11/16/13

Rescue vs Breeders

There are a lot of people who love dogs. They may express this love in many different ways: some people own many dogs, some people make donations to important dog causes, young children may adorn their lockers with images of dogs, others may find their joy in training dogs for specialised tasks. While this expression of love is wildly different, there is no denying the central thread: a love of dogs. This love makes up the dog world.

But there’s division in the dog world.

There is a perpetuated myth that dog lovers who engage in dog rescue are some how more experienced, or compassionate, or just better than people who breed dogs.

There is a theme: the dog rescuer versus the dog breeder.

Sometimes the expression of this phenomena is not even subtle:

During Facebook discussions, I see people describe themselves as a ‘rescuer’ or as a ‘breeder’, and therefore differentiate themselves from others in a conversation. Like this:

As you can imagine, the term ‘breeder’ is sometimes used interchangeably with offensive terms like ‘greeder’, or ‘producer’, and then these are also used to delegitimise the experiences of the breeder in hand.

Like the rescue group below (another screen shot from Facebook, in regard to ‘Desex the bad ones!‘):

It’s frustrating when I criticise proposals like the Select Committee Recommendations in SA, or the Breeding and Rearing Code in Victoria, to be told that my biased because, as a breeder, the recommendations would influence my ability to make a profit. Anyone reading my blog would find that I object to many government recommendations for a variety of reasons – not one of them is “because it’ll be harder and more expensive for me to breed puppies”.

This divide in the dog world is not just seen online and on Facebook. I have blogged before on The Sin of Breeding Dogs and the judgement I receive for being a breeder when out and about.

Let me share a secret: No one wants to see dogs euthanised in shelters.

When talking about ‘rescue vs breeders’ on Facebook, Allie, from Maggie’s Farm, said:

I don’t think it’s particularly helpful to talk about “breeders” and “rescuers” because it kind of presupposes two homogenous groups, which isn’t the case. Among some breeders, “rescuers” are “animal rights” people, which to them is like a dirty word. And to some people in rescue, breeders are terrible, selfish people who make more dogs, when they are already dogs needing homes. And implying that there’s some zero sum game here, where a breeder bred and bought dog means a shelter dog dies. It’s not that simple. I think people who fall into both groups can be guilty of alienating the other, because it’s easy to have someone to blame and dislike.

Allie is of course right. There’s not just two groups in the dog world – the dog world is an amazing assortment of people with differing interests and passions. It is this very stuff that unites us.

What unites the dog world?

Comments and images, like those used above, are made like there is no glue in the dog world – and no potential for cohesion. It builds up a divide and splits the dog world into different sides. Our compassion and passion for dogs and their welfare unites the dog world, and this similarity should be embraced, not diminished.

The fact is, there are many in the dog world that bridge both sides. For example, I worked at a shelter for 3 years, have fostered about 45 animals in the last 5 years, and yet I also breed dogs. These roles aren’t in contradiction. I actually really like dogs, in all forms, and so fill up my life with them.

But, in conversations like that above, the dog world is polarised – between rescue problems, morals, and ethics and those of breeders. Between ‘the rescuers’ and ‘the breeders’. As Allie pointed out, it’s not as simple as that – the groups aren’t homogenous.

This terminology stops rescues and breeders being united and does nothing for animal welfare.

The divide impacts upon animal welfare

Rescuers and breeders have different skills and expertise. They have a lot to offer one another. I think it is important for us to recognise how animal welfare could be improved if we were to work more tightly together.

Rescues are often key in finding purebred dogs in rescues and returning them to their recognised breeder. Sometimes, without ethical rescues, ethical breeders would never have the chance to get their dog back. This is a win for rescue, too: one less dog in the rescue system as ethical breeders will take back dogs in need.
Breeders are an excellent knowledge base for rescues, especially when it comes to matters concerning newborn puppies, or when it comes to breed specific knowledge. As a personal example, when my bitch Clover whelped a singleton litter, she then fostered 9 day old rescue puppies as well. My knowledge as a breeder was important to these puppies as they arrived emaciated, dehydrated, and practically dead. On the flip side, because rescue entrusted me with these puppies, I learnt a lot that I didn’t already know.
Breeders often have a list of people interested in dogs, and receive puppy and adult dog enquiries on an ongoing basis. Letting breeders know about dogs locally who are somewhat ‘like’ their breed (in looks or temperament) may mean that breeders can refer enquiries to rescues.

