November 27, 2011Comments are closed.No Kill, resistance
For the last several decades, as the animal sheltering system in Australia grew into an industry supporting multimillion dollar charities, we were told the reason for shelter killing was simple; ‘bad pet owners’. We were told the shelters were the victims in the situation, forced to do the irresponsible public’s dirty work and that they had no choice but to kill. In fact, killing was a gift to animals from the shelter workers who cared *more* than the public. We should be thanking them for their efforts.
Now, as the community are able to compare the performance of pounds and shelters across the country and the world, we have been able to see that the responsibility for shelter killing lay solely with those who run the shelters and do the killing. Pounds and shelters who embrace their community, emphasise returning pets to their owners, offer a welcoming and convenient service to potential adopters, and work to keep untame cats from being impounded, have eliminated killing in their communities virtually overnight. Pounds and shelters who choose to run foster care programs and rescue group outreach, provide options for pets other than death. While those who engage pet lovers through social media, clever adoption promotions and local media have harnessed community compassion to give every healthy, treatable pet a second chance at happiness.
So now, pounds and shelters who have failed to embrace this new lifesaving model have a problem.
– How do you defend killing, when your community knows it is no longer necessary?
– How do you defend killing, in the face of proven alternatives to killing?
Unable to continue to blame ‘irresponsible pet owners’ for the killing, they have created a new villain de jour.
‘A lack of collaboration’.
If you’re in animal welfare circles, you will have heard it;
“We can’t save the pets unless we all collaborate and work together. Rescues are unsupportive and critical. The public are misinformed and it’s hard on shelter and pound workers to have to defend themselves. Animal advocates are extremists and cyber-bullies, and shelters can’t be expected to make positive change when they’re being treated like this. Given they’re working under such hostile conditions, we should in fact, be thanking them for their efforts…”
‘A lack of collaboration’ is the new ‘irresponsible pet owner’. It’s code for; we’re not changing and here’s a red herring, the hoop we want you to jump through, that deflects blame away from us and our failings and back onto the wider community.
Most reprehensibly, ‘a lack of collaboration’ lays blame on those in the community fighting hardest for pets; the whistle-blower rescue who shines a light on high kill rates, inhumane conditions or abuse. The animal advocate who compiles stats and information for their own community. The animal lover who takes their concerns about unnecessary killing to their local councillor. THESE people are now being blamed for shelter killing. By defending animals, they are be accused of harming animals by interfering with the process of ‘collaboration’… and it would be laughable, if it weren’t so tragic.
It doesn’t take ‘collaboration’ to extend your trading hours so people can visit on weekends and after work. You don’t need‘collaboration’ before you open your doors to volunteers and foster carers. It doesn’t take ‘collaboration’ to host an adoption event, or create an off-site adoption program or a pet-of-the-week media blast. It doesn’t take ‘collaboration’ to stop sending your rangers to impound healthy, free-roaming cats.
These things take leadership, not collaboration.
Collaboration is a goal. A nice-to-have. It makes things easier for everyone and is the icing on a mature ‘animal sheltering industry’ cake. But it is neither they key to saving lives – nor a lack of it, a hurdle to saving them. Collaboration must never mean ignoring the ultimate violence against animals – their unnecessary death – in order to all ‘just get along’. And we must reject any suggestion that a lack of collaboration is the reason for animals being killed, or an acceptable reason to continue killing.
It’s always someone else’s fault, isn’t it? So much for taking personal responsibility.