When we work with pet owners, we implore them to only take on as many animals as they have the physical and financial resource to care for. If a pet owner does make the mistake of taking on too many, we ask that they seek help from friends, their community and rescue and shelters to work to find solutions so that pets aren’t allowed to suffer, aren’t killed unnecessarily and are given opportunities for a positive future.
Another ‘commitment’ we expect pet owners to make is that if they find themselves in the position of wanting to ‘get rid of’ their animal, that they don’t only get professional help to assess the pet’s suitability for rehoming, that they also commit to giving the pet whatever rehabilitation is required to get them to the point of being ready for their new family. Only in the cases of extreme, unmanageable or dangerous behaviours, with a poor prognosis for successful rehabilitation, would we consider euthanasia a suitable outcome for this unwanted pet – basically we want death to be a last resort, not used for the owner’s convenience.
If an owner makes the mistake of taking on too many pets and needs to reduce the number they have, we wouldn’t look kindly these pets being killed rather than this owner working to find alternatives for them. In fact, if they were to take the pets to to vet to be killed rather than seek treatment for them – like rehabilitation, alternative homes, or rescue – we would likely think them lazy and unethical. We would want this owner to live up to the commitment they made when they took in these animals.
But what if I’m an owner without the physical and financial resources to hold and care for the number of pets I have, and instead of reducing the number of pets in my care, I actively seek out to bring more pets into this already dysfunctional situation?
Obviously, that’s bad.
People who not only keep too many pets without the means to care for them, but who also seek out more pets to collect, leads to disastrous results – as anyone whose ever had to try and find solutions in a warehousing situation will know – but what if the person ‘collecting’ these animals was government sanctioned and paid by local council taxes?
Good shelters know when to stop
At the Lost Dogs Home’s major shelter in North Melbourne they have capacity for around 50 cats and around 150 dogs at any one time. They have a small team of foster carers (less than 40). But they hold 18 pound contracts with local councils with the majority going to this, their major shelter. With intakes of around 70 pets a day, it’s not hard to see the pressure on resources created.
The Lost Dogs Home’s North Melbourne site took in 24,426 pets last year.
3,101 were adopted, while 13,594 were killed (3,242 dogs, 10,352 cats).
With such a low rate of adoption, this organisation uses ‘killing’ as their primary method of solving their pet issues. But just like a pet owner, they have complete control over how they care for their pets. They choose the outcome they pursue on behalf of each pet. They are a private organisation and are under no obligation to take on more council contracts (and therefore animals) than they can reasonably care for and rehabilitate. But, they choose to run overcapacity, killing 55% of all intakes and offering only limited treatment and rescue options for pets.
If we wouldn’t accept killing the pets as a reasonable solution for a pet owner, why should we accept it from an animal welfare organisation?
The Lost Dogs Home have claimed this year has been a year of revolution for the shelter. They claim these kill figures are not as bad as we’re making out. They claim that it’s not fair that they’re judged on ‘last year’ and that this year will be better. All of which could potentially be awesome.
Until you find out, they’ve just bid for and won the City of Casey’s pound contract for 2011.
The City of Casey have been working with the RSPCA Peninsula for 15 years. The RSPCA shelter is now looking at downsizing in response to the loss of this tender.
The Lost Dogs Home which offers less than a one in two chance of being rehomed for unclaimed dogs (1,940 adopted, 3,242 killed), and a less than one in 9 chance of being rehomed for unclaimed cats (1,161 adopted, 10,352 killed) is actively seeking to take in extra pets into its ‘care’, adding an extra 2,500 animals into its already swelling impoundment figures.
With the organisation using death as a first, not a last resort for its animals, how can it reconcile seeking to take on thousands more animals with its claims of wanting to reduce its kill rate?
If this were a pet owner, we would be screaming bloody murder at their ‘irresponsibility’. However, The Lost Dogs Home continues to collect more and more council contracts and homeless animals and kill them without account, hiding behind claims that the animals themselves are ‘unadoptable’, or that there are simply ‘too many of them’ and that killing is the only option.
At what point does a shelter need to live up to the same commitments we place on pet owners to treat, rehabilitate, care for and rehome those animals it has taken responsibility for? At what point is a ‘lack of resources and space’ a reflection of bad shelter management, rather than a genuine pet ‘overpopulation’ issue? Are the animals still considered ‘rescued’ if the overwhelming majority of them are simply killed?
We need to ask the hard questions of shelters who are taking on these council contracts – especially when they seem to do so at the expense of the animals.
Great piece of writing.
Surely those 150 and 50 pens don’t allow for each one of those 24,426 (North Melbourne and Cranbourne numbers) animals to be held for between a couple of hours to a week (reclaims and euthansia) or for up to 28 days (adoptions). Hmmm…. overcommitment indeed. My shonky maths says barely enough time to hold for 3 days per animal.
I agree completely with the above article.
The Lost Dogs Home is a death trap for animals unfortunate enough to end up within its doors.
How do we put pressure on these places to change their ways?
It is great to read such a well written, articulate article on Lost Dogs home. As far as I’m concerned the fact they have won a new contract is unforgivable.
Now the dollar signs have well & truly blinded an organisation that already has so much work to do.
I pity the animals that are sent to their deaths there & sincerely wish Graeme Smith would step down. Between his pit bull bias & shocking public speaking, he really must go.
Until he does thousands of animals will continue to die.
Money, money and more money, when it comes to the LDH their commitment is not to the animals in their care, but to bringing in more money.
This also article states ‘They are a private organisation….’ can someone tell me who actually owns the Lost Dogs Home?
Hi Garry
All we can do is keep telling the public what is actually happening in the LDH. They have had a very high kill rate for many years, their staff and their statistics tell us this, and there has always been a refusal to change even though there are many ways to change to low kill and then no kill shelters. There are many no kill shelters across the U.S.,England, New Zealand and here in the ACT RSPCA,Victoria and QLD.They work with committed staff and practices, and the LDH managers know fully how to change.
Instead now we hear they have taken on another contract to add more dogs and cats to the facility so will just have to kill more instead of less. They are actually going backwards now.
Garry tell your friends, workmates, family and the media and get them to start asking why they kill so many innocent creatures who end up in this cruel place through no fault of them own.
Realistically, can they actually make money from having the stray dogs contract? I can see that a home which was going to take council strays after their time was up might well decide it was beneficial to have the initial few days boarding paid for and use that time for assessment.
Bath cats and dogs home choose to do this, whereas RSPCA West Norfolk only take dogs from the council pound after their time is up in order to avoid the problems of dealing directly with previous owners.
I can’t see how any organisation that’s already struggling financially could get itself out of difficulty by taking on more pound contracts unless it was going to run purely as a pound – with animals being destroyed as soon as the local authority stopped paying – in which case what is the point? If the LA was going to use some inhumane method of destroying animals in its own pound surely it would be better to campaign against that rather than just shore up the status quo.
R – These guys are a pound.
Agreed it is a great article. The LDH are a basket case.
When though have they claimed that their capacity is the basis of their killing.
I have been trying to find them claim this but can’t?