Currently, breeders criticise rescue and rescuers criticise breeders. This is not good for anyone. Having a reciprocal relationship is, obviously, much more desirable. Quite simply, by not tapping into shared passions and shared resources there is a risk of opportunities being lost.

Celebrate those uniting factors

Guess what?

Both rescuers and breeders love dogs.

Both rescuers and breeders want to see animal welfare improved.

Neither breeders or rescues want to see shelter euthanasia at its current level.

Both want to keep dogs out of pounds and rescues to start off with.

There is a lot in common that we can use to our advantage, moving forward.

How can breeders work with rescue?

If you’re a breeder, you can:

Contact your local rescue group and see what areas they need help.
Provide breed-specific advice to rescue groups or adoptive families.
Foster or kennel dogs in need.
Donate information that you’ve designed for your puppy packs.
Make a monetary donation.
Offer to groom rescue dogs.
Offer to transport rescue dogs (especially if you’re travelling interstate to dog show events or for servicing a bitch).
Share your local rescue group’s dog for adoption, including with those that enquire wanting a purebred – their perfect dog may just be in the local shelter.
Make efforts to stay in touch with your puppy buyers to ensure that your puppies stay out of the rescue system.
Educate yourself on the rescue and sheltering system.
Congratulate and support those who choose to adopt a dog.
Do not take a ‘breeder’s side’ by default – recognise the diversity among breeders and feel free to criticse unethical breeders, as well as celebrating ethical rescues.

How can rescues work with breeders?

If you’re a rescue, you can:

Contact breeders to see if they can help with boarding or fostering rescue dogs.
Ask breeders to share rescue dog’s availability with puppy enquirers.
Avoid posting breeder-slamming content (like that on the right) on social media (or anywhere else).
If you can identify the breeder of a dog in care, please contact the breeder – it’s their baby, too.
Utilise breeders as a resource – especially when it comes to rearing baby puppies or breed-specific advice.
Becomes informed on what ethical breeding practices look like, and support ethical breeders.
Support those who choose to purchase a dog from an ethical breeder.
Don’t take the side of ‘rescue’ by default – criticise unethical rescues as well as celebrating ethical breeders and other ethical rescues.

Moving Forward

When I asked about this topic on Facebook, one of my friends said,

There are ethical and unethical people on both sides, reasonable and unreasonable. I believe the ethical and reasonable can effectively work together in the best interest of dogs, the other side there isn’t much you can do about it.

Only those who are ‘reasonable’ and ethical will understand what this post is getting at.

Overall, we need both rescue and breeders to promote ethical places to acquire dogs from:

From a registered breeder
From a private rehoming
From an ethical rescue

We are all passionate about dogs and their welfare. So; Let’s focus on the dogs, and not each other.

Further reading:

Our dogs are our beloved companions 98% of the time (written by a breeder)

I love dog breeders.

Patricia McConnell on Breeders Versus Rescues (Responsible breeding – an oxymoron?).

It’s become fashionable to hate dog breeders.

I hate dog breeders.

10/25/13

Companion Animal Shelter Summit

It was with surprise, and pleasure, I received an invitation to the Companion Animal Shelter Summit held in Adelaide, in Parliament House. This was a new venture, supported by diverse politicians (Susan Close from the Labor Party, Tammy Franks from the Greens, and Michelle Lensink form the Liberal Party), and, pleasingly, gaining attendance from a number of different animal welfare organisations. This function promoted itself to be, and was, a great networking opportunity.

I attended this function on the 10th of October and share my notes on the program below. I must admit that I neglected to take detailed notes on many ‘cat things’ (not a surprise), but I did make some notes and did include them below.

Dr Michael Moyer and Mr Tim Vasudeva at the Companion Animal Shelter Summit.

They keynotes speaker for the Summit was Michael R Moyer, a veterinarian practicing in Pennsylvania, with an extensive history in animal welfare, and what he approximates to be 20 years experience in sheltering practices.

Sheltering and Animal Welfare in the USA

Moyer began by describing the many organisations that function in the USA. Like the ASPCA, an old organisation with roots in equine welfare, who have a turn over of $189million in gifts and donations on an annual basis through public awareness campaigns. A lot of this money goes into things like ‘Animal Cops’ (they’re behind the TV show). They do run a shelter and hospital for companion animals, which holds about 3,200 animals.

Moyer also looked at the HSUS, who earns itself $233million on an annual basis through TV advertisements and mailouts. They are a highly ‘visible’ organisation, dipping their fingers into many pies. They do not run shelters for domestic anials, but have about 6-8 wildlife sanctuaries across the country.

