“Rescue dogs don’t come from breeders, pet stores and pounds, they come from homes (and people) that don’t want them any more.” 
Quote from Siberian Husky Rescue website:

* Read this then comment on our forum

We know first hand what death is like. 

 It’s never easy dealing with death.   

We’ve both been touched by death professionally and personally.  Kaye as a TV journalist dealing with dead and dying road accident victims or worse, victims of crime and both of us have lost friends and a parent each.  Death is always sad.

Death came even more recently when we had to make the hardest decision of our lives. To end the life of our 14 year old poodle Cosmo. He’d had a stroke.  No treatment would give him back quality of life.  Time to say goodbye.

We held Cos as he went… peacefully… gently… and it renewed our absolute respect for the hundreds of professional ‘euthanizers’ across this country who have to kill thousands of dogs and cats every year. 

What a horrible job that must be. The very thought of all those animals being killed tugs at our collective heartstrings we’d agree… especially when you consider that unlike our terminally ill dog, the majority of these ‘death-row animals’  that are being killed are perfectly healthy. 

But where do all these animals come from?  And why are they on death-row at all?

We eliminated death row for humans in most civilised countries around the world years ago yet we’re still killing off pets!

Our question is: “Who created Death Row for our pets? - Have we all been so wrapped up in trying to save dumped animals while ignoring the dump-ers?  And what about the lost  or straying pets – are we really making it easy to get them back home?”

We don't know the answers, but blind Freddy can see what the end result is – and it’s not pretty. 

At Pet Talk Radio! we hear about the tragedy of ‘shelter animals’ almost every day via emails from the army of animal welfare groups around the country – there are dozens and dozens of rescue groups and rising.

But what has created this problem and why? And if there are so many rescuers in the business of saving animals, why is the problem growing?   Or is it?

If we were to list every website in Australia that is a rescue organisation, animal shelter or specialist welfare group, we’d both still be talking for the next hour. 

A website called ‘Operation Toby’ claims to be the peak directory of all companion animal re-homing sites.

We’ll take their word for it – they list approximately 179 animal shelters and rescue groups nationally.  Plus there are a further 78 breed specific rescue groups run by fans or breeders of a specific breed.

So that’s at least 257 animal rescue organisations on the list and it’s highly probable there are many more groups and individuals not listed, but who accept surrenders, strays, abandoned and feral animals on a regular basis.

They work wonders in trying to find new homes for as many animals as possible… but why… after all this time do these groups need to exist at all?  

Ok - let’s step back for a moment and look at the bigger picture of animals and their place in our lives – as depicted in the media.

Since television began - animals have fulfilled three roles. 

Bad animals – such as those that bite/maul/attack and are usually referred to as ‘pitbulls’ – and good animals - the cute, fluffy heroic types that save their masters in the style of ‘Lassie’.

The third category – Needy animals fall under the animal welfare banner, and unless there’s a celebrity, politician or media personality or a photo op of a suffering animal behind bars – then they won’t get air time or print space in the popular media.

You’ve probably seen or heard campaigns urging ‘sign this petition now and stop the suffering’… which would be fantastic – if it did.  But have any of the campaigns really worked – and if not, why not?

Take the listeners of Pet Talk Radio! As an example.  When we do positive, pro-active stories about improving the day to day life of companion animals and pet parents - our audience numbers go berserk.

However, if we do a cruelty or welfare story about rescues you can almost hear a co-ordinated click as people tune out. They’ve heard it all before and feel helpless. 

It’s a lot like the way our community is divided between law-abiders and law-breakers – the first group can’t understand why the latter continue to do the wrong thing – but they continue to pick up the pieces.

Similarly – there seems to be a large section of the community which doesn’t think twice before ‘getting rid of an animal’ or perhaps looks at shelter costs and decides it’s too expensive to reclaim a pet from the pound.  Those people are unlikely to change their attitude about pets being disposable - even if they were bombarded every week with shock data on how many animals are put to sleep every year. 

