We are investing in killing and we have to stop

 

Given we are right on the cusp of Easter, want to share a story from last year, which detailed the actions of an organisation ‘Save the Bilby’.

Last year the ‘Save the Bilby’ organisation had found they had a problem – a fence had been damaged by flood and they needed to find an alternative way to protect their resident Bilbies. They choose to cull more than 3,000 cats.

The organisation’s major fundraising vehicle, ‘Save the Bilby’ easter chocolates, are marketed to animal lovers. While the organisation may be doing good things for Bilbies, I question whether animal lovers want to invest in a charity who sees it as appropriate to kill several thousand animals as a commonplace part of operations. I personally wouldn’t want my hard earned money invested in cat culling programs. If the ‘Save the Bilby’ can’t find other solutions, then they’re not an organisation I’m willing to invest in.

 

A case study in killing consent

If enough animal lovers were to give the feedback to this charity that they would cease their support because of their destruction policy towards other animals who aren’t Bilbies, you know what would happen? They would change this policy.

An animal charity that doesn’t reflect the beliefs of the animal lovers in the community dies a quick death. This is true whether you are saving an iconic endangered species, or if you are juggling the yearly flood of kittens. Working within the boundaries of your supporters expectations is essential and most institutions cannot continue to do their work, if that work is not supported, or is abjectly rejected by the community.

Which is why pounds and shelters are working so hard to convince you the killing they do is necessary and humane.

This is how pounds and shelters want you to believe they work.

“Pets come in. They work hard to find their owners. Any unclaimed pets are temperament tested and the safe ones are rehomed. Any killing is done for behavoural reasons, health reasons, or because there simply aren’t enough homes available. More pets are coming in everyday because the public is irresponsible, so the pound is under constant pressure.”

 

Except, this is largely a fabrication developed to appease you – the pet loving community. Every single pound and shelter, needs your investment.

Charity shelters need your donations, your participation, and for you to promote their brand.

Local council pounds need you to keep paying your pet registration fees (which according to media yesterday, is in some places edging towards $100 per pet, per year) so they can continue to fund their departments.

Without your investment, they cease to exist. They die the quick death.

And when you start to critically examine the shelter narrative, it quickly falls apart.

 

“Pets come in…”

This implies that pets entering shelters just appear at the door. This is false.

Councils have passed laws requiring that free-roaming and potentially lost pets are collected and brought to the pound. They have even passed laws which see finders of lost pets fined, if they find the owners of the pet themselves, rather than bring them to the pound.

These laws have long existed for dogs, but the same mandatory impoundment laws are now being passed for cats.

(Note: I’m not commenting here on the value of these laws, simply that they exist. If the same laws were passed for say, possums, then the pound would be ‘full’ of possums and we’d have possum ‘overpopulation’, but I digress).

Pets who could be taken straight home (ie. microchipped pets, those wearing ID) are brought in. Patrols are often sent out to target non-compliant animals.

Pounds may take in pets from multiple cities, for profit. Even if they are already killing pets for space, pounds can take on contracts to hold even more pets.

Certain laws also see extra pets enter the pound system. Pet limit laws see pets over and above the limits surrendered. Breed specific laws see dogs who look a certain way seized and held. Mandatory desexing laws see disadvantaged pets given up, or seized. While strengthening or expanding registration and microchipping systems can drive non-compliant pets into the system.

Pets don’t simply walk in the doors – the system is very much designed to bring them in.

 

“They work hard to find their owners…”

Few pounds photograph the pets entering facilities and post them online. Practically no major charity pounds do. This very, very basic process is overlooked.

Instead, they require owners to visit every day to peer into cages, to see if their pet is impounded. Presumably, for however long it takes.

Pounds rarely keep lost pet registries. They practically never cross-check these registries with surrounding pounds.