The American Humane Association is a little novel in this day-and-age as it looks at the humane treatment of animals and children. This organisation is largely unknown by the public, despite it placing “No animals were harmed” labels at the end of movies. Their focus is not so much on companion animals, but producing animals on farms and accrediting these facilities. They gain about $22million in donations annually.

Best Friends Animal Society logo. I included Best Friends Animal Society’s logo on the left here because I just think it’s one of the most adorable logos I’ve ever seen. BFAS often focusses its attention on ‘crisis’, such as hurricanes or other disasters, and providing boarding for animals in times of evacuations. Through these disasters, they seek fundraising, leading to an intake of about $53million a year. They often frequently take on high-profile cruelty cases. They have a 1000 dog and cat animal sanctuary (with some large animals) and often have animals in long-term housing scenarios. They have recently taken over No Kill Los Angeles, including off site adoption sites and with 14 different rescues using these sites.

Moyer mentioned Humane Alliance, that focusses on desexing surgeries on a large scale – about 4 million pets being sterilised in the USA in a year, including transport to and from their desexing facilities. The desexing they provide is of high quality and they also have unique, high-volume training camps for vets.

Additionally, Petsmart Charities was mentioned. Even here in Australia, we have heard of ‘Petsmart’ (the pet store), but what we don’t hear about how they encourage customers to donate on purchase. Moyer described Petsmart Charities as ‘data driven’ in the type of recommendations they make for life saving in shelters. Petsmart Charities earn about $79 million, mostly from customers, annually.

Overall, Moyer described Animal Sheltering in the USA as:

Highly localised, highly fragmented, highly variable in success.
Often funded by municipality and not for profit runs it.
County shelters in more regional areas.
Large numbers of shelters in USA – 3500-5000 individual shelters.
The term ‘SPCA’ is used by counties and the public is confused because they think it relates to the ASPCA.
Regional variation in scope of challenges/success – climate/culture has an impact – as there are differences across the country with free ranging dogs and they care of dogs, geographical differences.

When someone brought up PETA, he called their sheltering an “active euthanasia program” instead of a shelter, as 88% of their intakes are euthanised. He clarified, though, that sheltering isn’t really PETA’s thing and they’re more into other animal rights agendas.

Across the USA, there are many universities teaching shelter medicine alongside their veterinarian studies.

Pediatric Desexing

Part of Moyer’s talk was surrounding pediatric desexing, which he defined as desexing from 6-16 weeks of age. He noted that many recommend that desexing take place at 6-8 months of age, but there is no evidence to back up this being the ‘best time’ for desexing. Indeed, animals are still quite young at 8 months, so arguably it’s still a pediatric desexing procedure then, too!

While some idnividuals advocate that large breed dogs should be desexed at 14-18 months, Moyer saw “no reason” for this to occur, as surgery is more complex and serious the older the dog is. Moyer poo-pooed the idea that someone with (his example) a Neopolitian Mastiff may want the dog to look as substantial as it would be given the time to mature, and thought the other health benefits were far more pressing.

His main focus was on research that indicates that desexed animals live longer. He does not think urinary incontinence is a big deal (you can medicate it), and made reference to some rare types of cancers being less common in entire dogs, but concluded that this was because they died earlier so never got the chance to have cancer.

Moyer described some guidelines regarding the surgeries themselves:

Pediatric desexing should avoid and/or prevent:

hypothermia (from premed precautions need to be in place!),
long procedures,
fasting (controversially, Moyer suggests that young animals are not fasted before a surgery),
and NSAIDS.

In dogs, anaethetic is riskier if there is mask induction, xylazine, or injectable induction with halothane maintence.
In cats, intubation increases the risk of death by 3 times!
Young animals should be fed after surgery.
Pediatric desexing should house litters together before and after.
Hygiene is importnat, including true sterile hemostats.
Moyer recommended an inguinal tattoo (which is not common practice in Australia).
Pediatric desexing: Consider autoligation, in dogs and cats, males and females!
Flank/abdomen spays a matter of preference.

Moyer included several studies regarding desexing in dogs and cats:

Moyer talked about applying a process orientated approach to surgery. He made reference to ‘The Checklist Manifesto’ by Atul Gawande. You may be surprised to know that there is evidence that checklists improve patient outcomes in surgery. That is, less patients die or experience complications if checklists are in place. Even something as simple as requiring staff to introduce themselves to one another can improve patient outcomes. For this reason, checklists are good and should be implemented!

