Tomorrow (Monday 15th May) Milo will be killed for the way he looks.

Also tomorrow, pups Bear and Kokoda will be killed for looking a certain way.

These dogs have never hurt anyone.

These dogs have families who love them.

The community will not be any safer once they are dead.

But we will all be just a little bit affected, as we are all now connected – by the internet and by our love of our dogs – and know just what these poor owners must be going through tonight.

One of the things we need to decide as a community is just how much killing we’re willing to accept from our pounds and shelters. Because of the enormous diversity in how these organisations operate, we have shelters who choose to kill very few animals (either low kill, or No Kill shelters) and those who choose to kill many of the animals that are left unclaimed at their facilities.

What is vital to understand is that a shelter’s level of killing is a choice driven by a shelter’s management and supported by that organisation’s culture.

There are several ways this culture impacts kill rates;

- By taking on more pound contracts and animal intakes than a facility can reasonably process, a shelter will drive kill rates UP.

Examples include ‘mega-pound’ facilities which impound animals from dozens of local council and collect millions of dollars of revenue from pound tenders and contracts. The artificially inflated animal impound figures keep kill rates high, while the shelter kills then complains of pet ‘overpopulation’.

- By developing the programs of the No Kill equation a shelter can bring kill rates DOWN.

We see when pounds start to work with rescue and foster carers, promote their pets to the public and examine their customer experience, their kill rates immediately begin to plummet.

- By comprehensively driving to eliminate killing as a tool the shelter relies on for population control, a compassionate and proactive shelter manager can eliminate shelter killing.

Or what is referred to as ‘No Kill sheltering’, where animal euthanasia is only used in the true sense of the word – for suffering and untreatably ill pets with a poor prognosis for recovery.

How close to No Kill are Australian shelters?

In the last ten years, the number of dogs unclaimed at the RSPCA NSW shelters has fluctuated, most likely due to adding and losing various pound contracts in the state.

While the percentage of unclaimed dogs killed has remained constant – a mediocre 50+%.

Meaning in RSPCA NSW shelters, more than 1 in every 2 unclaimed dogs are killed. This is despite having a 2010/11 revenue of $50 million (NSW only).

Victorian dogs don’t fare much better with the Lost Dogs Home unclaimed dogs leveling off around 5,000 animals per year.

While the kill rate for unclaimed dogs has sat at more than 60% each year up until last year where they killed 55% of unclaimed dogs.

Meaning at The Lost Dogs Home, more than 1 in every 2 unclaimed dogs are killed (a rate which has only seen an improvement down from nearly 70% in the last two years). Their 2010/11 revenue was $12 million.

The RSPCA Victoria unclaimed dog rate has been consistently falling;

Mirrored by the kill rate which has dipped to 40% or less in the last two years;

That means that one in every three unclaimed dogs are killed. The RSPCA Victoria’s income for the 2010/11 year was $31 million.

When we look at the performance of local pounds and shelters who have engaged rescue groups and volunteer foster carers, expanded their adoption programs and embraced online technologies to reduce killing, are these rates of killing acceptable?

When the number of community rescue groups and the awareness of rescue has never been higher, and the revenue of just these three organisations for a single year was more than $90 million – why are one in every two (or three) unclaimed dogs still dying?

Why doesn’t an almost unimaginable amount of money, resources and exposure save them?

How about the cats?

In the last ten years, the number of cats unclaimed at the RSPCA NSW shelters has been steadily increasing;

While the numbers of cat killed maintains a constant 60+%.

Unclaimed cats and killing run nearly one-for-one at The Lost Dogs Home;

9 out of 10 unclaimed cats are still being killed at the LDH.

While the RSPCA VIC unclaimed cat numbers have remained pretty constant, at around 15,000;

While the percentage killed sits are around 60%.

With the myriad of programs known for keeping cats out of shelters, why are so many still being impounded and killed?

It’s all about choice

How an organisation chooses to conduct itself, or that organisation’s culture dictates what are and aren’t acceptable behaviours and beliefs for staff. Despite claims to the contrary (ie. ‘no one wants to kill pets’), the long-term trends at each of these shelters reflect the culture of each one.

The kill rate percentage stays constant even as the intake rates fluctuate higher and lower, because the organisation’s culture supports it doing so. It is the kill rate which management accepts. It is the kill rate which staff believe is ‘out of their hands’. It is the kill rate which donors have been groomed into believing ‘has’ to happen. It is almost assured annually, unless a cultural shift takes place.

At the RSPCA NSW it is acceptable within the organisation’s culture to kill one in every two unclaimed dogs and nearly two in every three unclaimed cats.

