I used to naively believe this was because they were behind in their science; that once the details became common knowledge, that policies would change and major national animal welfare groups would reclaim their roots as cat advocates. But after being in the industry for a decade and researching and lobbying for cats specifically for nearly five years, I now see something else is at play.
They already DO get it. They really do. They know all this stuff, have all the science, can see what works and what doesn’t. But they play ignorant in the media and hold tightly to failed policies, when they have the answer to cat overpopulation at their fingertips.
They choose to keep killing in the face of alternatives.
Imagine for one moment if a national dolphin advocacy group neither furthered the view that wild dolphins deserved protection, nor promoted the science showing why they deserved compassion. In fact, they were often seen to be supporting laws and campaigns which harmed dolphins, including making caring for them illegal and promoting community dolphin trapping programs. Also, while taking money from the public in the name of dolphin protection, they simultaneously supported the government in the wholesale slaughter of dolphins by taking an active, paid roll as their primary exterminator. The biggest killer of dolphins are the dolphin protection groups themselves.
When we use ‘dolphins’, the conflict is obvious.
However, cat ‘welfare’ groups straddle this ethical divide unashamedly. Killing and promoting killing. Taking money in the name of protection, while also taking money to kill.
There’s a chapter in ‘Redemption’ outlining that when major national animal welfare groups took over council contracts they ceased being animal advocates and instead simply became the executors of government policy. Government policy is driven by what is popular. Believe it or not, this is actually a pretty sweet position for the animal groups. Rather than the tricky role of advocating for the best possible outcomes for animals, they can simply hold the middle ground and agitate to keep the status quo. They can simultaneously say ‘we’re bound by the requirements of the government at the time’ while having this reflect the popular and most profitable sector of the donor community.
Leadership and advocacy can make you unpopular; reflecting whatever is popular regardless of basis or outcome, can make you very, very rich.
……………………………..
Why do major national animal welfare groups continue to push failed policies, promote killing and ignore the repeated successes of organisation who stand up and advocates for cat welfare?
Because it’s popular and profitable.
It is popular and profitable condemn all the ‘irresponsible owners’ and lobby for strong laws to punish them. It’s seductive as people gather mob-like to rally and rail against ‘terrible people who don’t care for their pets’ as being at the core of overpopulation. Even though there is no scientific evidence that have ever been found to support the theory that owned cats are the problem, the coffers of these groups are filled each year with donations from people who’ve for decades been told ‘major animal welfare groups simply doing the irresponsible public’s dirty work’.
It’s not profitable or popular to present the more accurate position that the key to reducing cat breeding is to desex the unowned strays and help poor people to afford the surgery for their pets. Compassion doesn’t extend to poor people or street cats, meaning there few donations in real solutions.
It’s profitable and popular to promote anti-cat sentiment in the community, pandering to cat haters by futhering the myth that free-roaming cats are suffering or dangerous and while on one hand lamenting killing, on the other advocating that the cats be removed. By supplying traps and supporting the community in their incorrect belief that ‘cats are to blame’ for urban habitat and animal loss, major national animal welfare groups pander to their donors delicate sensibilities, rather than offer cats protection.
It’s not profitable or popular to point out to supporters that their big house, polluting car, non-native garden, grassed football fields and shopping centre carparks might be at the core of native animal loss, and to swim against the tide and promote cat welfare. There is no popularity in supporting cats whether owned or unowned.
……………………………..
But popular changes and profitable follows.
As small and independent groups gain footing and take a more thoughtful and compassionate approach, the pet loving public will follow. Once the tide begins to swing, major animal groups will come out as cheerleaders – advocating the effective positions available to them all along. But it will not happen until it’s popular and profitable to do so. And even then it won’t be because of a true desire to promote animal welfare, but because by reflecting the status quo, rather than creating it, they maintain maximum community support.
Until major national animal welfare groups advocate for cat welfare and protection we will see killing continue. The key to reducing cat overpopulation and killing, therefore, is simply leadership from major national animal welfare groups. The solution is in their hands.
And we as the public and their supporters, must not be fooled into thinking it it will take anything less.
What’s the governance structure of the big Australian societies?
Anyone who doesn’t think I’m doing a reasonable job can stand against me at the next AGM and try to get me voted out. (At which point they’d get a stack of invoices, and an Excel spreadsheet and have to get on with being my replacement, which might come as a bit of a shock.)
Plus, of course, I’m not paid, so the only incentive to avoid rocking the boat is that we have to turn animals away if we haven’t got the funds to treat them.
Here? Often its the worst of both worlds; a centralised ‘national office’ developing policy removed from the front line – hindering community centric projects, enforcing ‘strategic’ positions and quashing innovation at the local level… while the local, elected board involved to try and bring about changes for animals, are kept at arms length from operations by underperforming CEOs and shelter management.
That is why the future is outside these organisation; this level of disfunction will only change through community pressure, not self-improvement.
Do Australian local branches not manage their own rehoming then? Over here roughly three-quarters of the total animal intake is rehomed by the branches and we can more or less do our own thing (subject to being expected to try to achieve MAWSand having premises inspected periodically by HQ staff).
We elect 40% of the members of the governing council (rest are elected by ballot of the membership) so it would be very difficult for HQ to force through something the branches really felt strongly against (like killing 90% of our cat intake!).
The major disadvantage is the difficulty of finding enough people willing to accept the level of responsibility involved and a tendency to dissolve into warfare when there’s disagreement about priorities – e.g. whether it’s better to save 10 animals by helping their owners with one-off vet treatment vs one injured stray that’s going to need a lot of very expensive treatment or pushing veganism vs improving farm animal welfare.
While rehoming is gaining momentum (with a slow move toward positive, innovative marketing)… it’s not our biggest issue.
Referencing a quote from your blog:
Callers requesting collection of healthy, but apparently stray cats will normally be told we don’t believe it is in the cat’s best interest to remove it from an environment where it is thriving.
That is awesome. Our major animal welfare groups still advocate that free-roaming cats should be removed. They take an active role in council trapping projects, and lobby for and support council curfews for owned animals. If you want to catch a healthy cat and take it to them, they’ll often lend you the trap. At the same time it’s common that they’ll only adopt to indoor homes – ‘barn cat’ adoptions are considered inhumane.
Killing 90% of intakes in inevitable when you encourage impoundment of, and offer no alternative for, unsocialised adult cats.