The benefits of taking a process orientated approach to surgery include:

Improved consistency and efficiency
Patient care is improved as it is process based, quality assured
Facilitates training and cross training
Facilitates leadership development
Facilitates continuous improvement – with individuals questioning every step of a process, assessing themselves and one another, and being comfortable to discuss problems.
Documented processes in place

The alternative to SOPs are: inconsistency, neglect, inefficiency, stagnation, tribal knowledge, and so forth. Moyer argued that not following a SOP should be grounds for discharge (while following them well should be grounds for promotion and other rewards).

With SOPs in place, mass-desexing is done effectively and with good patient outcomes. Moyer wants to dispel the ‘chop shop’ myth – if someone is desexing a lot of animals on a daily basis, they’re going to get very good at it.

Intake protocols for shelter, foster and rescue: Vaccination

Moyer emphasised the importance of shelters vaccinating animals on intake. Any pet that is at risk of acquiring a disease (including pregnant animals) should be vaccinated against it on intake. The particular diseases that are relevant will vary between facilities.

Dogs and cats respond to shelter environments, and pathogens, in different ways. For cats, many have latent viruses on intake to a facility and, because of the stress of being held in a shelter environment, they develop illnesses. Dogs on the other hand are normally healthy when they enter the facility, but they develop diseases from exposure to pathogens within the shelter environment.

Moyer joked that the ideal time to vaccinate incoming animals is two weeks before they enter the facility. Of course, that’s not possible (though it suggests that community education and discounted vaccination in the community may have a role in bettering shelters). Failing vaccination before intake, the recommendation is that animals get vaccinated within 30 minutes of entering a facility.

It’s a matter of weighing up risks: surrenders are at a low risk, in terms of disease, while strays are at a higher risk. Young puppies and kittens are the greatest risk of contracting disease.

These vaccinations should take place with modified live products that have been properly stored and reconstituted.

In Australia, we do not have a problem with rabies. For this reason, we do not have animal sheltering intertwined with public health. Moyer described how, in the USA, an interest in public health has funded much of animal control.

Intake protocols for shelter, foster and rescue: Other

Moyer argued that many shelters should have particular intake areas and protocols, with intake staff, an intake processing area, and a ‘receiving area’. But these spaces have to be appropriate. He used an example of intake-kennels where dogs had nose-to-nose contact through the fence, meaning diseases were spread among the 12 or so current intake animals in no time, and then spread to the rest of the shelter population.

Intake procedures should include:

health assessment
identification (collar/tag/microchip)
vaccination
anti-paraciticies
adoption status assignment (e.g. is it on stray hold or available for adoption immediately?)
data capture
schedule follow up needs (e.g. a second vaccination? desexing?)
for kittens, Pen-G injection

Shelters/Rescues/Fostering Interconnectedness

While Moyer has been in the sheltering industry for the last 20 years, he describes the recent popularity of rescue to be ‘an explosion’. Rescues are great for shelters: they prevent surrenders and save impounded animals (especially impounded animals that need rehabilitation and special adoptive homes). This work of rescue has seen a reduction in shelter intakes in many areas.

Shelters are typically the largest resource in the community. They offer opportunities for community engagement including collaborative adoption events. They hold a lot of resources and data.

Moyer considers fostering to be ‘an offsite location of the shelter’. One of the key challenges with fostering is ‘staying in touch’ – this can sometimes be rectified by providing a list of dates for the animal to come back to the shelter (for example, coming back for surgery, vaccination, of adoption events). Moyer also advocated the use of ‘foster to adopt’ in some settings. Foster carers need to be fully informed about the disease risks of bringing in foster animals, especially to their existing pets.

In contrast, ‘rescue’ is a broad term that covers networks of kennelling and fostering in an external network. A ‘transfer to rescue’ is a (desirable) outcome for a shelter. They are a big potential resource and often can specialise in pets at high risk of euthanasia – and, by taking them, effectively reduce euthanasia.

Neonatal kitten care and medicine – and cats

Moyer talked about Austin Pets Alive Bottle Baby Program, and its high density housing of high need neonatal kittens. The program vigorously and positively recruits volunteers, and these volunteers are staffed around the clock. (Staffing numbers are calculated from the intake data of past years.) Obviously, this is a big job, and there are coordinators for both foster and adoption.

The program uses a ‘all in, all out’ batching system, where there are three rooms which fill and empty in a week, and then that one room has an entire clean. This reduces the spread of disease.

Moyer believes kittens are easy to place in new homes, because they’re cute and just need a little bit of marketing.

Moyer explained how the unowned cat population produces the cat population (as most owned cats are desexed), so it’s targeting this unowned population which should be the focus of number-reduction efforts.

