Tipping point

 

There is a massive backlash (again) to the high kill rates of the Lost Dogs Home (again) after they oopsie-killed pets (again).

So strong has the backlash been on social media this time, that the organisation issued a statement from Andrew Tribe, Chair, The Lost Dogs’ Home, in part;

For years our staff on the ground have done their best and worked hard, not just in rehabilitation and re-homing, but in vet clinics, reuniting, and spreading the message of responsible pet ownership.

The reality is that some people do abandon animals, fail to identify their pets with microchips or tags, and sometimes simply can’t look after their animals any more for all sorts of genuine reasons.

We strive every day to treat every animal in our care with compassion and always work towards the best possible outcome for them.

The reality is that some people do abandon animals, fail to identify their pets with microchips or tags, and sometimes simply can’t look after their animals any more for all sorts of genuine reasons.

We strive every day to treat every animal in our care with compassion and always work towards the best possible outcome for them.

Sadly, in animal welfare organisations like ours, not all the animals that we receive are either able to be rehabilitated, or will be adopted.

That means part of our role is the humane euthanasia of animals.

Every one of us at The Lost Dogs’ Home loves animals, and every animal that is put to sleep is a tragedy.

Over the last few years, we’ve reduced our canine euthanasia rate substantially – down to 13% – and there is more work to be done.

 

Now 13% sounds pretty good doesn’t it? Well I don’t even need to create my own rant here – because Tail Piece has already done the hard yards;

Now the LDH gets their 13% kill rate (let’s not go all euphemistic with euthanasia) from a calculation which looks at the numbers of dogs killed as a percentage of the total numbers admitted. Using those figures the kill rate for dogs is around 14.5%. That looks pretty good doesn’t it?

Except that it’s a furphy. 68% of the dogs admitted didn’t belong to the Lost Dogs Home, they were safely reclaimed by their owners. So once the 11570 reclaimed dogs are removed from the figures, there are 5,223 dogs remaining who are the property of the LDH (having done their legislated 8 days and not been reclaimed).

So the important figure here is 5,223 dogs who now belong to the LDH.

Of those dogs, 49% or 2564 were adopted into new homes. So yay for them.

And 46% or 2,431 were killed.

* * * * *

Blaming the public for being irresponsible is a pretty familiar tactic for pounds. They can excuse the killing on the grounds that it’s all the fault of the community for not doing the right thing.

Except that we have numbers. And the numbers tell us that 68% of dogs are reclaimed by their owners, and another 15% of the total intake (or 49% of the dogs left in the care of the LDH) are adopted into the community. So that of the total intake by the LDH, 84% of dogs either go home, or find new homes.

So from here it looks to me like the community are making a pretty good effort at looking after dogs. The LDH, not so much.

 

Oh bless you and your cynical calculator! About half of all dogs who remain unclaimed, lose their lives. THAT is why Fonzie and Scruffy got caught on the wrong side of the needle – when you’re killing so many pets, accident happen.

And it has been happening for decades. What has changed is our response. There has been a tipping point. Rather than just accept that pets will die because irresponsible owners, people have actually started to look critically at the situation. They are realising;

 

– Animal shelters are just like any other public service. Ambulances, police, hospitals, women’s refuges and fire services. All of these services are needed in our imperfect world. Simply waiting for a time in the future when people to never need to use an animal shelter is a pipe dream – we need safe animals shelters NOW.

– Certainly, if the world was perfect, the LDH would have no one to kill. True. But just like hospitals and women’s shelters – these places have to exist.  And if they choose to exist then they have an obligation to protect the most vulnerable of their pets they take in. They are a public service and like all public services, they should be performing adequately.

– Vulnerable pets are the ones who aren’t reunited with their families. They are the ones who need the most care and support – the job of the modern shelter is to save lives.

– Charity pounds are under no obligation to take in more pets than they can reasonably hold, place and rehome. They CHOOSE to do this, because there is no limit on the number of city pound tenders they can stuff into their facilities. Ten, eleven, twelve, twenty! cities, all impounding at the one shelter. Charity pounds get paid for every single animal that comes through the door. Regardless of the outcome for the pet – dead or alive – doesn’t matter, they still get paid.

– Where’s the motivation to reduce intakes? There is none. We have the same animal sheltering system we had fifty years ago – because it works. Kill pets – take home a paycheck. WINNING.

– We need to regard the death of a pet, in a shelter as a complete failure of the system to do what we are paying it to do. Can you imagine still having a job if you failed half of the time? 7 times out of ten? No? Well these guys shouldn’t either.

If the system said – ‘a pet ends up dead – you don’t get paid’, you’d be AMAZED then at the REMARKABLE innovation in animal welfare that would take place. With the huge breakthroughs in health, technology and travel, why are we stuck with a 50 year old animal sheltering model?

– When charity pounds are being given literally tens of millions of dollars annually – what do we want in return? Are we happy to keep funding a boutique-pet slaughterhouse service? Or would we expect something better in 2015? Modern shelters must reflect our evolving views towards pets. We give charity pounds more than $100 million dollars a year – because we want to see needy pets helped.

– Killing is therefore a broken promise to donors and tax payers – and it should no longer be considered an acceptable outcome for animals to simply kill them as a way of managing their populations.

 

Last night the Herald Sun article was trending across online news channels;

 

 

And was being run on both the Herald Sun Facebook page, and homepage;

 

 

 

I will keep this blog updated with more news inclusions as they become available….