This is a working document, that will be continuously updated… |
Liberation preferable to annihilation option
Author: Mark Pearson Date: 18/08/2004
Newcastle HeraldLEGISLATION in NSW makes it an offence to unjustifiably, unreasonably or unnecessarily kill an animal. The only exemption is for the humane production of food. There is no exemption to kill an animal just because it has passed its sellby date.
The Companion Animals Act does provide for shelters to kill animals after seven days, but the shelter or pound is not obligated to “do the brutal deed”. So what is happening down at the local RSPCA shelter?
…
World best practice adopted by many shelters, including here in Australia, have implemented very successful proactive rehoming programs, which involve sophisticated networking with large numbers of carers and creative advertising techniques to ensure all animals, that can be, are rehomed.The only animals euthanased are those too sick or injured where it would be cruel to keep them alive and those which have been so abused they are an extreme safety risk for a carer, other people, animals and themselves.
World best practice is not only a possibility it is a reality in San Francisco, Los Angeles, parts of New York, the UK and Europe. It is a reality in Australia too and with organisations of very limited resources such as the World League for the Protection of Animals, PAWS, Cat Defence and Monika’s Dog Rescue, all in Sydney. There are groups on the north coast and south of Sydney.
Rather than put millions of dollars into new shelters, the money could be used to implement a proven program which will save, in the end, hundreds of thousands of animals’ lives. That is closer to the charter of “for all creatures great and small” than putting man’s best friends on death row.
So this is a call for the RSPCA to adopt the very best practice to help abandoned and lost animals. People, including breeders, in the community have put these animals in peril where they have no one to turn to but the organisation the public has created to fight the good fight for them.
Fighting the good fight means implementing what really works and saves lives and this can only be done with cooperation with other groups as well.
I have enormous respect for the RSPCA’s volunteers and employees who are doing the heartbreaking work on the frontline day in and day out. I know they would embrace such a program with open arms so that they don’t finish work on Friday afternoon knowing the beautiful little kittens and that feisty, loving dog may well be dead Monday morning. Killing healthy and even not so healthy animals which are full of life and hope is the ultimate betrayal? the final abandonment. This should not be “part of the job” down at the local RSPCA shelter. It just simply does not have to be.
The day may come when the “giant of animal welfare”, the RSPCA, may feel the bite of the very legislation it enshrines. If it is going to kill an animal, it must convince the community, and the judiciary if it came to it that the killing is justifiable, reasonable and necessary. With all the possible alternatives to death row for our abandoned companions, there is a growing reasonable doubt about whether it is necessary, except in extreme circumstances, to kill at all.
Mark Pearson is executive director of Animal Liberation and vice president of Animals Australia.
In the 2003/04 year, according to their annual report, 50% of unclaimed dogs (or about 7,000pa) and 60% of cats (about 8,000pa) were killed by the RSPCA NSW. Rather than examine what was being asked of them – to see whether there were shelters in San Francisco, Los Angeles, the UK and Europe, or even here in Australia that were doing something that they were not – the RSPCA NSW went onto the defensive.
And the spiel was practically the same then, as it is now.
‘No kill’ animal shelters are a misnomer
Author: Bernie Murphy Date: 02/09/2004
Newcastle HeraldTHE RSPCA stands accused by Animal Liberation and Animals Australia’s Mark Pearson (Herald , August 18) of “the ultimate betrayal” and “final abandonment”. But just who does the exhausting, costly, physical, day to day, dirty and agonisingly heartbreaking work to relieve animal suffering?
During the past year, RSPCA NSW gave shelter to almost 36,000 homeless animals. The Society investigated 20,000 animal cruelty complaints and took 116 prosecutions to court. We operated veterinary clinics and provided numerous desexing programs. We worked with the Australian Veterinary Association in country towns to deliver desexing and education programs and with the Far West Area Health Service to deliver similar programs specific to indigenous communities.
With a major Sydney domestic violence unit, we help victims of domestic violence by providing refuge for their animals in our shelters. We work with aged care assessment teams to help older people struggling to care for their pets. We provide education programs and lobby government for positive change.
We try to find good homes for as many healthy, sociable animals as we possibly can. Every animal going to a new home is desexed, vaccinated and microchipped, with a range of health and behaviour checks performed. But sadly, there are only so many good homes. And tragically, too many people fail to desex.
Mr Pearson claims the RSPCA is not following world’s best practice, inferring that a number of overseas and Australian shelters do. While the RSPCA welcomes the presence of other animal welfare organisations and accepts that some may operate as “no kill”, are some of the very practices he espouses leading to animal suffering far worse than death?
And in some cases, are they leading to the extreme cruelty of overcrowding and psychological torture, particularly for dogs and cats? Unlike “no kill” shelters, the RSPCA accepts all unwanted animals without discrimination.
“No kill” shelters usually limit their intake of animals to only those they have room for, or those they consider “adoptable”. This can leave some homeless animals without a place to go. Many of these shelters also still continue to euthanase the animals they claim cannot be found homes because of illness, injury or behavioural problems.
The term “no kill” is a misnomer. We believe the RSPCA must be available to provide refuge to any animal without discrimination, including those turned away by other shelters, even if it means that euthanasia becomes a tragic necessity. It is a far more humane alternative than allowing the animal to be passed on to people who collect and hoard animals, which can be another insidious and tragic outcome of a “save at all costs” mentality.
This would exacerbate suffering and would indeed be the final abandonment and ultimate betrayal of the animal’s trust. The RSPCA brings about progressive, positive change by working within the law, to change the law to help all creatures great and small, including people.
Mark Pearson is a former member of the RSPCA.
The $100 million that he claims RSPCA NSW is spending on shelters is inaccurate, and details are available in our annual reports. Are the organisations he names or represents equally as transparent?
Bernie Murphy is chief executive officer of RSPCA NSW.
From the RSPCA NSW Facebook page, March 13, 2013
The RSPCA NSW figures for 2012/13;
Dogs unclaimed – 11,093 // Dogs killed – 4,862
Or 44%
Cats unclaimed – 16,166 // Cats killed – 9,531
Or 59%
While the RSPCA works to discredit those shelters embracing No Kill and promoting a lifesaving policy, and regardless of the big ups they are giving themselves, they are currently operating a model which deems 2 in every 5 pet dogs, left in their shelters as unsavable.
A figure which is practically the same as it was ten years earlier.
Why does the RSPCA NSW not work with rescue groups to save the lives of special needs pets?
Running down the capabilities of compassionate groups achieving what the RSPCA says is impossible, is a vital strategy for maintaining acceptance by the public of high kill rates in RSPCA shelters.
See also; Two decades of failure, heralding a potential for even more failure