Shelters need to provide intake alternatives for free ranging cats.

Moyer recommended that cats are cleaned ‘in residence’, so there is less stress for the cat and there is less spread of disease. There is no reason for a cat to have a completely disinfected cage every day.

No Kill Communities

A shelter’s capacity describes a shelter’s resources, associated rescue’s resources, and their foster resources. In that way, the life saving capacity of the community is interlinked with the shelter facility. Moyer doesn’t like to use the term ‘no kill’ to describe facilities but, rather, communities. Despite the fragmented nature of the animal rescue/sheltering system, it is still ultimately one system. In this way, it is a community working towards the ‘no kill’ goal, rather than an individual facility’s pursuit.

Homeless pets are a social problem. Not vetrinarian, not biological, not legal. As homeless pets is a community issue, then community and social solutions are the best. If political support is available use it.

Extra thoughts from Moyer:

Moyer described dogs as having a ‘supply/distribution mistmatch’ – not an overpopulation problem.
In Moyer’s mind, there is a ‘native rate’ of animals entering any shelter. It’s not a high number, but it’s inevitable that shelters will have an intake of animals, as that is the role the community.
Moyer dismisses some individual’s focus on adoption returns, as the number of animals returned is a negligible number.
“Make rehoming the primary source of pet acquisition” and a lot of sheltering problems get easier. This includes removing barriers to adoption, like price.
Make return to owner easier – that is, impounded animals should easily be able to get home.
Make surrender harder. This means making it less necessary and less attractive (e.g. required surrender appointments).
Asking this question pre surrender: “What would you need for you to keep your pet?” and working to supply this. (Like Downtown Dog Rescue.)
Many people don’t realise that their veterinarian can euthanise pets. It seems silly, but many people would choose this option if they knew it was available, over ‘surrender for euthanasia’.
And a neat idea: reward transport volunteers with naming opportunities!
Leasdership must: inspire change, incetizise staff and volunteers, instutionalise success, innvoate collaborative models

Barriers to life saving

I was in a group that broke away to discuss ‘barriers to life saving. The questions included “What is dying? Why? What can be done about it?”

What is at highest risk of euthanasia? Our group suggested:

council pound
aggressive
anti social
medium sized or bgigger
bull breeds
untrained
unsocialised
senior dogs – greater than 8 years
‘escape artists’
health conditions
request euthanasia
fearful and stressed
working dogs that don’t work – including greyhounds
kitten season

Moyer (who we were lucky enough to have chairing our focus group) suggested that we need shared reporting/data and greater trasnparency. There is no state requirement for this type of record keeping. Some groups are ‘concerned about backlash’ (if I may personally comment… if groups are doing things that may produce backlash, then perhaps they should cease to do things that create backlash…), so perhaps data could be aggregated to prevent this problem.

Reasons for surrender:

rental isues
behaviour – sep anxiety, destructive, untrained/hyperactie, escapes, aggression
deceased
not enough time
council number enforcement
life changes – including relationship breakdown or pregnant/new baby

What animals are most at risk of being unclaimed?

bully breeds
kelpies
lack of info on process
lack of finances
untrained
lag for cat owners (i.e. they wait a few more days to start looking for a lost cat)

Just as a note, the suggestions above were just the result of brainstorming of the group, and there was no need to substantiate individual suggestions to these lists. What I am saying is this is ‘ideas only’ stuff, and places to research more, not to accept as gospel.

Found Pets App

Tim Vasudeva from RSPCA SA (formally AWL NSW) spoke about his ‘Found Pets App’.

He briefly mentioned the importance of using visually appealing images to capture the attention of adopters, and suggested promoting animals on Facebook and PetRescue on Fridays (so they can come look at those pets over the course of the weekend).

Found Pets is an app that aims to ‘fufil a gap’ for pet owners, as we, as a community, are ‘bad’ at supporting people through the stressful time of losing a pet. The community needs more information about the reclaim process.

The Found Pets app is for all animals, and it is a ’1 minute’ process for Animal Management Officers/Rangers to upload an animal. The ranger uploads a photo, specifies the species, and the suburb that the animal was found (and the app adds the date, council contact details, and relevant pound contact details.

Found Pets is a website and a mobile application.

Owners can set the app so it alerts if a relevant pet (i.e. one amtching their lost pet’s description) is found.

It saves councils money. It saves pet owners money.

It’s a $30 per user per month expense for council. (The funds go to the app developer, not the RSPCA.)