At the Lost Dogs Home it is acceptable within the organisation’s culture to kill two in every three unclaimed dogs and nearly every single unclaimed cat (though thanks to public pressure, there has been incremental improvements in their culture and kill rate in the two years).

At the RSPCA VIC it is acceptable within the organisation’s culture to kill one in three unclaimed dogs. It is also acceptable to kill two in every three cats.

Culture – or the choice of how an animal organisation chooses to operate – is what determines its kill rate. Not the number of intakes, not the experiences, successes or failures of other shelters, and not the animals themselves. These are three of the wealthiest animal welfare organisations in the country, so it’s not the organisation’s revenue or staffing levels or resources. It is not a lack of knowledge about the programs and services that can save lives. It is how much killing is deemed OK by the organisational culture.

What we know for certain is that until a life-saving culture sweeps a shelter, pets will continue to be killed. Only when the community recognises that it is not the animal intakes, shelter income, pound facilities, or animal control laws that determine kill rate, but the culture of the organisations doing the killing will we ever see shelters and pounds overhauled to become a safe place for pets. Given ALL the money these organisations make each year comes from us, either through direct donations or our local council rates – we have to decide as a community, how much killing we’re willing to support.

Back in August 2011, the NSW Government announced the creation of the state’s first Companion Animals Taskforce. Gathering together vet and Member for Charlestown, Mr Andrew Cornwell MP and representatives from the Animal Welfare League NSW, Australian Companion Animal Council, Australian Institute of Local Government Rangers, Australian Veterinary Association, Cat Protection Society of NSW, Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW, Dogs NSW, Pet Industry Association Australia, and Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals NSW, the Taskforce was set the goal to “provide advice on key companion animal issues and in particular strategies to reduce the current rate of companion animal euthanasia”.

So one would be forgiven for thinking that 8 months later they would release a paper that would focus on ’strategies to reduce the current rate of euthanasia’, or in laymans terms ’stop pounds killing pets’. But you’d be wrong.

Things we know stop pounds killing pets;
- programs which keep untame cats out of shelters
- forcing pounds to release healthy, treatable animals to rescue, or rehome them themselves

Or more comprehensively, the eleven point plan of the No Kill equation (the only model that has been successful in creating community where pets were safe in pounds and shelters).

The Taskforce came up with the following plan instead;

- Anti-breeding laws
Introduce a breeder licensing system

- Anti-advertising law
Mandatory listing of an animal’s microchip number in all advertisements

- Microchipping
(they already have compulsory microchipping) host microchipping days

- Registration
Increase registration fees to pay for programs

- Desexing of owned pets
Offer desexing programs

- Education
Print brochures in another language

None of which have ever seen success in driving a community to achieve any No Kill outcomes. In layman’s terms again – these things don’t stop pounds killing pets.

They did deal briefly with the pounds role in saving lives;

“‘Encourage’ greater collaboration between councils and animal welfare organisations – Councils and AWOs could be ‘encouraged’ to enter into arrangements”

So like, they need ‘encouragement’. ENCOURAGEMENT PEOPLE! Not killing animals isn’t motivation enough – pounds need rescue groups to pander and support and ‘encourage’ them to not kill the animals, but to instead release them alive.

“While re-homing such animals with new owners is the most desirable outcome, it must be acknowledged that councils have limited resources and not all cats and dogs are suitable for re-homing.”

… However, pound managers face substantial obstacles in doing so, particularly as pounds compete with pet shops and breeders as sources of animals and often do not have the resources to advertise animals in their care widely to the public.”

But even if pounds choose NOT to work with rescue groups, killing is not their fault as they have limited resources, their animals are crap, and they don’t have resources to promote their crappy animals to the public.

(BTW, Digital camera $100 – PetRescue account FREE. Putting kittens in a pet shop FREE. Contacting the local media and inviting them to profile your pets FREE. Running an adoption event FREE).

Semi-owned cats are another factor contributing to unwanted cat populations, as the vast majority are undesexed. Targeted community education aimed at changing people’s behaviours is considered central to managing these cats. The Victorian Government’s “Who’s for cats?” and the “Good Cat South Australia” campaigns are examples of such programs.

So what they’ve chosen to do is follow in the footsteps of the Who’s for Cats program which saw impoundments surge by 40% every year it was executed, and increased complaints about cats by 41% in the first year… and continues to support record levels of killing in Victoria.

“Unconfined animals that are subsequently seized by councils or picked up by members of the public make up a significant number of those animals entering pounds… cat control orders have been used in other jurisdictions for a number of years to manage roaming cats.”