 

“Any unclaimed pets are temperament tested and the safe ones are rehomed…”

Few pounds employ qualified behaviourists. Temperament tests are generally a mish-mash of procedures, practically none of which are scientifically validated, and are generally applied by unqualified animal attendants with no formal training in animal behaviour.

That’s if they are tested at all. Many pounds do not offer an animal rehoming program. They do not advertise available pets – they do not have a program to get the pets desexed and into homes.

Some DO have relationships with rescue groups. This often means the pound absolves themselves on any responsibility to place pets by simply holding pets to ransom. ‘If you won’t save them,’ they say to the community’s kind-hearted pet lovers, ‘then we’ll kill them’.

By this definition, kill lists are nothing more than a declaration of the pound, that it intends to fail to do its job.

While life-saving relationships between pound and rescue are to be commended, the ultimate responsibility for saving pets lay with the department being paid by our pet registration fees and taxes.

 

“Any killing is done for behavoural reasons, health reasons, or because there simply aren’t enough homes available…”

In the case of pounds who offer no behavioural rehabilitation program, this is simply not true. Nearly all common behavioural issues are treatable, so not offering this ensures savable pets are killed.

In the case of pounds who offer no veterinary rehabilitation program, this is simply not true. Many common health issues are treatable, so not offering this ensures savable pets are killed.

In the case of pounds who offer no direct from pound adoption program, this is simply not true. Relying exclusively on community rescue groups to save, treat and place pets, puts pets lives in danger completely arbitrarily. The only thing threatening the lives of those pets is the pound itself – while they do not lift a finger to save them.

This is not true for healthy untame cats. These cats aren’t being killed because they can’t be saved, but because the pound chooses to kill them

This is not true for healthy, friendly, ‘pit bull type’ dogs. These dogs are killed because the laws are mandating their death.

The pet who is being killed in a pound because he is genuinely untreatably aggressive, or sick, or because there is legitimately no home for him to go to, is so uncommon as to make it an anomaly. Pets are nearly always killed because of ineffective pound policy.

 

“More pets are coming in everyday because the public is irresponsible, so the pound is under constant pressure…”

In most Australian cities, the number of pets entering the pound each year is a few hundred. A few cities may reach a couple of thousand annually. Very, very manageable numbers.

If every city boasted a well-managed pound, no unsaveable animal would die for ‘space’. Instead, the highest volume, highest kill pounds are those which process pets from multiple cities. These mega-pounds are often run by charities, or private companies, with a vested financial interest in keeping pet intake numbers high.

On the front lines, this can seem like pressure from an ‘irresponsible’ public. However even a cursory examination of the pounds operations will usually see an overburdened facility, servicing a pet owning population far exceeding the shelter’s capacity.

 

The illusion of compassion

Now we know that the story we’re investing in, is not what happens in reality – now we know that our investment is being made under false pretences – we need to review our investment. Are we still willing to invest in a system using killing when we know there are alternatives should the pound simply choose to implement them?

Whether or not ‘Save the Bilby’ kills cats as part of its operations, has nothing to do with whether the cats ‘need’ to be killed, but whether the community will support them if they do. If all support for their programs dried up because of this factor, you can bet your bottom dollar that other, more humane solutions would be found.

Whether or not a shelter kills animals as part of its operations, has nothing to do with whether the animals ‘need’ to be killed, but whether the community will support them if they do. If all support for their institution dried up because of this factor, you can bet your bottom dollar that other, more humane solutions would be found.

We as a community contribute 100% of funds to our animal management system. We either contribute with direct donations, or we pay pet registration fees, and we all pay rates and city taxes. We as a community contribute 100% of funds, so we hold 100% of the power over how they operate.

Kill shelters will maintain that they ‘have’ to kill, and that we ‘have’ to support them (threatening to make things ‘even worse’ for pets if we don’t). Both of these assertions are false. We contribute 100% of funds, and can withdraw that support should these publicly funded agencies refuse to implement policies that meet our expectations. They do not have to kill and they will only stop when the practice of doing so is no longer being bankrolled by us.