Further reading from the Paw Project: CASS: Companion Animal Shelter Summit

08/11/13

Are you willing to be wrong about that?

Full credits to Saranimals on the great title on this post. Sara blogged “Are you willing to be wrong about that?” in regard to dog training. I instantly knew I needed to create this sequel on ‘the overpopulation problem’.

You’ve probably heard that there is an overpopulation problem; that there are too many dogs and not enough homes.

But, how do you know this?

And, are you willing to be wrong about that?

How many dogs could we fit in Australia? What is the Australian dog population?

Read on, or listen to the audio. (Audio only summarises the blog post and does not contain new information.)

The common figure quoted is 250, 000 dogs and cats are killed in shelters in Australia annually. While I question the accuracy of this figure (i.e. I think it’s actually quite inflated), for the purposes of this article, let’s run with it as there are no alternative figures available.

We know the RSPCA has high kill rates (except in the ACT), but I’m going to use their statistics for making a guess on how many of those 250,000 pets killed in Australian shelters are dogs. By using the RSPCA’s stats, we are probably over-stating kill rates, but I rather be using a figure that is too big than too small.

The RSPCA, Australia wide, killed 37,862 dogs and cats in the 2011/2012 financial year. 14,211 dogs and 23,651 cats. That is, 37.5% of them were dogs.

So, if we extrapolate that 37.5% of the 250,000 animals killed in shelters are dogs, then that means 93,750 are dogs.

We will start with the theory that 93,750 dogs are being killed in shelters in Australia each year.
This is a rough, and probably generous, estimate.

Australia has over 23 million people. (ABS)

This means, that if 0.4% of the Australian population adopted just one dog from a shelter, then there would be no dogs being killed in shelters.

Consider that 450,000 dogs and puppies are sold in Australia each year (source: ACAC paper 2009 PDF). 2% of Australians add a dog or puppy to their family each year as it stands. With 90,000 extra dogs available, we just have to bump this figure up to 2.4%.

If we could sell dogs through marketing to just 90,000 Australians (that’s a town the size of Toowoomba or Bendigo), we would effectively remove the need to kill dogs in shelters.

There are about 3.4 million dogs (3,400,000) owned in Australia (source: ACAC). This is significant because:

For every 362 dogs owned in Australia, one dies in Australia. That is, less than .3% (point three percent) of Australian dogs die in shelters each year. While it adds up to a big number, it’s not much of the total population. There’s not many irresponsible owners out there, really. It’s an important point to remember.
Estimates say that about 10-13% of dogs die each year from natural causes. That means that 340,000 people have a ‘vacancy’ in their lives for a dog on an annual basis.
There are also a number of new vacancies as people move into new accommodation or decide to add a second dog to their family.
19.61% of households who don’t own a pet want to in the future (Source: RSPCA).

So, considering all this, I’d argue that rehoming 93,750 dogs is a very achievable target.

However, I have some good news: We don’t even have to rehome 93, 750 dogs.

Dogs are typically owned by people. While it is common for cats to live in free-ranging communities and never have a true owners, dogs are not the case. When a dog becomes lost, typically, there is a home trying to find them.

So the good news is that we can try to get these 93,750 back to their original home instead of into a new home. Shelters can:

As pets enter their facility, post (good quality, clear) pictures of their pets online, such as on:
- their facility’s Facebook page,
- Gumtree
- DogzOnline, and
- lost dog pages like Lost Dogs of Adelaide.
Peruse the lost dogs notices in the local newspapers and on online sites, like those listed above.
Partner with local publications to get the photos of every impounded animal in print.
Use the details on the dog’s collar or tag to identify and contact the owner.
Scan the animal for a microchip and use the details to contact the owner.
If the name of the owner is known, but contact details are not up to date, pursue alternative ways to make contact (like using the electoral role.)

It’s hard to know exactly how many dogs could go home if the shelters invested this effort into finding their old home for them to go to.

Many argue that there is an overpopulation of dogs because dogs are dying in shelters. This is not evidence of an overpopulation problem. Shelter killing is the result of shelters killing. Shelter killing is a choice that shelters make. While shelters often claim “No one wants to kill pets“, they then make choices in contradiction to this. They choose to not actively pursue reclaims, they choose to not market animals to get them into new homes, and, then claim they have no choice but to kill their charges.

Australian shelters commit three great crimes:

They do not attempt to reunite pets with their families,
They do not attempt to find pets new families, and
They then kill pets who fail to find existing or new families.