Sorted! Just catch them and bring them in to be killed – that will reduce the killing! Oh, hang on…

So many words, so little action

Whether all or none of the Taskforce’s recommendations are implemented makes little difference to outcomes for pets. And it was never meant to. It is not in the interest of those working with the government on this paper, to stop killing our companion animals, or even bring down impound rates because killing pets has become big business. Pound contract are often worth several million dollars per year and are priced according to how many pets are processed (not saved).

The illusion of ‘doing something’ however, will most certainly cost even more animals their lives as the community begin to think the problem is in hand. The full report can be seen here. They are currently seeking feedback – a good place to start in your research is the No Kill Advocacy Center’s Shelter Reform Primer.

Get writing peeps!

Facebook debates and online discussions. Here are snippets of information that don’t fit anywhere else, but that could be useful when you’re out there championing life saving programs. Some of it is mine – some of it is unattributed (email me if you see your words and want to be quoted).

Feel free to use any of it as you like :)

*****

Cats and ‘nativism’

“Why is ‘native’ in the context of cats so important? We support non-natives when it suits us… meat animals, food plants, garden plants… basically everything we rely on to survive in Australia is introduced.”

*****

“We want our cats to be safe; in the context of owned cats, it makes sense to keep them indoors and safe from harm. We want wildlife to be safe; in the context of owned cats it makes sense to eliminate their ability to hurt other animals.

The problems arise when we extrapolate both those details out to then also include removing and killing unowned cats for their own ’safety’ and removing and killing unowned cats because we mistakenly believe that stops wildlife decline. That is when we see a surge in unnecessary killing, all done in the name of ‘animal welfare’.”

*****

On ‘desex and return’ programs

“When 60-90% of cats who enter the pound system are killed, we should be looking at programs which keep untame cats OUT of shelters… outreach desexing for street cats, assistance for community cat carers & campaigns which encourage cat lovers to help in ways OTHER than by taking cats to the pound.”

*****

It’s ridiculous that ‘desex and put it back’ isn’t the message coming out of major animal welfare groups, and that it is left up to underfunded grassroots groups to save lives… I will honestly never understand, why they prefer to promote killing for convenience, over each cats individual worth.

*****

“When will these people learn that if you take an animal such as a cat out of an area that can support it due to a ready made food supply and plenty of shelter, that another one will just move in and replace it? If another cat doesn’t move in to replace the removed one then another animal will, and it will be another pest or feral species.

The only way to remove a large feral population from an urban region is to either de-sex the entire population so they can’t breed, or remove the human population from the area so it can’t support the ferals. Simple stuff, so why waste all that time and energy fighting a losing battle when you know you’re just going to have to repeat the same thing when the area is repopulated?”

*****

“I think we tend to over-think the whole ‘will Australian’s support TNR’ thing… compassionate people will because they’re compassionate. The same ol’ ones won’t, because cats being dead doesn’t bother them. Frankly, I’d rather bet on compassion.”

*****

“The only time a pound should accept a feral cat is if the facility is going to neuter/vax/provide vet care and return the cat to where she was trapped. Any pound that has no TNR program in place has NO BUSINESS accepting feral cats. These cats already have a home. They live in the community. Impounding them for killing is unacceptable.” ~ @YesBiscuit

*****

“Outreach desexing is expensive, so you’ve got to do the easy stuff too; the adoptions, the foster care, the marketing… you can do these very cheaply. Number one for reducing intakes was developing a relationship with animal control to get them to stop bringing in the feral cats & instead develop TNR programs” ~ Susanne Kogut

*****

“Just a reminder to those helping free-roaming cats:
- It’s not a ‘rescue’ if the cat ends up dead. That’s a cull.
- The remedy to ‘disease’ or even ’suffering’ is treatment – not barbiturate overdose.
That is all.”

*****

“There is no No Kill without TNR. There is not even a no ‘low kill’, open admission cat shelter without TNR.

Without an option other than death, for untame semi-owned and stray cats, then no amount of ‘berating the public’ will see a reduction in cat numbers.

*****

“Imagine if someone was to just take that cat and kill it… when the cat was healthy, of good condition, and several years old (so clearly savvy in the dangers of living ‘wild’), and then that same person who killed that healthy cat, was to also be the head of the major organisation representing cat ‘welfare’ in the state… ….. ….. it seems topsy turvy when you think about it.”

