and the animals they care for, the kind of exposure only normally available to those companies and non-profits with multi-million dollar advertising budgets. This campaign has saved literally thousands of lives, made rescue pet adoption more popular than ever, and has even changed the vernacular of animal ownership; with the word ‘adoption’ now championed by the public, and ‘he’s a rescue’ becoming an oh-so-fashionable claim to fame for every second-hand moggie and mutt.

However, now the Corporate Affairs Manager of the Lost Dogs Home is in contact with our major sponsor, threatening a smear campaign against PetRescue (and by association Pedigree) should I continue to be critical towards their policies in this blog.

It’s a quite appalling proposition; that a group claiming to be advocating for animals, would work to kill a program saving thousands of lives, just to censor community opposition to their own poorly preforming shelter.

It shows a massive lack of compassion towards animals, to be willing to put a hugely beneficial program for small and independent rescue groups and the pets they’re working to save at risk, simply to quash the tide of public opinion against their refusal to contemporarise their own shelter’s programs.

And to threaten this… because of my blog… a blog which is all about is about saving lives, improving animal sheltering, and agitating when groups kill animals, instead of implementing the programs and services that would stop it… is so counter intuitive to promoting animal welfare that it’s gobsmacking.

Especially, when you consider there is an alternative way to quiet criticism. That would be to put those same energies into developing the programs which would save the lives of animals entering their shelter.

The Adoption Drive belongs to all of us. I have been immensely proud to have been a part of the transformation we’re seeing in animal welfare to date, but I am also only one cog in a giant machine that is creaking into life, and that I’m positive will gain huge momentum in this country. Not only are the team I work with, volunteers and advocates, some of the most skilled and dedicated I’ve ever met. Every single rescue group who has taken the time to champion for the behalf of every pet in their care by photographing, uploading and posting animals – more than 100,000 of them all together – not to mention showcasing their animals at events and media launches; we are all part of an amazing movement that is growing exponentially.

Rescue have worked hard. We earned this campaign. But what we also understand explicitly, is the Adoption Drive is bigger than any one of us, or any one animal organisation. To attack it, is to attack us all. And it leaves me deeply saddened that anyone claiming to be in ‘animal welfare’ would separate themselves from the rescue industry so completely, as to feel they have the right to sabotage the outcomes of so many of their peers.

So will this action against me stop me blogging? I’m actually not sure. Saving Pets might not go on, but I know I will keep working for the animals. I know I will continue to focus my energies where I believe they can do the most good. I know I will continue to stand up to bullies and those who put their own drive for control ahead of the animals they purport to care for. And I know that I will never shut up; no matter how influential or rich or powerful the opposition.

The pet-loving public is numerous and passionate. All the work we do is for the animals and our passion burns brightly because of it. We will not stop questioning. We will not stop driving for reform. And we will not ever stop working to save lives. That I know for sure.

Please note: The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the writer and no one else, nor any agency or organisation. All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my peers or employer.

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?

From the comments:

I have to question your figure: “85% of dogs entering shelters in Australia are entering as strays”**

Here are the ACTUAL 08_09 and 9_10 NSW Council Stats:

YEAR COMPARISONS COUNCILS NSW
08_09 09_10 CHANGE
Total dogs arriving in Pounds

H Transfered to Pound 33,886 31,164 -2,722

J Surrendered Dogs 6,649 6,401 -248

L Dumped dogs 11,651 12,393 742

Total 52,186 49,958 -2,228

In the 09_10 year 38% of dogs entering NSW Council pounds were surrendered or dumped. That leaves 62% registered as “Transfered to Pounds” – this is a mix of “seized and strays”. A long way way from 85%, at least in NSW Council Pounds. The figure of 38% surrendered or dumped by the public is a serious concern. Regards Paul@deathrowpets

Death Row Pets has done some amazing work in compiling stats in their area (from the NSW DLG annual Council Pound summary) and presenting them in a format that animal advocates can use to assess the issues in the state. The problem is, that although the intentions are very, very good; when you’re an advocacy group with a particular viewpoint to present – in this case ‘overpopulation’ – it can make you square up your figures in a way that suits your theory, rather than in a way that presents the whole picture, warts and all.

But first

Let me start by saying I never intended to challenge the view of overpopulation. In my ‘other life’ I have a website that, if anything ‘proves’ there are thousands of pets entering shelters and rescue each year, and it would be very easy for me to move from there to a theory of ‘overpopulation’. But what I also discovered pretty quickly is that most dogs listed on the website have more than one applicant come forward to adopt them, potentially 20 or 30 applicants if the dog is a ‘desirable’ breed. Most cats listed get adopted; granted it is definitely slower and occasionally we’ll get the one that stays in care for a few months, but nearly all eventually move into new families. These cats are generally in foster care, so aren’t on ‘death row’; but as we know that there are very few proactive programs for cat management in Australia, meaning the majority of cats entering shelters are untame shouldn’t be doing so. Breaking apart cats and dogs, therefore becomes vital, as the solutions are different.

