Cat stuff that doesn’t go anywhere else

Facebook debates and online discussions. Here are snippets of information that don’t fit anywhere else, but that could be useful when you’re out there championing life saving programs. Some of it is mine – some of it is unattributed (email me if you see your words and want to be quoted).

Feel free to use any of it as you like :)

*****

Cats and ‘nativism’

“Why is ‘native’ in the context of cats so important? We support non-natives when it suits us… meat animals, food plants, garden plants… basically everything we rely on to survive in Australia is introduced.”

*****

“We want our cats to be safe; in the context of owned cats, it makes sense to keep them indoors and safe from harm. We want wildlife to be safe; in the context of owned cats it makes sense to eliminate their ability to hurt other animals.

The problems arise when we extrapolate both those details out to then also include removing and killing unowned cats for their own ‘safety’ and removing and killing unowned cats because we mistakenly believe that stops wildlife decline. That is when we see a surge in unnecessary killing, all done in the name of ‘animal welfare’.”

*****

On ‘desex and return’ programs

“When 60-90% of cats who enter the pound system are killed, we should be looking at programs which keep untame cats OUT of shelters… outreach desexing for street cats, assistance for community cat carers & campaigns which encourage cat lovers to help in ways OTHER than by taking cats to the pound.”

*****

It’s ridiculous that ‘desex and put it back’ isn’t the message coming out of major animal welfare groups, and that it is left up to underfunded grassroots groups to save lives… I will honestly never understand, why they prefer to promote killing for convenience, over each cats individual worth.

*****

“When will these people learn that if you take an animal such as a cat out of an area that can support it due to a ready made food supply and plenty of shelter, that another one will just move in and replace it? If another cat doesn’t move in to replace the removed one then another animal will, and it will be another pest or feral species.

The only way to remove a large feral population from an urban region is to either de-sex the entire population so they can’t breed, or remove the human population from the area so it can’t support the ferals. Simple stuff, so why waste all that time and energy fighting a losing battle when you know you’re just going to have to repeat the same thing when the area is repopulated?”

*****

“I think we tend to over-think the whole ‘will Australian’s support TNR’ thing… compassionate people will because they’re compassionate. The same ol’ ones won’t, because cats being dead doesn’t bother them. Frankly, I’d rather bet on compassion.”

*****

“The only time a pound should accept a feral cat is if the facility is going to neuter/vax/provide vet care and return the cat to where she was trapped. Any pound that has no TNR program in place has NO BUSINESS accepting feral cats. These cats already have a home. They live in the community. Impounding them for killing is unacceptable.” ~ @YesBiscuit

*****

“Outreach desexing is expensive, so you’ve got to do the easy stuff too; the adoptions, the foster care, the marketing… you can do these very cheaply. Number one for reducing intakes was developing a relationship with animal control to get them to stop bringing in the feral cats & instead develop TNR programs” ~ Susanne Kogut

*****

“Just a reminder to those helping free-roaming cats:
– It’s not a ‘rescue’ if the cat ends up dead. That’s a cull.
– The remedy to ‘disease’ or even ‘suffering’ is treatment – not barbiturate overdose.
That is all.”

*****

“There is no No Kill without TNR. There is not even a no ‘low kill’, open admission cat shelter without TNR.

Without an option other than death, for untame semi-owned and stray cats, then no amount of ‘berating the public’ will see a reduction in cat numbers.

*****

“Imagine if someone was to just take that cat and kill it… when the cat was healthy, of good condition, and several years old (so clearly savvy in the dangers of living ‘wild’), and then that same person who killed that healthy cat, was to also be the head of the major organisation representing cat ‘welfare’ in the state… ….. ….. it seems topsy turvy when you think about it.”

*****

“… while No Kill Advocates encourage (desexing)… while high-volume, low-cost spay/neuter is a central tenet of the No Kill Equation, this effort is a means to an end. It is not the goal itself. The goal is not “no more animals being born” The goal is, and has always been, “no more animals being killed” (or, in the case of puppy mills, abused).” ~ Nathan Winograd, Irreconcilable Differences

*****
“Blaming owned cats – even “irresponsibly owned” cats for the feral cat population in Australia is completely flawed in its logic.

The sad reality is that feral cats are *everywhere* on our continent. If you want to see the size of the issue, have a look at the Feral Cat Maps here.

What’s worse, and somehow seems to elude many decision makers, is that cats were *deliberately* farmed and released into regional Australia around the end of the 19th Century to combat the feral rabbit problem. (see the Invasive Animals CRC publication here for more on the history of feral cats in Australia)

Asking councils, welfare organisations and cat owners to carry the responsibility for feral cats in the face of such overwhelming untouched feral cat populations does nothing for the owned cats we love.