*****

“… while No Kill Advocates encourage (desexing)… while high-volume, low-cost spay/neuter is a central tenet of the No Kill Equation, this effort is a means to an end. It is not the goal itself. The goal is not “no more animals being born” The goal is, and has always been, “no more animals being killed” (or, in the case of puppy mills, abused).” ~ Nathan Winograd, Irreconcilable Differences

*****
“Blaming owned cats – even “irresponsibly owned” cats for the feral cat population in Australia is completely flawed in its logic.

The sad reality is that feral cats are *everywhere* on our continent. If you want to see the size of the issue, have a look at the Feral Cat Maps here.

What’s worse, and somehow seems to elude many decision makers, is that cats were *deliberately* farmed and released into regional Australia around the end of the 19th Century to combat the feral rabbit problem. (see the Invasive Animals CRC publication here for more on the history of feral cats in Australia)

Asking councils, welfare organisations and cat owners to carry the responsibility for feral cats in the face of such overwhelming untouched feral cat populations does nothing for the owned cats we love.

Instead we need to look at what we can do. We need to have the TNR debate to address urban free-roaming non-owned cats (they aren’t feral). We need to stop punishing cat owners for feral cats, and help them advocates for better care of the urban free-roaming non-owned cats. We need to *not* rely on making laws that apply to cat owners to fix this for us – very few laws (maybe none) have succeeded in this particular problem before.

*****

Ecologists regard cats in Australia as falling into 3 distinct – although overlapping – subpopulations:
- “Owned” = nearly entirely reliant upon humans for food & shelter;
- “Feral” = no reliance on humans for food and shelter;
- “Stray” = partially reliant on humans for food and shelter – either through opportunism (eg scavenging) or active involvement (eg feeding a cat you don’t own).

The “stray” group have very low desexing rates – some surveys put the number as low as about 10%. BUT: Cat populations are *self sustaining* when their desexing rate is anything below about 90%.

What this means is that the “stray” population cannot be reduced substantially while they have access to food and shelter (ie live anywhere in an urban setting), or until about 90% of all stray-born cats are non-fertile (something we currently don’t have the technology to achieve).

It is completely undesirable for people to let a cat go stray (or abandon a cat). BUT even if we could stop every owned cat from going stray, and stop every owned cat from having kittens – IT WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE to the “stray” cat population. They are already *self-sustaining*, and have been so probably since Europeans arrived here and built towns and cities.

At this point I often hear people say: “but it was humans who let cats go stray in the first place”. This is true. But punishing today’s cat owners for a 200 year old problem is about as helpful as banning English tourists from visiting Australia in 2011 because their ancestors introduced rabbits, foxes, starlings, black birds, and countless plant species onto our continent in the 18th Century.

It’s time to move on from punishing the cat, and the vast majority of their owners who want to do the right thing. The solution lies in a focused effort on this sub-population of “stray” cats.”

*****

On No Kill

“The idea that in being ‘No Kill’ you are simply choosing to keep unadoptable pets, while letting adoptable pets be killed is absurd.

When you work on No Kill aims, you are looking to expand the adoption of *all* pets – improving shelter outcomes for *all* pets – recognising some are going to be easy to rehome and others will be less easy. Killing some because they’ll be ‘hard’ to place is simply lazy and unethical. Many shelters aren’t even there yet – they’re killing healthy animals for space and calling them ‘unadoptable’ – even though with some time with a foster family or an expanded adoption program could easily save their lives.

Techniques to help with adoption of ‘hard to place’ pets is prolific in the era of No Kill – a few minutes on google found some to get you started;

Maddies Fund
“If animal welfare leaders are serious about wanting to end the killing, every animal welfare organization is going to need to sharpen their marketing skills to get the hard to place animals adopted – Unless shelters plan to get in the breeding business, it might be time to think about how to find homes for hard to place animals.”

No Kill Advocacy Centre
‘Adopting Your Way Out of Killing’

Best Friends
Big Dogs, Shy Cats: How to Find Homes for ‘Hard to Place’ Pets

More Nathan Winograd
Hard-to-Place Animals

ASPCA
Turbocharging Pit Bull Adoptions
Sprucing up cat areas

Mike Arms
Marketing pets

*****

“… there is no such thing as a successful shelter where healthy/treatable pets are being killed.” @YesBiscuit

*****

“If so many of us are willing to open up our hearts and homes and wallets to operate as tiny no kill shelters, why can’t the taxpayer funded municipal facilities follow our lead? I would argue that in fact, the taxpayer funded shelters have an obligation to at least partially model themselves after us little guys for several reasons:

1. No kill is the only ethical choice.
2. It’s our taxes that pay their salaries and fund their shelter operations.
3. We are succeeding at saving pets’ lives. They are failing.
4. We’re succeeding, in many cases, on money carved out of the grocery budget.
5. We’re volunteering our time and effort to save pets. They are paying themselves with our tax money to kill pets.