But on the whole, those pets made available for adoption get adopted. I’ve seen whole shelters empty themselves with clever marketing campaigns, which says to me people are willing to forgo the pet shops and breeders in favour of shelters if we just show them the way. I’ve also seen council pounds who either block access to rescue, or rely on them so completely that the groups become overwhelmed. Rescue groups crying out for support for puppies on ‘death row’ is a huge red flag; why on earth would, what would be considered highly adoptable animals lives be at risk? When you dig a little deeper you realise the pound doesn’t desex, doesn’t offer a proactive adoption program, doesn’t use the local media to get pets adopted, doesn’t list lost pets online, doesn’t run a volunteer or foster program of their own – all because they genuinely believe their responsibility for that animal ends once it is impounded. That isn’t ‘overpopulation’ either; that is a system that is failing pets.

But I digress

Let’s get back to the figures from the NSW DLG Council Pound Summary. Check out the headings; ‘transferred’, ’surrendered’ and ‘dumped’, to a total of a little over 52,000 dogs.

Not one of these categories was determined to be ‘lost’ dogs – as in ‘the dog got out and it was lost’, or ‘the dogs was found wandering and was handed in, therefore it is lost’. Is there even a difference between ’surrendered’ and ‘dumped’? Both terms refer to people who hand over pets to shelters. If we condemn both as ‘irresponsible’ we’re being misleading. While extrapolating that out to “all of these owners are ‘irresponsible’ and therefore bought their pets on a whim and gave them up too easily, and therefore pets are too easily acquired and therefore we have too many breeders, and therefore we have ‘overpopulation’” is simply creating work of fiction.

But what is really interesting, and not highlighted in these claims of ‘overpopulation’ and widespread pet ‘dumping’, is that by their own figures 20,000 of these dogs went home, or nearly 40%. Those guys ARE absolutely lost animals. They’re the ones that the system was designed for; to act as a safety-net to pets and owners. Pounds are supposed to exist to act as a central point to keep pets safe until their owner can be located.

From there, 6,000 pets were adopted and 7,500 went to rescue (13,500 or 25%). We can either assume that these guys were genuinely surrendered, OR we can assume these were social, lost pets who weren’t reunited with their owners. It’s probably some of both. What we do know is that when pounds run programs which increase reclaims (put photos on the internet, encourage people to register pets through benefit not punishment based systems, aggressive lost and found procedures including knocking on doors where the pet was found) they can get their reclaim rates up to 65%. That’s around 13,000 less pets to find homes for in this instance; or exactly the number presently being rehomed. Co-oincidence? Or a sign that these, friendly, adoptable pets probably had owners looking for them?

Finally, we have the 17,000 dogs in the pound who according to these figures are presently being killed (32%) <— remember this number :)

According to the latest pet industry report (Contribution of the Pet Care Industry to the Australian Economy) in 2009, the same time these figures were compiled, New South Waleians kept about 1.1 million dogs. That means every year, just 1.5% of the total dog population of NSW is dying in the pound.

Could we reduce that number by improving pound procedures, reclaims and rehoming rates? Sure. But can we bemoan an irresponsible public and a breeding system which is ‘overproducing’ using these figures as ‘proof’ – notssomuch.

And it doesn’t stop there

Even more astounding is that groups using these figures also like to extrapolate them even further; 52,000 dogs entering the pound system as ’surrendered or dumped’, mulitplied by 5-6 major states in Australia = 250,000 – 300,000 ‘death row’ dogs.

Except; about 30% of the population of Australia reside in NSW, giving them by far the biggest dog population, the biggest pound system and the most impounded animals. Victoria has about 25% of the population, so they’d be similar (so far we’re up to 55% of the population and around 100,000 dogs), so it in conceivable that the rest of Australia, at the very most has 200,000 impounds.

But as we’ve seen ‘impounded’ dogs doesn’t mean death row dogs (or at least it shouldn’t). If we use the actual figure of 32% of impounds to be likely at risk of death in the current system, that’s just 64,000 dogs for our whole nation. Or, to put it another way… the number of dogs truly on ‘death row’ is just 1.8% of the total national dog population of 3.4 million dogs.

Lies, damn lies and statistics

I’m a huge fan of gathering figures from pounds and shelters to help us solve our companion animal issues; I honestly believe without transparent figures we will continue to chase the bogymen and mantras of our industry and continue into a future that looks very similar to our past:

Kill pets, blame overpopulation and an irresponsible public; repeat.

But when we are given figures, we have a responsibility to present them to the public in an equally transparent and responsible way. We can’t blur impound rates and kill rates to prove our point. We should offer perspective along with our passion. And we should most definitely keep our minds open when looking at new data and allow it to challenge our beliefs.

While Death Row Pets may be one of the first to go there, they will be simply the first of many taking on this role of data-miner. As animal advocates we owe it to our public to resist following in the footsteps of major welfare leaders to date, by obscuring facts in favour of our own theories and holding back the truth believing our community is better off left in the dark.

We must be honest as to what our figures are really saying, whether we like it or not.

**“85% of dogs entering shelters in Australia are entering as strays” comes from a published JAWS study from Victoria of 20,000 dog intakes (What Happens to Shelter Dogs? An Analysis of Data for 1 Year From Three Australian Shelters (2004))

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

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