Instead we need to look at what we can do. We need to have the TNR debate to address urban free-roaming non-owned cats (they aren’t feral). We need to stop punishing cat owners for feral cats, and help them advocates for better care of the urban free-roaming non-owned cats. We need to *not* rely on making laws that apply to cat owners to fix this for us – very few laws (maybe none) have succeeded in this particular problem before.

*****

Ecologists regard cats in Australia as falling into 3 distinct – although overlapping – subpopulations:
– “Owned” = nearly entirely reliant upon humans for food & shelter;
– “Feral” = no reliance on humans for food and shelter;
– “Stray” = partially reliant on humans for food and shelter – either through opportunism (eg scavenging) or active involvement (eg feeding a cat you don’t own).

The “stray” group have very low desexing rates – some surveys put the number as low as about 10%. BUT: Cat populations are *self sustaining* when their desexing rate is anything below about 90%.

What this means is that the “stray” population cannot be reduced substantially while they have access to food and shelter (ie live anywhere in an urban setting), or until about 90% of all stray-born cats are non-fertile (something we currently don’t have the technology to achieve).

It is completely undesirable for people to let a cat go stray (or abandon a cat). BUT even if we could stop every owned cat from going stray, and stop every owned cat from having kittens – IT WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE to the “stray” cat population. They are already *self-sustaining*, and have been so probably since Europeans arrived here and built towns and cities.

At this point I often hear people say: “but it was humans who let cats go stray in the first place”. This is true. But punishing today’s cat owners for a 200 year old problem is about as helpful as banning English tourists from visiting Australia in 2011 because their ancestors introduced rabbits, foxes, starlings, black birds, and countless plant species onto our continent in the 18th Century.

It’s time to move on from punishing the cat, and the vast majority of their owners who want to do the right thing. The solution lies in a focused effort on this sub-population of “stray” cats.”

*****

On No Kill

“The idea that in being ‘No Kill’ you are simply choosing to keep unadoptable pets, while letting adoptable pets be killed is absurd.

When you work on No Kill aims, you are looking to expand the adoption of *all* pets – improving shelter outcomes for *all* pets – recognising some are going to be easy to rehome and others will be less easy. Killing some because they’ll be ‘hard’ to place is simply lazy and unethical. Many shelters aren’t even there yet – they’re killing healthy animals for space and calling them ‘unadoptable’ – even though with some time with a foster family or an expanded adoption program could easily save their lives.

Techniques to help with adoption of ‘hard to place’ pets is prolific in the era of No Kill – a few minutes on google found some to get you started;

Maddies Fund
“If animal welfare leaders are serious about wanting to end the killing, every animal welfare organization is going to need to sharpen their marketing skills to get the hard to place animals adopted – Unless shelters plan to get in the breeding business, it might be time to think about how to find homes for hard to place animals.”

No Kill Advocacy Centre
‘Adopting Your Way Out of Killing’

Best Friends
Big Dogs, Shy Cats: How to Find Homes for ‘Hard to Place’ Pets

More Nathan Winograd
Hard-to-Place Animals

ASPCA
Turbocharging Pit Bull Adoptions
Sprucing up cat areas

Mike Arms
Marketing pets

*****

“… there is no such thing as a successful shelter where healthy/treatable pets are being killed.” @YesBiscuit

*****

“If so many of us are willing to open up our hearts and homes and wallets to operate as tiny no kill shelters, why can’t the taxpayer funded municipal facilities follow our lead? I would argue that in fact, the taxpayer funded shelters have an obligation to at least partially model themselves after us little guys for several reasons:

1. No kill is the only ethical choice.
2. It’s our taxes that pay their salaries and fund their shelter operations.
3. We are succeeding at saving pets’ lives. They are failing.
4. We’re succeeding, in many cases, on money carved out of the grocery budget.
5. We’re volunteering our time and effort to save pets. They are paying themselves with our tax money to kill pets.

Tax money is not intended to be used to fund practices that fall outside our societal norms. We are a humane society. We do not want to see pets needlessly killed and we most certainly don’t want to pay for it.