Tax money is not intended to be used to fund practices that fall outside our societal norms. We are a humane society. We do not want to see pets needlessly killed and we most certainly don’t want to pay for it.

The last place within our society where it’s still the norm to kill friendly pets is our broken shelter system. Many of those within that corrupt system are fighting to maintain the status quo. But they are outnumbered and the public is fast becoming aware of no kill and demanding reform. ~ @YesBiscuit

*****

I would be less pissed off at the “not enough homes so we have to kill them” people if they would just admit that KILLING ANIMALS because we can’t figure out what else to do with them is WRONG, and represents a complete failure of animal sheltering and public policy. Is that too freaking much to ask? ~ Christie Keith

*****

“An adoption ‘fee’ does little to screen the quality of your adopters. It’s like using your credit card balance today to qualify whether or not you’ll be a good parent for the next 18 years. Its a small detail that means not very much in the long term.

That said, people *are* price sensitive – why wouldn’t they be? If they can get a free cat in the trading post or from a neighbour, why would they visit a shelter? We can argue that shelter cats are ‘good value’ till we’re blue in the face, but the reality is other sources of pets are often cheaper, more convenient, more available, less judgmental and let you walk out the door with your new pet that day no questions asked.

We have to find ways to encourage good homes to choose the adoption option, over other more accessible sources of pets. If having a ‘discount’ weekend gets people in the door and gives you literally hundreds of options for adoption placements, then it’s a really powerful tool to save lives.”

*****

“If a pound kills a healthy, treatable pet in 2012, it is because they are choosing to end that life rather than work to save it. We have to reject the notion that a lack of one, or some, or all of the programs on the left is any kind of justification. We need No Kill now – not in some mythical future when everything is perfect, we have all laws we covert & everyone is responsible.”

*****

On laws

“Tragically, tens of thousands of impounded cats have to be euthanised each year in Victoria, because they can’t be identified and returned to owners. Compulsory microchipping will benefit animal welfare by helping prevent the needless destruction of so many animals.”
- DPI Microchipping Handout 2007 -

“The introduction of compulsory microchipping legislation in 2007 has had little impact on the number of cats entering our shelters with microchips.”
- RSPCA Victoria Annual Report 2011 -

When are we going to let go of the notion that laws targeting owners will affect pound cat intakes?”

*****

“Cat legislation cannot address issues of feral cats. No feral animal species has yet been eradicated from Australia once it has become established. Legislation dictates human behaviour, not that of wild animals” ~ Dr Deb Kelly (instrumental in the development of the SA Dog and Cat Management Act 1995)

*****

“It has been proven overseas that when legislation is brought in like this the main result is dead animals! All legislation must have a “punishment” for non-compliance – so an owner does not de-sex, what does the municipality do? they fine the owner. the owner doesn’t pay the fine, next step the un-sexed pet is seized for non-compliance. What happens to all the seized animals – they get killed! the owner then goes out and gets a cute new puppy or kitten. Gee that works doesn’t it! NOT”

*****

“All the while we pursue the idea that ‘poor people’ shouldn’t have pets – that not desexing is a moral shortcoming – and that only by restricting pet owner access to pets can we stop shelter killing, we remain stuck – missionary and ineffective… righteous, but condemned to an ‘us and them’ mentality which fails to save lives.”

*****

All you need is a Municipal Council who actively enforce the laws…. I think we need to look hard at what we’re trying to achieve.

Every single report on cat ownership in Australia has shown an incredibly high level of compliance with desexing (90-95%). And if we’re trying to achieve increase this compliance, then we need to look at why people don’t desex.

For cats it’s two-fold; – primarily cost – but also the owner in question not being a ‘full’ owner (cat acquired circumstantially ‘it just showed up’ + passive support).

For arguments sake, lets say we have an actively enforcing council (which we most often don’t because the enforcement is effing expensive, but lets say we do)…

- Enforcing mandatory desexing to an owner who has no money to pay for the surgery = the cat gets impounded.

- Enforcing mandatory desexing to an owner who didn’t really ‘chose’ to be a cat owner = the cat gets impounded.

If we were looking to have two cats enter the pound system = SUCCESS!! But I’d suggest that’s not what most of us would set out to achieve.

Outreach desexing programs – those that support the community rather than treat it like an enemy, those that help poor people and all cats, regardless of ownership status – they have not only reduced shelter killing, but have eliminated it.

