Why Are So Many Cats And Dogs Being Pts In Pounds?

[Podengo]

Cats are a bit different, the amount of stray/wild cats we had in was unbelievable, basically people don't neuter their cats and they let them wander, if we tried to tell them to build a cat run or keep kitty inside they were mortified.

Odd isn't it. When I have suggested to friends they keep their cats indoors instead of letting them roam all over the place, get in fights, go and catch diseases and what not, they are horrified at the thought of taking freedom away from cats. I just don't understand it. All animals want to be free, I'm sure all of our dogs would love to be allowed to roam, but we don't let them roam because we LOVE them and don't want them to be hurt, why do so many cat people not feel the same way? I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone when their cat gets hit by a car when it has spent the last 4 years running around on roads... it was bound to happen, and if you loved your animal wouldn't you try to prevent this from happening? I just really don't "get" cat people!

[Trisven13]

I think that the reasons for dogs being in pounds differ between regions. In Albury the vast majority were unclaimed strays aged 6 months to 2 years.

[Dame Aussie]

Cats are a bit different, the amount of stray/wild cats we had in was unbelievable, basically people don't neuter their cats and they let them wander, if we tried to tell them to build a cat run or keep kitty inside they were mortified.

Odd isn't it. When I have suggested to friends they keep their cats indoors instead of letting them roam all over the place, get in fights, go and catch diseases and what not, they are horrified at the thought of taking freedom away from cats. I just don't understand it. All animals want to be free, I'm sure all of our dogs would love to be allowed to roam, but we don't let them roam because we LOVE them and don't want them to be hurt, why do so many cat people not feel the same way? I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone when their cat gets hit by a car when it has spent the last 4 years running around on roads... it was bound to happen, and if you loved your animal wouldn't you try to prevent this from happening? I just really don't "get" cat people!

Exactly. They would complain that a neighbour brought their cat in because it was pooing in his garden...well I bet if his dog was in pooing in their garden they'd have something to say about it!!

Completely double standards, I believe the law should be the same for cats and dogs, both on their own property at all times unless on a lead.

[~*Shell*~]

I don't think I have an answer about what should be done to address the problem of animals in shelters being PTS.

As much as it pains me to say it, I think the general public are idiots when it comes to animals. I have met many, many people who are absolutely lovely and love animals (so have quite a few of them!) but who have no idea how to adequately take care of their needs. Owning any animal is often seen as "easy" and so people aren't prepared to put in the time and research it requires to get the knowledge.

I also have a lot of people tell me that they're getting a bird or fish instead of a dog or cat because they're "easier". In truth, they need just as much effort and work as my dog and my cat - my birds for example, need their cages cleaned, proper nutrition (which is more than just seed), exercise, time alone with me, training and grooming too. They're not easier, they're just different. The fish were easier as far as day-to-day care went but needed a lot of research to keep them healthy. I spent hours at the local aquarium store learning about PH and ammonia levels just to be able to get the fish to start off with!

[Greyt]

But who should subsidise desexing?

Many vets already make a loss on spey and castrates. $200 is not really much for major abdominal surgery and I've seen castrates for as low as $50

Should the government pay? Should taxpayers subsidise a persons decision to have a pet?

Or should we provide, say, 2 BILLION dollars on pink batts instead?

This issue is being handled piecemeal by regulators hence we are getting the result we deserve.

[Bobby_The_Samoyed]

I don't think I have an answer about what should be done to address the problem of animals in shelters being PTS.

As much as it pains me to say it, I think the general public are idiots when it comes to animals. I have met many, many people who are absolutely lovely and love animals (so have quite a few of them!) but who have no idea how to adequately take care of their needs. Owning any animal is often seen as "easy" and so people aren't prepared to put in the time and research it requires to get the knowledge.

