“If the attitudes and beliefs of Dr. Kate Hurley, the director of the U.C. Davis Shelter Medicine Program, are any indication, the kill-oriented sheltering movement is in trouble. I just finished watching Hurley’s video ‘New Approaches to Community Cats’ where she tells shelter directors to stop taking in and killing cats regardless of whether they are friendly or ‘feral,’ where she tells them that as it relates to scared cats, there is simply no such thing as ‘humane euthanasia,’ where she blasts the viewpoint that ‘open admission is better,’ and where she says that killing is not a necessity; it is, first and foremost, a choice.
Hurley now tells shelter directors that taking in (and killing) cats does not resolve citizen complaints, it does not reflect the community’s concerns or values, it does not help reunite lost cats with their families, it does not help cats find new homes, it does not end suffering (in fact, it perpetuates and intensifies it), it does not mitigate harm or reduce the number of cats, and it is not cost-effective, all the traditional excuses for why animal shelters do so.” The bottom line,” says Hurley, “[is that] traditional sheltering is not an effective tool to eliminate or protect community cat populations.”
…
Will others follow Dr. Hurley’s lead and begin abandoning the sinking ship of shelter killing and the traditional excuses and rationalizations which have been used to justify it, leaving those who refuse to evolve in lonely and unsympathetic company? Absolutely.Breaking Ranks: The Evolution of Dr. Kate Hurley ~ Nathan Winograd blog
It is a reality in Australia that many underperforming shelters are continuing to offer untame, semi-owned and community cats no option other than death. Not because other options for these cats don’t exist, but because these shelter managers choose to only offer killing.
Studies on large number of cat intakes in Australia, have shown 80% of cats entering shelters have never been housepets. Most however were varying levels of human tame.
Do these cats have owners? Nearly always.
However, major cat welfare groups choose to only recognise one kind of cat owner; people who microchip, desex, register, often confine, and (largely because of local laws) only keep two cats.
Any other kind of ownership, including semi-ownership & community cat carers, is considered inappropriate and the cat is deemed ‘better of dead’ by major cat groups in this country. This policy ensures that 80% of intakes – these human tame but free-roaming cats – will continue to be killed.
There is no predicted end date to this killing.
The deaths of these cats isn’t ‘necessary’, nor is it the fault of ‘irresponsible people’ or even ‘overpopulation’. This is a choice. These shelters are choosing killing, rather than making the change to ensure positive outcomes for cats. Programs which are both possible and proven.
“In NZ we advocate leaving them where they are, using paper collars to make contact with owners and only taking them if they are still stray in 7 days. Data collated shows that 75 – 85% of these stray friendly cats are owned. Their owners phone or the cat is no longer seen stray after the 7 days are up. How many of these would be unclaimed, killed or taking space in shelters? Managed admission to shelters works well for these animals.”
~ New Zealand animal shelter worker
Imagine that – trying to find the owners of cats and keep them alive – rather than our current system of impounding them, holding their lives to ransom, and demanding owner prove their ‘worth’ by driving across town on a weekday – everyday – and peering into cages until their cat shows up.
See also: Solutions, not killing; cat management in New Zealand
If you are a shelter who does ONLY offer death to a cat – then taking in that cat is in every way unethical. A cat who is ‘alive’ has options; maybe she can go to another shelter, maybe her owners can hold her a few days, maybe a friend or relative could care for her, maybe she could go into private kennels, maybe a local rescue has a place, or maybe if she had been living ownerless she could remain that way.
But once she is dead – once her life has been taken from her – then all of that potential is gone. And the shelter’s management is entirely responsible for making the choice to kill her.
Shelters need to reject the idea that they can offer ‘death’ as a reasonable and humane option. It is neither. And it should always be a last resort, not the first.
It is VERY clear many of the cats in pounds are owned. They are adorned with collars, they are friendly and socialised.. Sometimes microchips fail to read, Other times people don’t bother/don’t want to or can’t afford microchipping and some simply forget to update their details… We had a recent case of a local cat whose owners’ relationship dissolved which resulted in the cats details for address change being neglected in the break up process and confusion as to who actually owned the cat. The cat was.microchipped desexed registered but ended up sitting on his own (pound has very small incomings) for two weeks on deathrow. Some undercover work by an “outside” party found his owner who was then going to be slogged with a $400 bill to get him out…! The system is designed to fail cats PERIOD
Wonderful article. If only it went into more detail about the options other than killing and it could be made more specific to Australia, where shelters are bound by State Legislation. Interestingly, in NSW, cats can only be taken as “strays” to pounds if either they have been in an area where cats are prohibited (is. Food preparation areas) OR when every effort has been made to contact the owner… In reality, it seems that pounds happily accept any cat, collared or not, that is presented to them, whether or not it was roaming free and not actually stray to begin with, as is legal in NSW.
Then there is the whole ridiculous Australian wildlife argument. Studies have shown that feral cats will not risk exposing themselves to potential danger (as they perceive it) by hunting unless they are hungry in almost all situations. The few exceptions being intact male feral cats, who stop this behaviour once neutered and fed regularly by a community cat carer. Overwhelming evidence shows that any trapping or culling programme fails miserably and that the only programme proven to reduce the number of feral cats is the Trap, Neueter, Release (and then Feed) programmes that have been embraced whole-heartedly overseas, to much success.
The killing of cats in Australian pounds has to stop. It is cruel, inhumane and unnecessary as this article well demonstrates. The cats in Sydney pounds often appear to be owned, just lost or deliberately trapped even though pound staff at two pounds I know of have described the cats they take in as ‘ferals’. These cats may often be loved family pets and their owners simply don’t know where they are or where to look for them eg if they don’t speak English and come from a culture where the concept of a pound does not even exist. Killing a companion animal should never be an option chosen for convenience or administrative reasons. Killing a cat because he or she is ‘scared’ is simply atrocious and cruel. Kindness and care will often turn around a scared cat. Those who are community cats should be looked after in a TNR program not killed as ‘ferals’. This pound system in Australia really has to change. We are still in the dark ages as far as I’m concerned and need to follow the example of countries like New Zealand.