|
Please note: the discussion below is about purposefully and accidentally bred animals, where a human owner is in charge of the animal. It does not include free-roaming and unowned cats, as this is a separate issue, I’ve written about here and here. |
This month the Centre for Veterinary Education, at the University of Sydney, held a symposium asking the question, “Does Australia breed companion animals ethically?”
Panel members included some of the biggest names in animal welfare town, including Dr Andrew Cornwell (NSW MP, Chair of the NSW Companion Animal Taskforce). Primarily, the Symposium discussed breeding issues surrounding health, welfare and upbringing and the roles of the veterinary community in improving animal welfare outcomes. The whole event has been recorded, so if you would like to see it in full click here.
But the part that really jumped out at me, was when they started discussing ‘overpopulation’ of companion animals, and the best way to remedy this problem.
To answer this question, we need to first look at what the ‘ideal’ situation for pet breeding is, in the opinion of most reasonable people. Which I believe probably looks something like this;
If supply exceeds demand, then we have ‘overpopulation’. If we have less puppies and kittens being produced than the community is able to receive, then we have ‘underpopulation’. And if the two are about equal, we have just the right amount of breeding.
Now, at this point some readers will be gnashing teeth; “all breeding is bad, we shouldn’t have people breeding companion animals at all”. And to that I say to that is stop being a moron. We all love our companion animals, so we should all aspire to there being an ‘ideal’ level of breeding, so we can continue to have pets and have future generations enjoy their company too.
At the symposium, the response from Dr Cornwell
“At the end of the day, there are fifty thousand puppies and kittens (sic) put to sleep every year. We have no idea of how many are being produced.”
Meaning, if we were mathematicians looking at this ‘problem’, based on the knowledge we have (direct from the mouth of a legislator working to pass legislation to address this so-called problem), would look like this;
Do you know what you do, as a legislator, if you don’t have good numbers on something? You get them.
You survey the community. You intensively study the breeders advertisements. You talk to breeders across the board about their sales.
What you don’t do, is pass laws in the hope that your hunch turns out to be true.
Response from Dr Cornwell…
“I think the ultimate measure of success is reducing the euthanasia rate. But, its been stable now for some years. The experience of it is, when they brought in the Companion Animal Act in 1999, when compulsory microchipping came in euthanasia rates actually went up, before they started to decline again – we had an increase dumpage rate.
It has declined gently, but steadily over a number of years now, but that decline is starting to plateau and frankly it is still unacceptably high for the community.
So look, the ultimate measure is that euthanasia rate.
I don’t think – and this will be controversial – I don’t think that we’ll ever get to zero, I don’t think it’s possible. There are a certain population of animals out there, that will wind up in a pound or shelter because they are too emotionally damaged, or what-have-you and will never be rehomed. It is an ugly fact, but it is a fact nonetheless in my view.
But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try and get it as close to zero as we can. So that’s the ultimate measure of success.
Look, to be frank, we are still working in a bit of an information void. We have no idea how many animals are bred each year. That’s the importance of breeder licensing.
The ultimate measure must be the euthanasia rate – it is a heartbreakingly high figure.”
So mathematically that would look something like…
Not very mathematical, or even very logical, now is it?
Maybe they’re right – supply outstrips demand when it comes to companion animals. However, there are a few cues that indicate that it probably isn’t true (the fact few puppies enter the pound, the fact most pets are collected as strays rather than relinquished directly, the anecdotal evidence that breeding businesses seem to be growing not shrinking).
But right or wrong, if we have an issue that we are unsure about (the supply/demand equation) and one we are absolutely sure about (too many pets dying in pounds), why on earth wouldn’t we be using our legislative efforts to intensively work to fix the problem right under our noses?
There are a host of things that can be legislated for, that we know improve pound outcomes;
– mandating that lost pets are taken home, rather than impounded (if they aren’t a problem pet)
– mandating that each and every impounded pet is photographed and listed online
– mandating that pounds work with rescue groups
– mandating that rescue groups be allowed to take pets who would otherwise be killed
– mandating that pounds offer a direct-from-pound adoption program (including listing available pets online)
– mandating that pounds use behavioural trainers to assist in the rehabilitation of unclaimed animals
– mandating that monies made from pet registration fees are re-invested in companion animal programs (including programs which keep cats out of pounds)
If all pounds are doing all of these things and then are still killing pets – then by all means chase the supply/demand issue. But don’t look at the crisis of pounds acting like publicly funded pet slaughterhouses, and respond by fiddling with paperwork.
All the while we continue to chase breeders (with no guarantee at all that restricting them up the wazoo will make any difference to our pound intakes and killing), at the expense of forcing pounds to act in an effective and compassionate fashion, we will continue to get to count the corpses. Its time to reject killing as an appropriate way to manage our pets.