I also have a lot of people tell me that they're getting a bird or fish instead of a dog or cat because they're "easier". In truth, they need just as much effort and work as my dog and my cat - my birds for example, need their cages cleaned, proper nutrition (which is more than just seed), exercise, time alone with me, training and grooming too. They're not easier, they're just different. The fish were easier as far as day-to-day care went but needed a lot of research to keep them healthy. I spent hours at the local aquarium store learning about PH and ammonia levels just to be able to get the fish to start off with!

Spot on!! i love this post. People used to haggle me all the time when i used to sell some hand raised birds. They didnt understand the time and effort i put into them. Waking up all hours of the night to hand feed and such. Then during the day actually taking them to work to feed every 2-3 hours and get them socialised it pissed me off when people haggle thinking its just a bird, therefore i stopped hand raising and only did it for myself. I really wont add to the OP's question as i think everyone has said what i would say. What i would like to add is get people to go see these beautiful healthy dogs getting PTS( i did it btw because i wanted to learn what happens to APBT in our pounds) and see if it doesnt break their hearts. I still dream about it 2 years later...

[Leema]

Thank-you to those who have replied to this. Of course, when we start to monitor a) where animals come from, b) why their admitted to shelters, and c) why they are euthanised (on a nationally consistent basis), then we can only really guess about shelter euthanasia, and so only guess how we can change it.

I have replied to many of you individually. I am very interested in your thoughts and impressions, and I do not mean to attack or criticise you personally at all, but sometimes I do want to get to the heart of your ideas. Hence, I have asked many questions in my responses. Your continued involvement is appreciated.

because there are simply not enough homes for all the cats/dogs which are born.

Too many animals . . . too few good homes.

I should've put that option on the poll' date=' but it's too late now without making it look messy.

However, I'm not sure if it's the case, especially for dogs. Many dogs that come into shelters have a home. Though shelters to admit some strays, many are reunited. It is undoubted that many of these strays had homes (i.e. they weren't 'roaming the streets' for long periods). Furthermore, dogs surrendered to shelters also have a home. In this case, there are simply not enough homes [i']interested in keeping their dog[/i]. Or, there are simply not enough homes for dogs who have behavioural or health problems (maybe). If there are too many poorly behaved and unhealthy dogs in pounds, then pounds need more resources to retrain better behave, and breeders need more policing to ensure they are breathing healthy animals.

With cats, I'd probably say, yes, there are too many cats for the number of homes available. From what I've read, about 93% of the owned cat population is desexed. This suggests to me that unowned cats are bigger contributers to the cat population problem, in which case this would mean a need of trap, neuter, and desex programs.

Animals are still seen by so many as a disposable item' date=' plus there is also the instant gratification of a pet shop purchase. Those 2 factors I think play a big part in euth rates. I also think that euth rates sometimes appear high in shelters because there are a lot of people who bring their pets in to be euth'ed rather than taking them to their own vet and paying, plus there is also the issue of the number of feral animals (primarily cats) who get taken to shelters once trapped, get euth'ed as they are not able to be re-homed and therefore also contribute to their euth rate.

But the big factor in change I think needs to be education of the general public about the commitment that pets are, that desexing (or doing everything possible to stop your pet having litters "but it's just nice for the kids to see them having babies") is important, and that just because the house you're in now allows pets/or while you're in the country you want a pet but have no plan/intention of taking it with you when you leave isn't really an accpetable attitude. I also think it would be good to see a bit more government support for such things (sensible support though, not stuff like the vic govt has decided to do recently!). [/quote']

Okay, so much to get to here!

I do think some animals end up in shelters because they are seen as disposable- e.g. once the puppy or kitten is no longer appealing, or begins to develop behavioural problems, they are surrendered. If a dog gets lost, then they'll just get a new one. There is some people with a disposable attitude towards companion animals, or lack commitment (which you mentioned later). To counteract this we would need education about responsibility, we need breeders and sellers to carefully screen those who purchase animals, and maybe even tougher controls on pet ownership. (However, if we have tougher controls on pet ownership, does this make it harder for people to adopt animals from shelter environments?)

