Notes from a YouTube video from Michigan’s 1st No Kill Conference. More videos can be seen here.

Susanne Kogut, Executive Director of the open admission No Kill Charlottesville SPCA, details how she drastically reduced killing and created a No Kill community (saving 90% of the animals) in a very short period of time. Under her direction CASPCA quickly became a no-kill shelter and has since become a national model, as well as a model for other countries, in how to operate an animal shelter in a way that saves lives. CASPCA has seen a 600 percent increase in the number of fostered animals and a 70 percent decrease in the euthanasia rate, in less than two years.

Can we “Save them all?”

- Susanne was called “naive”, told “she didn’t know what she was doing”, that “you’ll never get to No Kill”, “you don’t have any experience”, “we know better”.

- They have saved 92% of intakes in 09/10. Their community is not in some great situation. They don’t have a lot of money and take in a lot of animals. It’s about attitude.

- Community pride. The community is really proud to be part of a community that doesn’t kill healthy, treatable pets. It helps with fundraising and their community is part of the effort.

- It’s not ‘just about the animals’ – you have to care about people. They are the ones who are going to help you achieve your goals.

- Positive! Positive! Positive! People don’t want to be involved in “the pets are all abused and if they don’t get adopted, they’ll be killed” negative messages. All of their messages are upbeat. Solutions not excuses.

- Its not about a ‘No Kill shelter’ it has to be about a No Kill community. It’s not about telling other people what they “should” do, it is about surrounding yourself with good people and motivating them to achieve great things.

- They demand accountability of themselves; adoptions for March weren’t what they wanted them to be. They didn’t sit around going “oh woe is us; people aren’t coming in!”. Instead they were asking “What did we do wrong and what can we do to increase adoptions?” It doesn’t happen to you, you make it happen.

- CASPCA do around 4,000 desexing per year and have used grants to do it. “You have to look at the data of where most of your intakes are coming from and target your desexing programs to those areas.”

- Outreach desexing is important, but there is a pretty good correlation between an increase in the number of desexing surgeries they were doing and an increase in their expenses. So you’ve gotta do the easy stuff too; the adoptions, the foster care, the marketing… you can do these very cheaply.

- They had seen their intakes go up after they announced they were going No Kill (people started bringing the kittens to them rather than rehoming them, themselves). Their intakes are finally starting to come down: the reason their intakes are going down? Is it desexing? Nope it’s actually not. Number one for reducing intakes was developing a relationship with animal control and getting them to stop bringing in the feral cats.

- The county was reducing their budgets. The SPCA was paid ‘per intake’; Susanne told them they could save money by allowing them to develop TNR programs with local community groups and arranging desexing.

- Surrender counseling also reduces intake; working with people on common pet behavioural problems. There is nothing wrong with asking someone to make an appointment to surrender an animal. You don’t get to get up and go to the doctor without an appointment, so it is no big imposition.

Example; a lady came in desperate, saying she was going to be evicted because of her dogs. The SPCA staff got more info saying she had 90 days, so they knew they didn’t have to take them immediately. They called her landlord, told them they were going to take the dogs and not to evict her. The landlord said there was no problem with the dogs. Turns out a neighbour who didn’t like the pets, had told the lady they were going to be evicted. The lady kept her dogs.

Adoption policies

- They don’t do home visits for every pet; they don’t think you need to, to find a good home.

- Don’t be afraid of returns. Some people are so afraid of returns, that they only adopt out a few.
- – Rescue tell people in our adoption contracts, that if they’re not happy with an animal to bring it back. When they do, rescue are mad. But they did what we asked them to! How can we be mad at them?

– We all know not all pets act the same in the facility as they do in the new home. Take the pet back, say thank you, get more information on what that pet is like in the home and make a better match next time. Don’t think they’re a bad family, don’t put them on a DNA list and send it out to everyone in the community. It may have just been not a good fit,

- Their adoptions returns are around 8%. This has remained constant since they changed their adoption policies from judgemental to more relaxed. It has not increased.

- They screen foster homes through an interview. If they feel uncomfortable they can do a homecheck, but they don’t always.

- If they are a family and the kids want kittens for a while – give them kittens! Give them kittens that day – don’t make them come back. Use students and transient people who want a pet ‘for a time’ – given them ‘adopt me’ vests to walk the pets around in the community.

- They hardly ever refuse an adoption. They don’t believe people come into their organisation to abuse animals. They may not be as educated about animal care as we like, but they try to make the adoption happen.

- Barn cat adoptions works for outdoor only cats.

Offsite adoption events; are no longer needed! People love their organisation and they adopt everything out successfully. They do still work with local businesses (a antique store took kittens) and they did publicity around it in the local news.

“When an animal comes in that door, its life depends on us,” she says. “It’s a huge sense of responsibility and obligation. To turn your back on that is impossible.”

Notes from a YouTube video from Michigan’s 1st No Kill Conference. More videos can be seen here.

Photo: The Geelong Advertiser

Above is a photo of the weekend’s protests by animal lovers, following the release of video footage of pets being killed at the Geelong Animal Welfare Society. These members of the ‘irresponsible public’ met on the stairs of City Hall, calling for such outrageous demands as, a new system where volunteers assist the shelter in preparing pets for adoption, the recruitment of foster carers to place pets temporarily and the opening of the shelter to potential families looking to adopt.

And these ‘bullying’ and ‘harrassing’ animal advocates then finished their attack on the organisation with “one of the busiest adoption days” ever seen at the shelter.