Clearly, there are very few dogs that enter Australian pounds, very few dogs who don’t have a home to go to, and, at the same time, an abundance of homes looking for a new dog.

We do not have an overpopulation problem. We have a shelter problem. If we want to see less shelter killing, we need to demand shelters get over the myth of overpopulation.

–

This post has been brewing for a long time, and I felt that I really could not articulate this as well as no-kill blogging stars Shel (at Saving Pets), Nathan Winograd (at his self-titled blog), or Christie Keith (at the Dogged Blog).

As such, I really suggest you read more on the links (below) to get a more complete view of the issue.

Further reading:

Why shelter killing has nothing to do with pet overpopulation (The Dogged Blog)

The Lie of Pet Overpopulation Continues

The First 60 minutes: Animal Sheltering’s Critical Hour (KC Dog Blog)

Shelter ‘overpopulation’ a function of design (Saving Pets)

Do The Math (Nathan Winograd)

How to find a dog at the shelter

Debunking Pet Overpopulation (Nathan Winograd)

Pet Overpopulation Myth (ThatMutt)

The Kobayashi Maru (Nathan Winograd)

Is pet overpopulation a myth? Inside Nathan Winograd’s book

The Seven Deadly Sins of ‘Overpopulation’ (Saving Pets)

Overpopulation Disguises the True Cause of Shelter Killing (Saving Pets)

Shelter Killing Benefits Puppy Mills (Nathan Winograd)

What a Good Pound Does

08/9/13

Downtown Dog Rescue have Dog Rescue Down

Would you like to keep your pet out of this shelter? Ask us how.

I recently ‘liked’ the Downtown Dog Rescue Facebook page and since have had my newsfeed collect many wonderful good news stories from the organisation. I had to share at least some of their amazing stories in South LA.

So what’s to like about Downtown Dog Rescue?

Surrenders are a Poverty Issue, Above All Else

Downtown Dog Rescue recognises that the number one reason that people surrender their pets is poverty. South LA has 40% of its population living below the poverty line, and there is only 1 job for every 7 people (from the DDR website).

Mandatory spay neuter and prohibition of chaining means that owners must have their pets spayed or neutered, and must have fences to keep their pets. When people cannot afford to meet their legislated ownership requirements, they feel they have no choice but to surrender their pets. While there is low cost spay and neuter available, as DDR says, ‘Low cost is not low enough’ and it’s true.

Downtown Dog Rescue makes it really clear that there are real human issues that prevent dogs being at home. For example, this son went to reclaim his deceased father’s dog, but couldn’t afford the reclaim fee and also pay for his dad’s funeral. DDR helped him out, but it’s just one example where very real, poverty-related issues impact upon pet ownership.

Importantly, poverty doesn’t make someone ‘irresponsible’ or otherwise unworthy of pet ownership – and DDR never makes this claim.

Part of Dog Rescue is Preventing Dogs from Needing Rescue

An overlooked part of dog rescue is to prevent dogs ever being in the position of needing rescue. That is, preventing animals from entering shelters to begin with.

On the 31st of July 2013, they proudly posted that they intercepted 30 surrenders. 33 animals were presented to the shelter for surrender, but DDR managed to keep 30 of those animals out of the shelter! Wow! On the 27th of July, they proudly intercepted 23 surrenders. That’s over 50 dogs kept out of a shelter in less than a week.

Earlier that month, they intercepted 20 pets and 30 pets.

So how exactly do you stop animals from ending up in the shelter? The pie chart below shows areas that DDR are helping in regard to the 650 intercepted animals in April-June 2013.

Downtown Dog Rescue Shelter Intervention Service

Spay/neuter is the big problem. When people come to the shelter wanting to surrender their pets because they can’t afford spay/neuter surgery, DDR refers them to their free spay neuter program. Like this dog.

Some people feel they need to surrender their pets because of their current housing arrangement. In some situations, like this cat, DDR helps by paying the necessary pet bond and thereby keeping the family together.

The ‘humane euthanasia for senior pets’ always brings tears to my eyes when reading their Facebook posts. Many pet owners, knowing their pet is elderly and sick, can’t afford euthanasia and so bring the pet to the shelter to surrender-for-euthanasia. Instead of allowing animals to die in a foreign and scary environment, surrounded by strangers, DDR helps families be by-the-side of their pet in a vet clinic euthanasia. It’s a small last act of kindness that made a difference for this dog, and this one, and this one, and this one, and many more.

You can read more statistics here.

