The Lost Dogs Home is again calling for a ‘pet owner licencing scheme’ on the back of their efforts to develop a short pre-adoption quiz for people adopting from their shelter (I know, screening potential adopters before adoption – it’s ‘revolutionary’).
“Pet Licences issued by The Lost Dogs’ Home should be made mandatory across Australia”.
Lost Dogs Home website
But should they really? Lets look at the ‘reasons pets end up in shelters’;
Adoption returns
We can reasonably assume that there isn’t a huge problem with people returning adopted animals to the Lost Dogs Home. If there is, then certainly there is something wrong with the way they’re matching pet to owner and the follow up support they’ve been offering; because this isn’t common amongst rescues. So that could be fixed by the pound doing a better job.
Lost pets
Most intakes of any pound with a Council contract are the result of pets getting loose. This is why pounds exist and that’s ok. Having photos of each animal up on the internet helps owners be reunited with their animals, so the Lost Dogs’s Home could do a better job by taking photo of each pet on intake and getting it up on the web.
Fines, which deter people from collecting their pets, could be waived to people whose pets have never been impounded before – that again is the pound understanding its public and doing a better job.
Surrenders
The smallest intakes of a pound, despite popular opinion, are owner surrenders.
A percentage of people have a genuine or unforseen reason for giving up their pet; moving house, getting sick, pets not getting along, change of family circumstance, loss of job.
A percentage are less-than-genuine (however still valid because if someone doesn’t want their pet, it’s important to get that pet into a new home); including no longer ‘wanting’ the pet, unrealistic expectations of pet ownership, un-treated behavioural problems and unwanted litters.
And some people have genuine reasons relating to that particular pet (unmanageable aggression, hyperactivity, personality clashes between pet and owner, or pets who don’t cope with a change of circumstance, like moving to a smaller property).
It’s complicated
They’re proposing that of the 6 million owned cats and dogs of Australia, of which only a couple of hundred thousand use shelters each year, where most are claimed – and with the myriad of unforseen, genuine reasons for surrender, with only a tiny percentage of pets entering shelters because their owners are fickle…
…. the easiest way to stop shelters killing these animals is to quiz every single pet owning family before they get a pet.
Sorry, what?
The easiest way for the Management of the Lost Dogs Home to effect the number of pets killed in their shelters – is to stop killing pets in their shelters.
– Not killing young, or sick pets who could be saved by foster care.
– Not killing pets with easily treatable training issues, offering a behavioural rehabilitation program with professional support and the use of trained volunteers.
– Not killing friendly ‘pit bull type’ dogs, and no longer lobbying for more expansive powers to kill them.
– Not killing free-roaming cats, but instead working on programs that allow them to live with support.
– Not killing stray pets, by helping owners with an online searchable ‘lost pet’ tool with a commitment that every. single. pet. will have its photo taken and put on the internet.
– Not killing older pets with manageable health issues, and instead offering support services to seniors via a ‘free seniors for seniors’ adoption and vet care program.
– Not killing pets by promoting adoptions, ensuring each available pet gets a photo on the web and an attractive profile outlining their best traits.
– Not killing pets who don’t get adopted or who need extra care, by opening the doors to community rescue groups to take the pets, treat them and find them homes.
– Not supporting draconian and unhelpful owner targeting initiatives like the Frankston ‘desex before release’ pound program, mandatory pet desexing or ‘Who’s for Cats’… all of which have seen impoundments and killing surge.
The idea of a national pet owner licencing scheme is nothing but Australia’s most ineffective shelter – the one who kills a larger percentage of their intakes than any other – expanding their failed programs beyond Victoria (the home of some of the worst pet laws in Australia). We must reject the idea, not just because it passes the buck for shelter killing back to ‘bad owners’ – a theory which has since been exploded as simply an excuse for poor shelter performance – but because those who are driving it, have no experience at all in leading a successful, life-saving community.
Let’s not follow any more ‘great’ initiatives from Victoria until they are able to get even one of their communities away from the bulk-killing of shelter animals. Forget the rest of Australia, so far they only work the leaders of animal sheltering in Victoria need to do, is to drag themselves out of the high-kill mentality.