I don't think pet shops have a big role to play. Stats I have read suggest that 7%-15% of animals bought come from pet shops. That is not a lot in the scale of things. It suggests that backyard breeders may need stricter controls than pet shops, as pet shops don't sell many animals statistically.

The shelter I worked at required payment from E&D (euthanasia and disposal). It was comparable to a vet. I guess this, again, shows that we need statistcal record keeping of these events. If shelter euth rates are really high because of surrenders for destruction, then simply removing them from statistics would allow us to get a truer picture of shelter euthanasia practices.

I agree that feral cats, or simply stray cats, are often euthanised in shelters as they are unrehomable. I think trap, neuter, release programs would help to reduce euths from this cause.

Regarding desexing: I am really unconvinced that desexing of pets is a solution for shelter euthanasias. As I mentioned, about 93% of owned cats are already desexed. Most kittens seem to come from the unowned cat population, so trap, neuter, release programs may be of use to combat these kittens. As for dogs, I don't feel there are 'too many dogs' and, again, the majority (70something%) are desexed. Puppies that are born find homes quickly and easily. Puppies are desirable and wanted. It's, as mentioned, we need education about responsibility to ensure these puppies grow to be adults kept in homes, and we need breeders and sellers to carefully screen those who purchase animals.

I am not sure what your last statement is referring to. Are you talking about animals that are surrendered as their owners are moving overseas? Again, I think this is about educating about responsibility. Perhaps we also need to teach pet owners how to effectively rehome their pet, so shelters do not have to try, and then result in euthanasia.

I don't think a lot of people treat cats as serious pets. They are cute as kittens and worth love and attention, less so as adults especially those that have independent characters. They are also cheap and easy to replace should it get lost or broken. Many don't value cats.

Dory, I think you're right. I spoke about this in more detail in reply to Pretty Miss Emma. I also agree with education.

[Leema]

The reason so many dogs and cats are euthanised is because people do not value that animal or it has not met their expectations.

I think we are in agreement with this' date=' considering the first few responses all cover it. The solution being education regarding commitment, but also education regarding expectations and training of their animal.

Shelters and Pounds are not the same type of facility.

If an animal is euthanised in a pound it is because a shelter wasn't available. Pounds are a government responsibility. Many shelters are a welfare initiative and are not given enough resources to stop the problem.

Sorry if my language has confused anyone. I do use the term 'pound' and 'shelter' interchangably' date=' and perhaps I shouldn't. In South Australia, our councils (in the metropolitian area) use the shelter as the pound, so there is no disconnect in my personal experience. However, I ask people just tolerate my language use and I'll try to be more conscious of it in the future.

Aggressive dogs are that way usually because they have a genetic propensity for aggression. How people raise the dog sometimes makes no difference. There are plenty of well-raised aggressive dogs around and badly raised dogs with no aggression. Many people choose to own a breed with an aggressive reputation, and want to raise it that way. Education won't stop that, but better enforced dog control laws might.

I agree with you. There is a huge genetic component to aggression. Perhaps we need tougher restrictions on breeders, to make sure they're breeding from non-aggressive animals?

However, undoubtedly, training has a role, so extra education of people on how to raise an animal is not a bad idea. Particularly with food aggression or simply 'intolerance aggression' (e.g. aggressive with touching feet, etc). These are all highly trainable behaviours - both to make a dog aggressive, and to 'fix' these forms of aggression.

What kind of dog control laws do you think would have an impact on those individuals who want to own breeds with an aggressive reputation and want to raise an aggressive dog?

Rarely do people have to give up their dog when life circumstances change. Many choose to prioritise other things over their dog' date=' or buy a dog when they have no control over the circumstances the dog will have to endure. That is irresponsibility and the reason you have listed is a convenient excuse more often than the reason why an animal has to be destroyed.[/quote']

I agree with you. I think mostly people use travel or moving as an excuse, rather than the heart of the reason for surrender. I am sure there are some genuine cases, but I doubt these animals contribute significantly to the euthanasia rates in shelters.

