‘No Kill?’ – So Where Do They Go?

This commentary is not about pet shop pets.
It’s not about impulse buys and it’s not about backyard breeders.

This story is about a rather interesting concept called ‘No Kill Shelters’.

An estimated 200,000 dogs and cats are killed each year in Australia.
With more and more people surrendering domestic pets due to financial reasons or because they are downsizing their living arrangements by moving into apartments, this problem will only get worse – much worse before it gets better.

Those 200,000 animals on the surface represent a lack of homes for them to go to or people willing to take them on. 

We’re referring to the ‘pounds’ here or groups like RSPCA and AWL (Animal Welfare League). Rescue groups in this country as far as we are aware don’t have the authority to kill animals – yet. Although RSPCA & AWL volunteers tell us they don't euthanase healthy 'temperament tested' animals.

So called ‘No Kill’ shelters (and they are growing in this country) will take in every animal (in theory) and either find permanent homes for them, foster them out on a temporary long-term basis or keep them at the shelter to live out their days.

Our thinking is that in 5 years time if the figures stayed the same and we went the ‘No Kill’ road, there would (in theory) be about 1Million dogs and cats ‘waiting’ for homes here in Australia.

We’re wondering who will feed them, take care of their veterinary requirements, exercise them, environmentally enrich them and ensure they don’t become cage bound… ?

Most of all – who will pay for all this? There is already a drought of funds for the current load of rescue work and with increasing cost of living across the board, fundraising is only going to get tougher.

HAS THIS MAN FOUND THE ANSWER?
One man in the USA – Nathan Winograd believes he’s found the answer.

Nathan’s theories are too complex to explain here but make very interesting reading.
http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/

But are Nathan’s theories ‘utopian’?

He basically says animal shelters and groups in the USA similar to our RSPCA and AWL are doing an appalling job at re-homing all these dumped and surrendered animals and that is why so many have to be killed each year.

He may well be right!

Nathan also believes that in the USA there are more homes ready to take animals in than there are animals surrendered.

Would Australia’s culture in the 21^st century support that theory?

Many immigrants to this country come from cultures that don’t always see dogs and cats as ‘pets’. In fact some are downright scared of them and others are appalled we could even have them in our homes. But I guess there is just as much 'multiculturalism' in the USA head for head!

Nathan and his supporters say 'if a home can't be found, what's wrong with a dog living in a sanctuary with a bunch of other dogs' - which is wonderful in theory - but who pays for this and have canine behavioural experts been consulted to see if this would work in practice?. Again land is expensive so 'who pays' ?

But we’re still left wondering why - if Nathan Winograd says there ARE enough homes for all the animals that are currently being killed (in the USA and presumably his theory could be applied here) – no-one seems to be able to answer the question ‘why are they being dumped and/or surrendered in the first place?’

We’ve touched on this recently in our 'Who Created Death Row' commentary but some people seem to have taken our thoughts the wrong way saying we are blaming rescue groups for making it too easy to dump an animal. (we didn't say that but that's what they have read into our editorial!! - oh well ....)

Look - we too are appalled at the alarming ‘kill’ figures here (and in the USA).
We too want an end to backyard breeders and accidental litters
We too want compulsory desexing for non-breeding domestic pets
We too want to close down pet shops that do the wrong thing
We too want to stop unregulated newspaper and internet sales of animals

We too want a regulated system for the sale and purchase of any animal

But most of all we want more education programs about pets being ‘for life’.
And we want this information ‘rammed down the throat’ of every child in this country from the age they can understand basic concepts until they leave school.

Then we want it reinforced for anyone who wants to own a pet by making it compulsory to register BEFORE buying an animal (even if you already have one and want another) and attend (in person or on-line) a structured course that requires at least a day’s attendance in animal husbandry, behaviour, basics of nutrition, grooming, environmental enrichment and more, that results in a full understanding of the responsibilities and long term costs and ramifications of pet ownership.

We need to change the collective mind-set of the pet owning public so that people start to feel like part of the solution rather than being part of the problem.

Of course we are not saying these thoughts are the only solution to the current problem of ‘over-kill’ but coupled with other initiatives, it might go a long way to solving the horrendous issue of why people dump animals in the first place.

I'd be interested in your thoughts via our forum...

Brian Pickering
Producer/Co-host