Utmost Respect for their Community

Downtown Dog Rescue never blames the ‘irresponsible public‘ for anything. They never condemn or complain about the people they are working with, or shame them. In fact, they take the opposite approach: faming families for desexing their pets or faming individuals who go to great lengths to desex pets. They acknowledge real human issues (such as fear) which inhibits uptake of spay and neuter surgeries, and educates instead of dictates. There is no shaming even those who don’t choose to desex their pets (despite what some of the Facebook commenters may say).

DDR respects the community that they’re working with to improve animal welfare in the area.

Rehome from Homes, Not the Shelter

An important role that DDR accomplishes is preventing surrenders by networking and advertising ‘at risk of surrender’ dogs. That is: If a dog presents to the shelter to be surrendered, DDR can try to keep the dog out of the shelter by exploring alternative rehoming avenues. For example, they gave a shout out to find Butter a home, and this litter of puppies were lucky enough to be rehomed without ever setting foot in the shelter. Excellent outcomes in these two examples, and just one of the many ways DDR is trying to reduce relinquishment of pets to the shelter.

Paying Reclaim Fees

It’s a common pattern internationally: Dogs who get impounded, for whatever reason, often have an owner who wants them back, but can’t afford the reclaim fee, and so dogs are effectively held ransom by the council or the shelter until a release fee is paid. While the motive is to recoup expenses associated with the impounding, and perhaps fines for dogs ‘roaming at large’, in reality it just prevents dogs going home with their families. This is a scenario that DDR has seen time and time and time again. Luckily for the pets involved, the DDR will often assist in paying reclaim fees to ensure pets go home instead of stay in a shelter.

Providing Containment Options

Another big thing that DDR contributes to the community is assistance with fencing problems, chiefly, fixing fences or building pens. Many of the fences they fix are so simple, but make a big deal to the life of pets and their owners: They get to stay together.

And that’s not all!

DDR does anything they can to keep pets out of shelters, or just improve the welfare of pets in the area. Like:

Offering free boarding for 120 days to keep a dog out of the shelter.
They concerned about a substandard-kennel provided for this dog, so donated a new kennel.
Running dog training classes to try to help owners with behavioural issues (who wanted to surrender because of those issues).
Paying for medical costs that families can’t afford.

And, of course, they have dogs for adoption too!

“What we’ve learned; it’s not that people who come to the shelter don’t care, but they think they have run out of options”.

The situation in South LA is also a careful reminder that introducing animal welfare legislation (such as mandatory desexing or ‘no chaining’) can also have an impact on surrenders… Which in turn effectively nullifies any welfare benefit from the legislation in the first place.

In a world where my Facebook newsfeed is often overwhelmed with sensationalist animal rescue stories, my eyes constantly fall on the understated but hugely significant work of Downtown Dog Rescue. Their good news posts bring tears to my eyes. I can’t get enough of these happy stories! I am so excited for the dogs and people that this rescue is helping.

How you can help

DDR works on donations. They currently running a ‘donation special’, where any $1 donated by the public will be matched by the ASPCA. So now is a fantastic time to make a donation to all the good work DDR are doing. There can be no doubt that their services are truly helping pets and people, and providing the exact type of help that is needed. Donate here!

Further reading:

The Revolving Door: A poverty problem, not a pet problem

Poverty, shelter surrender, and what makes a difference (on DDR from Maddie’s Institute)

“All they need is love”

09/20/12

Wanted: A place for Bella to call her own.

Through the marvels of Facebook, Bella came to reside with me until she finds her new home. She was surrendered to Tailem Bend pound as a fence jumper, and I agreed to take her on. Considering that when Lucky (a past foster) came into care, she was also surrendered as an escape artist, and yet never tried to escape once, I knew that people lie when surrendering pets to rescue.

However, I soon found that Bella’s past owner wasn’t lying.

Yes, Bella jumps fences. Bella also can escape from a wire crate and can open doors. She has her own plans and doesn’t like to be confined. That being said, being confined when you’re around is quite okay by her – she’ll stay in the yard, stay in a crate, and stay locked in a room while you’re nearby. Once she realises you’re gone, however, she seeks her own adventures. She is looking for a home with secure fences, someone home most of the time, and is best to be locked inside when left alone to reduce her opportunities to fence jump in her new home. Her adoption is subject to a yard check and commitment to keeping Bella contained. Continue reading →

Blogging on all things dogs, particularly dog science and dog politics.

Category Archives: Rescue

Companion Animal Shelter Summit

Are you willing to be wrong about that?

Downtown Dog Rescue have Dog Rescue Down

Wanted: A place for Bella to call her own.