[Leema]

I do not agree with trap neuter release' date=' as cats do a lot of damage to the environment in Australia.[/quote']

This was my original thoughts, too, but I have reconsidered. I agree that cats do a lot of damage, but it's clear that our current strategy of killing these cats is not working. When we kill cats, their ecological niche opens up and a young cat or kitten will take up the space. If we neuter the cats, and release them again, then they can continue to use their ecological niche (and kill wildlife), but if the neuter program is widespread enough, then within a couple of generations, there would be no kittens available to fill that ecological niche and so the problem of cats would be effectively solved. It is a lofty idea, and perhaps it won't work, but I know that our current kill-strategy hasn't worked, either, and I think it's high time to give something else a go.

Building bigger shelters won't work unless there are the resources to move the dogs through shelters and into new homes.

I agree. Bigger shelters are tokenistic.

I think that there should be more incentive for people to desex their pets' date=' and more restrictions put on people that breed unregistered animals.[/quote']

As I already mentioned, 93% of owned cats are already desexed. Cat people are pretty good at desexing their pets already. Most dog people have desexed animals, too, and the registration of dog often is cheaper for animals that are desexed. All good things. I am not sure what extra incentives could be used that would encourage desexing. What are your ideas?

Regarding restricting breeding animals: What restrictions would you like to see, and how would they help? How would we determine which forms of registration are worthy?

I think that tenants should have to pay a much higher bond if they have animals or children' date=' and pay a little extra in rent, but it should be illegal to discriminate against those that want to own pets. Landlords should find an alternate investment that isn't so personal to them if they have a problem with this.[/quote']

I really like this idea, and would love to see some form of legislation put in place that makes 'discrimination by pets' illegal for landlords.

To quickly answer a question why many animals turn up at either is ignorance on behalf of the pet buying public.

I'm not sure why you are asking people not to think too hard about this and just give an opinion. There have been studies done on the reasons why people surrender pets.

I would love to have any studies you'd like to link me' date=' or email me privately if you had pdfs. I am, in part, interested in community attitudes, so that is why I wanted this poll to be more opinion based. I am interested in attitudes, not facts. (In this instance only.)

More pets would be adopted from shelters if people understood that a shelter can be a great place to get a great dog from. Using a poll like this to suggest that shelters might be a reason for the problem isn't very helpful at all.

I read a lot of posts on SavingPets.com.au, and they firmly believe that the reason for euthanasia rates in shelters are because shelters are committed to a model of killing and not a model of saving. I do not find anything problematic in using SavingPets ideas in my poll - I was interested to see how widely recognised this idea was.

However, in a sense, this final paragraph suggests that you, too, think shelters have a role in marketing and promoting the animals they have available for adoption. Currently, shelters almost always say "adopt or we'll kill it". What we would prefer is marketing which is like, "come and find a dog that's perfect for your needs, and unique as well" or "adopt a senior dog with lovely manners". I really feel that shelters need to market their animals a lot better, and not just guilt people into purchases.

It's too expensive to care for unwanted animals in populations capable of doubling in one year or less.

Sorry' date=' I don't understand what you are saying here.

Generally, it makes sense, through carrot and stick, to discourage breeding of animals whose offspring aren't highly desirable.

How would you discourage the breeding of animals whose offspring weren't 'highly desirable'? How would you determine which offspring were desirable and which were not?

While I agree with this in principle, I don't know how it could be put into force.

[Leema]

I think subsidized desexing of pets is cost effective' date=' especially for low income people.[/quote']

I agree with you. I would like to see subsidised desexing more available, for those individuals who want to have their animal desexed.

Mandatory desexing makes sense for animals with health or behaviour problems.