This puts most pet owners – because the vast majority of pet owners are responsible – in a terrible position. What – if anything can they do? They certainly don’t need to be lectured to!



So how many irresponsible pet owners who are dump-ers or non re-claimers are there?

According to PetNet – The Independent Petcare Information and Advisory Service - there are more than 38 Million pets in this country. 38 Million! - This includes dogs, cats, birds, fish and ‘other’ pets.

Dogs and cats account for just 6,180,000 – these are 2005 figures and we’re told the dog and cat population is in decline but let’s leave it at that.

So we have just over 6 Million domesticated dogs and cats.

Currently there is a generally accepted guesstimate that of 400,000 pets that end up in shelters (surrenders, impounded or lost pets), approximately 190,000 dogs and cats are (sadly) killed by lethal injection.

So the number of domestic dogs and cats ‘saved’ is slightly better than 50%.

But let’s be realistic;  The shelter intake figure of 400,000  or so animals does not equal 400,000 people because that figure would include feral animals plus unwanted litters of multiple pups or kittens.

So for the sake of the argument let’s say the people ‘wanting to offload’ an unwanted pet had on average 1.5 animals each (some dump whole litters for example). 

That means approximately 266,000 people (roughly 1.2% of the population) each year demonstrate to their children that they should have no qualms about dumping their pets.

We make it way too easy for them.  Councils don’t want to have to pets dumped in the wild and offer an ‘easy’ drop-off service at the Pound.

These are the pet owners who don’t know and don’t want to know about keeping an animal for life. No matter where they obtained their pet from, they choose to surrender their animals using every excuse in the book, moving house, too hard, too costly, I bought it on impulse, not what I thought, it barks, it bites, it poops etc etc etc…

RSPCA Shelters ask anyone surrendering a pet to fill out a form detailing why they’re doing so – but it’s voluntary –and not all owners do so.

Other groups like the Animal Welfare League also give an implied approval to the idea that surrendering is ok when they hold such things as  “Surrender your pet day – no questions asked” – such as the surrender day at Moree held on 17^th Feb 2008 (AWL Autumn Newsletter).

They then re-home many of these surrendered animals – without necessarily having any idea of the behavioural problems which may have prompted their owners to dump them.   

So this whole animal welfare business – and it is VERY big business - for some worth millions of dollars a year – this whole animal welfare business and all the emotions that go with it is pointing its many fingers at the wrong people.

As we said at the start, quoting the Siberian Husky website: “Rescue dogs don’t come from breeders, pet stores and pounds, they come from homes (and people) that don’t want them any more.”

So the finger should be pointing at these 266,000 people or 1.2% of the Australian population who clearly don’t see anything wrong with what they are doing – and who are passing on that attitude to their offspring.

Exorbitant Council Shelter Fees
Let’s not forget that compared with the UK and the USA – Australia has exceptionally high impounding fees which when coupled with a ‘stray dog’ fine mean that owners are increasingly unable to afford to re-claim their pets!

We’re hearing more and more reports of families who are simply struggling to make ends meet – and they just can’t afford the hundreds of dollars required to get Fido home.

Given the current escalating economic crisis – this problem will continue to rise unless it is addressed.

Opening hours at Council Shelters present a further problem for owners looking for their pets.  Presumably Councils endeavour to keep costs down by minimising weekend hours – they’re often only open for 3 hours on a Saturday morning.  However for working owners – weekends are their only potential time to be able to reclaim their pet.  That’s if they go to the right pound.

Many councils now pool resources so that animals impounded from up to 16 different council areas can end up at one Shelter – often far from the owner’s home.

Shelter staff do their best – but often find it difficult to match the description an owner gives of their dog’s breed over the phone with the current ‘stock’ of animals - and again, the impounded stray-dog doesn’t make it home even though its owner is looking for it.

Over-breeding?
There are pages and pages of research into the problem of so-called animal overpopulation.

Australia , like the US has a continuing supply of kittens and puppies – 60%-70% of which come from accidental pregnancies.