There has never been a single council eliminate shelter killing rate by introducing mandatory desexing. Not once. In the world. Never.

To suggest that our situation is different – that *WE’LL* be the ones that get a different result – that our situation is different – that because we believe in it the most – - it’s a little like fanaticism… ignoring evidence and instead working from belief. Ignoring stats and the experience of the thousands of other places that have gone down this path, and instead just being convinced that because it Sounds. So. Right. That we’ll be the ones to succeed.

It’s a receipe for failure… to follow failure.”

*****

“The war on pet owners makes private pounds rich, who then help write legislation, sending more pets to pounds. Under the current model most pounds and shelters are remunerated by councils on “number successfully impounded”, not “number successfully saved”. A conflict if ever there was one.”

*****

“Cat legislation that purports to control feral cats by penalising responsible cat owners only further demonises cats and alienates their owners. Neither of these things we need.”

*****

We should definitely reject those laws which put unowned cats in the ‘firing line’ of animal management. ”

- Compulsory microchipping increases pound intakes and killing.
- Compulsory desexing increase pound intakes and killing.
- Confinement laws increase pound intakes and killing.

When unowned cats fall foul of the law, killing increases. We know this because these kinds of laws have had that result in every. single. place they’ve been tried.

So while these laws are presented as good for cat ‘welfare’, if we reject death as a ‘good’ welfare outcome, they fail in their stated goals.

*****

“They use euphemisms; “power to deal with… cats that are not owned” and “… the legislation will make way for better management of the unwanted impacts of cats on the community and the natural environment”

It’s double speak for, “if it’s unowned we’ll be able to seize it”. And given shelters have a near 100% kill rate for untame cats, it’s the green light for councils to expand their sweeps, catch & kill programs.”

*****

“There is a law in Victoria which says you cannot feed a stray cat – in fact you are obligated to impound it.

Shelters can therefore kill a high number of cats, while blaming outside forces for the killing.

There is a law in Victoria which says you cannot rehome a pit bull or a pit bull cross, or anything which even looks like a pit bull; or any dog with even an easily treatable behavioural issue – instead it must be killed.

Shelters can therefore kill a high number of dogs, while blaming outside forces for the killing.

Neither of these laws ‘just happened’ – they were supported by the incumbent major animal ‘welfare’ groups.

Once again laws are being used to maintain the status quo; defend killing and ensure that groups have a scapegoat in the ‘irresponsible public’ for continued killing in Victoria.”

*****

“When the results we’re chasing is ‘less killing’ – more killing isn’t the way to get there. The way to get there is to put in the infrastructure that will allow people to overcome obstacles to compliance. Find out *exactly* why this person, or this segment of the community isn’t already desexing and then work with them to make it happen. A law simply labels them ‘bad owners’ and does little to protect the pet.

Using the ‘car licence’ analogy doesn’t tend to extrapolate in this case, as most people *really* don’t want to lose their licences. Licences have value. The people you’re most trying to reach with these animal laws, often have a low level of attachment to their pet already (or they could just as easily get another one), so pressure simply leads to surrender (more killing). This is why impounding pets like cars, until people can afford to pay whatever fines are owed has been so unsuccessful – pets just sit unclaimed.”

*****

“Where this all falls down is – when has this ever worked? Contrary to popular belief, we’re not having to make any of this stuff up as we go along – there are hundreds of thousands of councils across the world who have tried variations of laws which target cat owners, ownership or desexing – when has it worked to reduce killing? Find even one example.

It doesn’t work, because owned cats overwhelmingly *aren’t* our ‘problem’. Unowned cats are.

The programs that *have* worked, are not the ones that target owners with fines, and drive up shelter intakes (no matter how good it feels to punish the evil cat owners)… but those programs that go to great lengths to KEEP CATS OUT OF SHELTERS – and *help* owners comply with responsible pet ownership duties like desexing.

We can believe that we’ll be the exception to the rule – that our mandatory desexing initiative is so well thought out, so revolutionary or so crafty that we’ll overcome enforcement obstacles, avoid the pitfalls and crack the code to the perfect law.

But are we being realistic? Where is our evidence that we’ll be any different to the other places these laws have been tried? Why would we continue to chase variations of something that has failed everywhere? And why do we believe that doing what we’ve always done, will give us a different result?

The theory remains the same; giving more powers to animal management to target ‘irresponsible owners’ – when those same animal management departments kill the majority of pets they impound, leads to more killing.”