Again' date=' something that sounds good in theory, but concerning in technicalities. What would be determined to be a health or a behavioural problem? What dogs out there are 'perfect' in all ways? (Probably not enough to maintain genetic diversity.)

People who have track records of abuse, or inadequate confinement, should be required to desex their pets.

I agree with you. Again, problematic to enforce, but in principle, good. In some USA states, dogs caught roaming at large a certain number of times, must be desexed before release. I wouldn't be adverse for a system like this coming into place in Australia.

You can't answer such a complex situation with a poll like this.

I am not trying to answer questions' date=' but gather opinions. I doubt a poll on DOL will ever answer any complex problems - I have much more faith in academic research. ;)

In a Scandi country (I think Norway), you have to have a license to breed dogs and there is mandatory de-sexing of non-breeders dogs.

Consequently, there is a shortage of dogs and to get one you have to go on a waiting list (usually long, say ~3 years), then have an interview, similar to a job interview to prove that you are fit to own a dog. The breeder will also ask you to bring verification of your income to prove that you have the financial capability to care for a dog. There are no pounds over there.

Obviously, another result is that unless you are middle class and have stable employment, you are prevented from having a dog.

That is interesting, Greyt, because what I read have suggested that Europe is a lot more relaxed with desexing than other countries. Could you please let me know what country it is an link me to some papers?

Though this kind of scheme raises questions regarding what is a breeder/not a breeder, it is still interesting to see the competitive process needed to get a dog having a positive impact on dog welfare.

Irresponsible owners who allow animals to roam' date=' irresponsible owners who enable random breedings.[/quote']

What would you see as actions to prevent these problems?

There is already legislation preventing animals to roam, which is ineffectively enforced. Should we put more resources into councils and rangers?

How do you think 'random' or 'irresponsible' breeding could be minimised or prevented?

Ruffles, Mrs Rusty Bucket, OSoSwift, Juice, and Scarlet you've made similar comments to others (that I've already replied to), but thank-you for your comments.

EDIT: Sorry, wouldn't let me put it all as one post because there were 'too many quotes'.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Leema

[Guest Arcane]

Post 11 & 14 echo some of my opinions.

I have had the idea in my mind for years that while there are shelters, there will be shelters full of lost, abandoned, unwanted, excess etc animals.

It will take a whole system overhaul along side of a huge change in peoples behaviour to make a difference. Running bigger or better shelters is not the answer. We need to change the general populations way of thinking about pet ownership and gently phase out the shelters. This coming from me who has had a little involvement with shelters. After seeing it from both sides I actually don't see much benefit in shelters & rescue. Of course at the ground level for each individual animal that gets 'saved' & rehomed etc, thats great atm, but it just facilitates dumping behaviour in the bigger picture.

Some people who I have aired these thoughts to are taken aback by my comments/opinions on this, and probably think I have no heart. Yes phasing out shelters will mean animals are killed. Of course I find that appalling, but the thought of this behaviour perpetuating for many generations to come is more appalling to me.

I hope one day the shelter system will be one of those distant memories, one of those 'It seemed like a good idea at the time' practices.

I believe we need to take away peoples rights & choices when it comes to pet ownership, yes that means me & you too. One system for all. Several generations have just been getting better and better at using & abusing the shelter system. They have proven time & time again that they are idiots and cannot control their own behaviour.

I say time for government to step in with a mighty big axe and tear peoples rights away from them. No longer will people have the right to dump an animal at a shelter.

Yes, I realise these are not the only answers or the perfect solution, but history has proved that people are idiots & the current system is not effective.

I respect other peoples rights to an opinion on this, please respect mine.

[Greyt]

I am sorry, I can't provide references.

I met a dog owner at a park who described her process of buying a pet in her native Scandinavian country.

When she arrived here, our problems with PTS were completely foreign to her experience - she volunteered in an Aussie shelter and has since adopted a number of dogs, some of whom were scheduled to be PTS on the day she adopted them.