Animal behaviourist and former Australian Veterinary Association President Dr Kersti Seksel said in a 2007 media release that “Research from Victoria has shown that it is the un-owned or semi-owned cats that are major contributors to the problem of unwanted pets. Compulsory de-sexing will have no effect on this population, as you cannot make anyone de-sex an un-owned cat… “

Compulsory de-sexing laws (spay and neuter for our US readers) are suggested by some as the answer to dumped pets - but if Dr Seksel’s comments are true, then it still won’t be enough to solve the problem.

University of QLD psychologist and postgraduate student Tamzin Barber has been working to discover what makes some owners progress from the enthusiasm of adopting a new cat or dog, to the decision of choosing to give the animal up. 

“There appears to be a discrepancy between what they would have liked their pet to be like, and what their pet was actually like.“ she is quoted on the University of QLD’s Online News website.

That being the case – and surrender interviews at RSPCA and other places bear this out – why are so many rescue organisations and activists in particular playing a ‘blame game’ when the reality of it is that only a very small percentage of people who get pets really need educating about keeping them. 

Around 1.2% of the population as it happens.

The rest of us are doing pretty well we think and we should all take time to acknowledge our successes more often than we do!

So how does the ‘pet problem’ compare to other social ills?

Sales of cigarettes and alcohol have not been banned from shops or the internet. The advertising of those products has been regulated, punitive taxes added and extensive educational campaigns undertaken. Some people still choose to smoke and drink. Educators say the lessons have to be repeated for each generation but that they will progressively lower useage rates. 

The number of homeless teens, neglected and abandoned children are increasing yearly. Presumably, they weren’t bought on impulse from a ‘baby shop’, a newspaper or even a ‘surrogate breeder’. Some suggest they were bred ‘accidentally’ or through ignorance of the long term consequences of having a child.  Or - more recently perhaps - resulted from the single parent payment scheme. The latter generally known in the pet and animal world as people who ‘breed for greed’.

Educators are trying to help intending parents prepare for the daily realities of bringing up a baby – but regrettably there’s no similar scheme for intending pet parents.

Those highly emotive images of dogs and cats about to be killed? They don’t show the real problem. They just show the result of an un-educated pet parent who will quite likely go on to dump further pets.

Especially if they see media reports from ‘welfare groups’ saying the blame lies with the point of purchase – rather than the purchaser.

Possible Alternatives:
How about instead of making responsible pet owners feel guilty we turn our attention to reaching into the hearts and minds of those 266,000 people. To teach them what’s right and wrong.

Communicate with pet care groups such as the AVA (Australian Veterinary Association) and the PIAA (Pet Industry association of Australia) RSPCA, AWL and various other and dog and cat member organisations.

Lobby State and Federal Governments to forget bans and instead introduce education programs similar to SPOT – Safe Pets Out There - but with ten times the miserly funds the NSW Dept. Of Local Government allocated a year or so ago. Or the Delta Dog Safe program and others like these.

Lobby to have the Department of Education introduce Pet and Animal studies into their curricula and keep it there through Year-12.

There are more than 250 rescue groups across Australia – surely if we combined our passion we could make every pet a ‘wanted’ pet for the duration of its life. 

We could help create realistic rules and regulations and most importantly we could teach potential dump-ers how to train their pets.

We don’t put unruly kids on death row – but we can stop pets being put there by targeting the right people.

Start with the young kids and their families. It won’t happen overnight but it will NEVER happen the way we are going. 

If we all did these things, then and only then we might finally start to see some real return for our collective efforts and the animals we all love so much will be happier too.

Let’s stop the blame game and start doing something positive that helps future generations hopefully say goodbye to ‘Death Row’ forever.

Brian Pickering & Kaye Browne
Pet Talk Radio! - June 2008

Discuss in our forum:
We'd appreciate your comments

Photo:
The photo at the top of the page is 'Brutus' who in 2001 was in Newcastle City Pound awaiting adoption. We are unaware of his final destination.