*****

“A focus on (desexing) as an incredibly important component of the no-kill equation & public outreach and providing low-cost services are critical. But I think when you mandate things & make it punitive, it doesn’t provide better results than when you provide opportunities for people to comply. So I think it needs to be a primary focus of decreasing intakes, but I don’t think it needs to be mandated.” ~ Abigail Smith

*****

On the bright future for animals

“More people care than ever. More pets are being saved than ever. More money is being invested in awareness of companion animal issues than ever. More pets are living as family members than ever. More people have chosen companion animal welfare as their ‘issue’ of choice than ever. More people are demanding better than a 1970’s model of animal sheltering than ever. More corporates are wanting to engage with rescue groups than ever. More people are willing to open their homes temporarily to pets than ever. More people are willing to adopt, rather than buy their animals than ever…”

“Have you ever fed a homeless cat ?
Feeding homeless cats extends rather than helps the problem.
More info here www.goodcatsa.com/homeless …”
- RSPCA SA Facebook page

Feeding homeless cats only ‘extends the problem’ in that it gives a hungry animal a meal. What is truly ‘extending the problem’ of homeless cats breeding unchecked, is a lack of desexing programs focusing on those cats who are living without owners.

If we are to ever solve the cat ‘problem’ we have to move beyond blaming the community and cat owners for a situation that is almost entirely beyond their control. In an urban setting feeding an unowned cat, or not feeding that cat has zero impact – ZERO – on that cat’s ability to reproduce. Focusing on this largely irrelevant detail of individuals who feed strays, fails to address the much harder- to-remedy issues of open rubbish bins, rodent infestations and easily accessible food sources like rubbish tips and fast food restaurants, that attract and support cats.

Worse, alienating these people – the people who actually care about these cat’s welfare – only pushes these caring behaviours further to the periphery, driving compassion for cats out of the community and making the situation worse for unowned cats. We need these feeders to be celebrated and helped to take even more, proactive action on behalf of cats… not simply discouraged in the hope the whole cat ‘problem’ will just magically resolve itself from there. It won’t.

Homeless cats breed because they can. The only humane way to reduce the number of homeless cats is to check their breeding. This can only happen with large scale, cat desexing programs for cats without owners, and campaigns which encourage those who care for to seek assistance in their important work protecting our Community Cats.

Not only do we know people have compassion for Community Cats, they love their pet cats too. And they don’t only want to see happy and playful shelter cats – but they are almost pathological in their love of them

See also: The awesomeness of cats

Imagine for one moment you had a fan, who every week took around $100 that they could scarcely afford and used it directly to benefit your cause.

Imagine this same person volunteered a few hours each and every day, to work directly on the front line giving care and compassion and helping you with your mission.

Imagine that this person took it upon themselves to work reliably, without the need for praise or acknowledgement, and with scarcely any supervision. They just got in and did it.

Would you consider this person an incredibly valuable asset – or an enemy to be thwarted and maligned?

I took a trip out to Joondalup tonight to see how the few remaining cats were getting on. Unsurprisingly, they were getting on just fine. And now that the dust has had time to settle on the hysteria of the last few days, I was able to spend a few quiet moments with the lady who had to date, been working to give these feline victims a better life.

Her car arrived and the cats immediately ran to greet her.

How had she been feeling since the cats were trapped and killed? She was sad. She felt she had been used to attract the cats under the guise that they would be helped – and lied to since they were killed the next day. She was happy for them to be taken, but she wanted them to go to a better life.

She said she bought food on special, but that it was still expensive feeding the cats. She had to work in secret as local rangers had wanted to fine her for littering. Other people jeered her for caring for the cats, saying they should be exterminated. But other people were helpful. Some of the local shop workers brought food for the cats and donated extra to her – the cat lovers who wanted to help. She said she loves the cats and helping them gives her something meaningful to do each day.

She had been working with local rescue groups to take the tamer kittens for rehoming. They also took any pregnant cats or any with injuries. She was glad for the help of the rescue groups. She didn’t want to get too many cats.

I found it amazing that this dedicated and hands on front-line volunteer would be anything but celebrated by lovers of cats. Her efforts to keep this little colony healthy and managed was desperately in need of assistance, not condemnation. Sure, it would be fantastic to get all of the tameable cats into loving homes, but for the ones who would never be housepets – this carer and this colony was their family.

The seven cats who were seized and killed deserved to have the value of their lives – however ‘imperfect’ we deemed them to be – recognised.