The last place within our society where it’s still the norm to kill friendly pets is our broken shelter system. Many of those within that corrupt system are fighting to maintain the status quo. But they are outnumbered and the public is fast becoming aware of no kill and demanding reform. ~ @YesBiscuit

*****

I would be less pissed off at the “not enough homes so we have to kill them” people if they would just admit that KILLING ANIMALS because we can’t figure out what else to do with them is WRONG, and represents a complete failure of animal sheltering and public policy. Is that too freaking much to ask? ~ Christie Keith

*****

“An adoption ‘fee’ does little to screen the quality of your adopters. It’s like using your credit card balance today to qualify whether or not you’ll be a good parent for the next 18 years. Its a small detail that means not very much in the long term.

That said, people *are* price sensitive – why wouldn’t they be? If they can get a free cat in the trading post or from a neighbour, why would they visit a shelter? We can argue that shelter cats are ‘good value’ till we’re blue in the face, but the reality is other sources of pets are often cheaper, more convenient, more available, less judgmental and let you walk out the door with your new pet that day no questions asked.

We have to find ways to encourage good homes to choose the adoption option, over other more accessible sources of pets. If having a ‘discount’ weekend gets people in the door and gives you literally hundreds of options for adoption placements, then it’s a really powerful tool to save lives.”

*****

“If a pound kills a healthy, treatable pet in 2012, it is because they are choosing to end that life rather than work to save it. We have to reject the notion that a lack of one, or some, or all of the programs on the left is any kind of justification. We need No Kill now – not in some mythical future when everything is perfect, we have all laws we covert & everyone is responsible.”

*****

On laws

“Tragically, tens of thousands of impounded cats have to be euthanised each year in Victoria, because they can’t be identified and returned to owners. Compulsory microchipping will benefit animal welfare by helping prevent the needless destruction of so many animals.”
– DPI Microchipping Handout 2007 –

“The introduction of compulsory microchipping legislation in 2007 has had little impact on the number of cats entering our shelters with microchips.”
– RSPCA Victoria Annual Report 2011 –

When are we going to let go of the notion that laws targeting owners will affect pound cat intakes?”

*****

“Cat legislation cannot address issues of feral cats. No feral animal species has yet been eradicated from Australia once it has become established. Legislation dictates human behaviour, not that of wild animals” ~ Dr Deb Kelly (instrumental in the development of the SA Dog and Cat Management Act 1995)

*****

“It has been proven overseas that when legislation is brought in like this the main result is dead animals! All legislation must have a “punishment” for non-compliance – so an owner does not de-sex, what does the municipality do? they fine the owner. the owner doesn’t pay the fine, next step the un-sexed pet is seized for non-compliance. What happens to all the seized animals – they get killed! the owner then goes out and gets a cute new puppy or kitten. Gee that works doesn’t it! NOT”

*****

“All the while we pursue the idea that ‘poor people’ shouldn’t have pets – that not desexing is a moral shortcoming – and that only by restricting pet owner access to pets can we stop shelter killing, we remain stuck – missionary and ineffective… righteous, but condemned to an ‘us and them’ mentality which fails to save lives.”

*****

All you need is a Municipal Council who actively enforce the laws…. I think we need to look hard at what we’re trying to achieve.

Every single report on cat ownership in Australia has shown an incredibly high level of compliance with desexing (90-95%). And if we’re trying to achieve increase this compliance, then we need to look at why people don’t desex.

For cats it’s two-fold; – primarily cost – but also the owner in question not being a ‘full’ owner (cat acquired circumstantially ‘it just showed up’ + passive support).

For arguments sake, lets say we have an actively enforcing council (which we most often don’t because the enforcement is effing expensive, but lets say we do)…

– Enforcing mandatory desexing to an owner who has no money to pay for the surgery = the cat gets impounded.

– Enforcing mandatory desexing to an owner who didn’t really ‘chose’ to be a cat owner = the cat gets impounded.

If we were looking to have two cats enter the pound system = SUCCESS!! But I’d suggest that’s not what most of us would set out to achieve.

Outreach desexing programs – those that support the community rather than treat it like an enemy, those that help poor people and all cats, regardless of ownership status – they have not only reduced shelter killing, but have eliminated it.

There has never been a single council eliminate shelter killing rate by introducing mandatory desexing. Not once. In the world. Never.

To suggest that our situation is different – that *WE’LL* be the ones that get a different result – that our situation is different – that because we believe in it the most – – it’s a little like fanaticism… ignoring evidence and instead working from belief. Ignoring stats and the experience of the thousands of other places that have gone down this path, and instead just being convinced that because it Sounds. So. Right. That we’ll be the ones to succeed.

It’s a receipe for failure… to follow failure.”

*****

“The war on pet owners makes private pounds rich, who then help write legislation, sending more pets to pounds. Under the current model most pounds and shelters are remunerated by councils on “number successfully impounded”, not “number successfully saved”. A conflict if ever there was one.”