[Leema]

But who should subsidise desexing? ... Should the government pay? Should taxpayers subsidise a persons decision to have a pet?

Ideally only people who could afford a pet and the associated costs would get one, I think this is part of the problem- people think they have a "right" to get a pet whether they are in a position to look after it or not.

I think you make some excellent points. Who would subsidise desexing, and why should they have to? Is subsidised desexing cheaper than lethabarb and pound administration?

And with many cats unowned, who is going to be willing to collect them and put them in a desexing clinic for a subsidised rate?

How do we make sure only people who can afford a pet get one?

Contrary to popular belief, most of the animals that end up in pounds and shelters AREN'T "broken" in any way, shape, or form...

Unfortunately, pets are often viewed as objects - easy to discard when no longer necessary to requirement.

If they aren't broken, then why aren't they getting homes? Are homes truly not available for unbroken dogs? I've rehomed some pretty broken dogs through rescue in my time - homes do exist, they're just harder to find.

We've already talked about education to prevent pets being seen as disposable. Do you like this idea? Do you have better ideas?

Pounds and shelters are not the issue, it's owners and the people breeding them that need to be held accountable.

What do you think we should do to make owners and breeders more accountable? Legislation on ownership? On breeding? Fines for shelter admission?

I don't think that building bigger shelters solves the problem as I don't think that many dogs do well in shelter situations unless there is a LOT of money available to the shelter to provide stimulation, enrichment, socialisation and training. If a dog is to spend time in a shelter I believe that MOST dogs don't do well beyond about 4 weeks without the things mentioned above and many breeds wouldn't do well beyond a week.

I agree with you, Trisven. Kennelling dogs (long term) should be done on a case-by-case basis and, in some instances, euthanising a dog may be kinder than having it wait for adoption. (This should be noted on shelter records: That the euth was made because of stress and not due to any other reason.) However, I also think shelters should engage with rescue groups and get involved in fostering out dogs to rescues, either on a short term or long term basis, or shelters surrendering to private rescues (big idea, I know). But if a private rescue is more adept at caring for that particular animal, then surely this is a better option than euthanasia. There are many shelters across the country who chose to PTS animals rather than engage with local rescue groups.

When I was working with Albury Pound the cats were put to sleep immediately once their time was up if they were old (less chance of adoption), if they were dirty (didn't use a litter tray), sprayed or weren't friendly. Cats that were healthy, friendly and clean would often get extended time to find homes and the pound manager would do everything within her power to avoid putting them to sleep.

I am guessing this facility had limited room to hold cats? And that the facility had trouble rehoming cats that were even healthy and friendly?

Do you think anything could've been done to stop the dirty, unfriendly, old cats from being euthed?

The dogs were a different story. The dogs were typically over-stimulated or very scared, there wasn't the ability for them to be exercised out of their pen (not to mention the disease risk this would pose if it WAS available), they had minimal interaction and no enrichment or training. There simply wasn't the resources for it. Typically pound staff would have little treats for dogs but they were paid for out of their own pockets. Skinny dogs were fed better, injured dogs were treated etc - they did the very best they could with the resources available to them but the resources quite simply weren't there.

It sounds awful that these animals weren't given any free time out of their kennels, and that there were no enrichment programs in place. It sounds like this is a shelter truly lacking resources for adequately care for dogs surrendered to them. Perhaps these premises should not take on dogs when they have such poor facilities and so few resources at hand.

I truly don't believe that there were homes available for every dog that came into Albury Pound - too many working breed mixes and undersocialised dogs that posed a risk, PLUS ugly dogs. The sad reality is that brindle bull breeds took a VERY VERY long time to rehome.