As you can imagine, the staff at GAWS have been left distressed by this experience. Acting president David Cecil confirmed the society’s lawyers are “ready to act”, with retiring president Ian Walter telling The Age “GAWS’s lawyers believed there were grounds to take out intervention orders against those responsible for the online campaign. This activity is being monitored and if it persists legal action will be taken.”

Council is also taking a tough stance. The city’s general manager, community services, Jenny McMahon said; ”We acknowledge that the situation for homeless animals can improve further, and we are working hard towards this goal.”

The ’situation’ (pets being yelled at before being killed, pets being killed by heartstick, hundreds more pets being killed than being saved) ‘can improve further’. How positively inspirational.

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

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

However, the truth will no longer stay hidden.

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

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

(More videos here & here)

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

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

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

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

‘GAWS Exposed’ community rally

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

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

The killing must stop.

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

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

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

With G2Z being…

…a more comprehensive term than No Kill

and

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

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

The No Kill Equation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Australian smart enough to follow success?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So how’s it working?

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

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

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

And in this 8 years;

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

while

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

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

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

When collaboration means defending the status quo

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

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

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

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

An opportunity squandered?

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

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

Mitch Schneider, Director Washoe County Animal Management Services USA
Getting to Zero through Proactive Animal Management Programs – a Win-Win Approach to Animal Control

Robyn Kippenberger, Richard Avanzino & Joy Verrinder

NDN Opening – G2Z elements

“The head is proportionate to the dog. Viewed from above, the general shape of the head is that of a blunt wedge, large and broad.”

“Viewed from the side, the skull and muzzle are on parallel plains separated by a moderately deep stop. Arches over the eyes are well defined but not pronounced.”

“Muzzle: Slightly shorter in length to the skull. It is broad, deep and powerful with a slight taper to the nose and falls away slightly under the eyes.”

Skull: Large, fairly flat, broad and deep, slightly tapering towards the stop. There is a deep median furrow reducing in depth from stop to occiput. Cheek muscles are prominent but free of wrinkles.

“When the dog is alerted wrinkles will form on the forehead.”

“Lips: Clean and tight.”

“Teeth: Large and a complete scissor bite i.e. upper teeth closely overlapping the lower teeth and set square to the jaws.”

“Nose: Large with wide open nostrils and may be of any colour.”

“Eyes: Medium in size, round in shape and set low in the head – not prominent. Eyes can be all colours except blue. The eye rims are the same colour as the skin colour.”

“Ears: The shape and carriage of the ears will vary from dog to dog. Generally they are set fairly high on the skull, not large and may be half pricked or rose shaped (i.e. folding backwards and exposing the inner burr of the ear).”

“NECK: Moderate length and with great strength, tapering from the head into the shoulders. A slight arch over the crest. The neck must be free from loose skin or dewlap (loose, pendulous skin under the throat).”

“FOREQUARTERS: Strong forelegs, well boned and muscular with elbows fitting close to the body. Viewed from the front the forelegs are set moderately well apart and in a straight line to the ground. The pasterns are short and fairly straight but with flexibility. Viewed from the side, the legs are straight with some flexibility in the pasterns.”

“BODY: Powerfully built with a deep chest of moderate width. Forechest should not extend far beyond the point of shoulder or below the elbow. Well ribbed back with moderate tuck up (concave underline of the body curving upwards from end of the ribs to waist). Back: Broad, strong, firm and level and with a slight incline at the withers. Loin: Short and deep with a slight slope to the croup.”

For the full standard, click here.

In WA there is a single main resource for caring for stray cats; The Cat Haven. The RSPCA offers only limited owner surrenders and few councils have powers to impound cats or facilities to do so. Currently if residents want help with cats on their property, the council’s only advice is to offer them a cat trap so they can trap the cat and take it to the vet or the Cat Haven.

Despite the lack of infrastructure supporting the ‘catch and kill’ model, the Cat Haven is said to kill up to 4,000 unwanted cats and kittens each year. A new Bill introduced in July is set to expand council powers and has cat ‘advocates’ excited about its potential;

“If it all goes well, initially we might see a leap in euthanasia, in the first 12 months when people refuse to get their cats sterilised.”
Roz Robinson – Cat Haven

Including compulsory desexing, registration, microchipping, and the requirement for cats to wear tags, the legislation is set to be some of the strongest in the country and obviously follows in the successful footsteps of other legislation of its kind…

Well, actually not so much;

“There have been a number of studies done, one in Mt Isa, in Queensland, another in the ACT and in the US. They show that animals have been dumped and then when the legislation is brought in, that number has increased. The follow on is that there will be more feral animals.”
Alison Driver from the Cat Owners Association of WA

The RSPCA is supporting the new laws, adding that only by making them even more draconian can the full effect of the bulk council cat cull be realised;

The RSPCA’s Tim Mayne also advocates for keeping cats inside the walls of the home and recommended that this should be part of the new Cat Bill.

So what are the council’s attitude to cats?

Belmont chief executive Stuart Cole said the City did not have a policy for capturing stray cats, nor the responsibility or resources to do so.
…
“However the City recommends the use of an approved pest control company to resolve these issues.”

Town of Victoria Park chief executive Arthur Kryon said the Town had no powers to capture or impound cats.

“It is hoped that this will change when the State Government passes the new cat laws,” he said.

Cat groups want councils to have expanded powers to impound and kill cats. Councils want expanded powers to impounded kill cats. Seems no one is advocating for anything other than killing cats in WA.

See also; Don’t pretend WA’s cat laws are about saving cats

Cats out of control in poor suburbs of WA

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.