They were not ‘feral’ – real ‘ferals’ (cats that do not depend on humans, or human resources) do not exist in urban areas. These Community Cats are the result of modern living, whether we – like it – want it – or think it’s right – or not. They are part of a self-sustaining ‘untame’ population in Australia that no amount of culling will eliminate. Even if every owned cat was desexed tomorrow it would have NO IMPACT on these guys (that’s what ’self-sustaining’ means). Unless we all want to go back to living in the forest and hunting each and every meal – cats will live wherever they are able to live and that is generally at the outer limits of our modern cities. Demonizing them for doing so, is as misguided as it is arrogant. Killing them for doing so is simply inhumane.

So cat feeders like the Joondalup carer will continue to do their selfless work in secret. They will have their hearts broken each time a ‘welfare’ group decides it knows best and slaughters their charges. And they will continue to help the most vulnerable victims of the animal world – the animals that straddle the divide between cherished pet and persecuted refugee – the unowned cat.

lil’ Kitty & her mum wait for their carers to arrive with food on Saturday night

Getting to Zero (G2Z) claims to be more ‘comprehensive’ than No Kill, and that they “require all stakeholders to be proactive… ‘positive’, ‘practical’, ‘hands-on’ and ‘optimistic’.”

As the WA rep for G2Z, the Cat Haven should be leading the way in ‘proactive’ thinking – namely taking a ‘minimum harm’ approach to animal sheltering. So when they were asked to help with a mulit-generational colony that was being cared for by a group of concerned cat lovers and gradually being trapped and rehomed by local animal welfare organisations, the obvious approach was to collaborate with these stakeholders to bring about positive outcomes for these cats.

Well, not so much. What they actually did was launch a public assault on the colony, advertising its location to every half-wit and cat-hater with a shovel, applaud themselves for their efforts at ‘Facebook advocacy’ in the local media, trapped the cats with no long term plan for their treatment or welfare… then killed every single one of them them.

lil’ Kitty being lured into Cat Haven ‘care’

lil’ Kitty and six of her colony family are now dead. The reason given?

Cat Haven WA ~ “JOONDALUP RESCUE UPDATE: We have just been told by our vets that all seven cats rescued from the site yesterday were severely infested with ringworm and feral. Unfortunately, all animals have been put to sleep on humane grounds and to protect all healthy animals at the shelter, as ringworm is highly infectious.”

Despite knowing the remaining cats were being fed and were likely to be suffering all the same ailments as their now dead counterparts – the second night the Cat Haven arrived at the Joondalup site to trap again. Here is photo of them arriving, shining their headlights into the traps of other cat welfare groups who had arrived early to save cats… ironically, from The Cat Haven.

Sensing they’d lost control of the situation and concerned how even more dead cats would look to their supporters, the Cat Haven did what it should have done all along – it engaged those groups already on the ground. However there is a catch;

Cat Haven WA ~ “We will however ask for progress reports on all animals if we are to fund their treatment and reserve the right to publish the progress reports.

Won’t that be lovely – despite lil’ Kitty and his six colony family members being dead because they were ‘unsavable’ in the eyes of the Cat Haven, the Cat Haven may yet get a ‘good news’ story out of it because other groups don’t deem these cats as beyond compassion.

Look, these cats are either feral and unsavable, or they’re not.

- If they ARE feral and unsavable (untreatably suffering with a poor prognosis for rehabilitation), then the Cat Haven had no choice but to euthanise all of the cats it trapped, and to suggest that other groups keep these feral and unsavable cats alive is inhumane.

- If they were in fact savable, and other groups are being engaged to help on the ground to rescue the rest of the colony, the killing of lil’ Kitty and the rest of his family was in fact unnecessary, as they were savable (not untreatably suffering with a poor prognosis for rehabilitation) and could have stayed where they were until treatment from other groups was able to be offered to them.

So Cat Haven - which is it?

They want us to forget about lil’ Kitty and his family now. They want everyone to ‘work together’ and to throw some money at the groups on the ground in the hope they’ll keep quiet about their appalling fuck up. They want to continue to be allowed to portray themselves as a compassionate leader, while peddling the outdated notion that killing is kindness. They want to be celebrated on social media channels, posting photos of themselves trapping and ‘rescuing’ cats – even when this ‘rescue’ will almost certainly result in that cat being killed.

There is two choices for the modern cat shelter in this new transparent world. You either save the lives of cats and reject the notion of killing for convenience and reclaim your compassionate mission – engaging cat lovers to help you. Or you acknowledge that you are little more than a extermination company working on behalf of government agencies. But you can no longer be both.

(Click here to see a video of one of the ‘feral’, ‘unsavable’ Joondalup colony in care).

There are no words;

This effort, promoted as a ‘rescue’, resulted in seven out of seven of the cats who were alive yesterday, being dead today. What the hell kind of rescue is that?