*****

“Cat legislation that purports to control feral cats by penalising responsible cat owners only further demonises cats and alienates their owners. Neither of these things we need.”

*****

We should definitely reject those laws which put unowned cats in the ‘firing line’ of animal management. ”

– Compulsory microchipping increases pound intakes and killing.
– Compulsory desexing increase pound intakes and killing.
– Confinement laws increase pound intakes and killing.

When unowned cats fall foul of the law, killing increases. We know this because these kinds of laws have had that result in every. single. place they’ve been tried.

So while these laws are presented as good for cat ‘welfare’, if we reject death as a ‘good’ welfare outcome, they fail in their stated goals.

*****

“They use euphemisms; “power to deal with… cats that are not owned” and “… the legislation will make way for better management of the unwanted impacts of cats on the community and the natural environment”

It’s double speak for, “if it’s unowned we’ll be able to seize it”. And given shelters have a near 100% kill rate for untame cats, it’s the green light for councils to expand their sweeps, catch & kill programs.”

*****

“There is a law in Victoria which says you cannot feed a stray cat – in fact you are obligated to impound it.

Shelters can therefore kill a high number of cats, while blaming outside forces for the killing.

There is a law in Victoria which says you cannot rehome a pit bull or a pit bull cross, or anything which even looks like a pit bull; or any dog with even an easily treatable behavioural issue – instead it must be killed.

Shelters can therefore kill a high number of dogs, while blaming outside forces for the killing.

Neither of these laws ‘just happened’ – they were supported by the incumbent major animal ‘welfare’ groups.

Once again laws are being used to maintain the status quo; defend killing and ensure that groups have a scapegoat in the ‘irresponsible public’ for continued killing in Victoria.”

*****

“When the results we’re chasing is ‘less killing’ – more killing isn’t the way to get there. The way to get there is to put in the infrastructure that will allow people to overcome obstacles to compliance. Find out *exactly* why this person, or this segment of the community isn’t already desexing and then work with them to make it happen. A law simply labels them ‘bad owners’ and does little to protect the pet.

Using the ‘car licence’ analogy doesn’t tend to extrapolate in this case, as most people *really* don’t want to lose their licences. Licences have value. The people you’re most trying to reach with these animal laws, often have a low level of attachment to their pet already (or they could just as easily get another one), so pressure simply leads to surrender (more killing). This is why impounding pets like cars, until people can afford to pay whatever fines are owed has been so unsuccessful – pets just sit unclaimed.”

*****

“Where this all falls down is – when has this ever worked? Contrary to popular belief, we’re not having to make any of this stuff up as we go along – there are hundreds of thousands of councils across the world who have tried variations of laws which target cat owners, ownership or desexing – when has it worked to reduce killing? Find even one example.

It doesn’t work, because owned cats overwhelmingly *aren’t* our ‘problem’. Unowned cats are.

The programs that *have* worked, are not the ones that target owners with fines, and drive up shelter intakes (no matter how good it feels to punish the evil cat owners)… but those programs that go to great lengths to KEEP CATS OUT OF SHELTERS – and *help* owners comply with responsible pet ownership duties like desexing.

We can believe that we’ll be the exception to the rule – that our mandatory desexing initiative is so well thought out, so revolutionary or so crafty that we’ll overcome enforcement obstacles, avoid the pitfalls and crack the code to the perfect law.

But are we being realistic? Where is our evidence that we’ll be any different to the other places these laws have been tried? Why would we continue to chase variations of something that has failed everywhere? And why do we believe that doing what we’ve always done, will give us a different result?

The theory remains the same; giving more powers to animal management to target ‘irresponsible owners’ – when those same animal management departments kill the majority of pets they impound, leads to more killing.”

*****

“A focus on (desexing) as an incredibly important component of the no-kill equation & public outreach and providing low-cost services are critical. But I think when you mandate things & make it punitive, it doesn’t provide better results than when you provide opportunities for people to comply. So I think it needs to be a primary focus of decreasing intakes, but I don’t think it needs to be mandated.” ~ Abigail Smith

*****

On the bright future for animals

“More people care than ever. More pets are being saved than ever. More money is being invested in awareness of companion animal issues than ever. More pets are living as family members than ever. More people have chosen companion animal welfare as their ‘issue’ of choice than ever. More people are demanding better than a 1970’s model of animal sheltering than ever. More corporates are wanting to engage with rescue groups than ever. More people are willing to open their homes temporarily to pets than ever. More people are willing to adopt, rather than buy their animals than ever…”