I think dogs that are human aggressive should not be rehomed. However, I don't think being ugly or a working breed is an adequate reason for being put to sleep. In country settings (such as Albury) it's likely that, indeed, there weren't enough homes available in the immediate area. However, in metropolitan environments, dogs seem to be more highly valued and desirable. In the case of active and ugly dogs, I think the pound would've been best to engage with private rescues in the area, and or send the dogs to rescues in other parts of the country. For example, RSPCA SA receive kittens from QLD as the QLD kitten season goes longer and there are homes available down here. This solves the euthanasia problem for QLD, and allows RSPCA SA to continue selling kittens (and making profits) for an extended period. A win-win scenario.

However, if education is the key (and not the pound's actions, in this situation) - how do we get people not to breed working mixes? Or not to buy working mixes? Or to socialise their dogs? Or not breed ugly dogs? So many hurdles, particularly in a rural area.

[Trisven13]

The dogs were a different story. The dogs were typically over-stimulated or very scared, there wasn't the ability for them to be exercised out of their pen (not to mention the disease risk this would pose if it WAS available), they had minimal interaction and no enrichment or training. There simply wasn't the resources for it. Typically pound staff would have little treats for dogs but they were paid for out of their own pockets. Skinny dogs were fed better, injured dogs were treated etc - they did the very best they could with the resources available to them but the resources quite simply weren't there.

It sounds awful that these animals weren't given any free time out of their kennels, and that there were no enrichment programs in place. It sounds like this is a shelter truly lacking resources for adequately care for dogs surrendered to them. Perhaps these premises should not take on dogs when they have such poor facilities and so few resources at hand.

Actually I disagree quite strongly as I think Albury Pound is one of the best run country pounds I've been to. They are first and foremost a holding facility - their job is to hold dogs for the periods required under the act and that is ALL they're paid to do. The resources they have are those provided to them by Albury Council and they actually go above and beyond, IMO, what most country pounds do. The pound is run by very, very dog savvy people who are also VERY knowledgeable on disease and the spread of it.

IF the dogs are exercised how can that be done without risking the spread of parvo and/or other disease, not to mention injury from other dogs? I would much prefer that my impounded dog was not exercised in a pound environment should mine ever be impounded. I know many people disagree with me but I think that when a dog is impounded only for 7 days or 14 depending on microchip status (as happens in NSW) then I think prevention of disease and injury has to be the highest priority.

I know you said to ignore your use of shelter/pound but the reality is that the two are VERY different things. A pound is simply a holding facility, a shelter is a place where dogs can be kept until they are rehomed. Albury Pound worked brilliantly with rescue, the pound was always clean and tidy, dogs have blankets, jackets in winter, fans in summer etc. I wish that more pounds kept their facilities like Albury did . I suspect, however, that you're still thinking of pound and shelter as the same thing. ;)

[Trisven13]

I think dogs that are human aggressive should not be rehomed. However, I don't think being ugly or a working breed is an adequate reason for being put to sleep. In country settings (such as Albury) it's likely that, indeed, there weren't enough homes available in the immediate area. However, in metropolitan environments, dogs seem to be more highly valued and desirable. In the case of active and ugly dogs, I think the pound would've been best to engage with private rescues in the area, and or send the dogs to rescues in other parts of the country. For example, RSPCA SA receive kittens from QLD as the QLD kitten season goes longer and there are homes available down here. This solves the euthanasia problem for QLD, and allows RSPCA SA to continue selling kittens (and making profits) for an extended period. A win-win scenario.

However, if education is the key (and not the pound's actions, in this situation) - how do we get people not to breed working mixes? Or not to buy working mixes? Or to socialise their dogs? Or not breed ugly dogs? So many hurdles, particularly in a rural area.

They DID and DO work with local rescue BUT the reality is that there aren't enough places in rescue for every good dog that comes into the pound. Add to that the difficulties with transport (both cost, disease control and available & knowledgeable volunteers) and it isn't always possible to transport dogs. I admire those rescue groups who can do the transport but we simply didn't have the financial means or time to transport dogs around every week to get them out of the pounds. You can normally organise something as a one-off but a regularly weekly transport of dogs requires people with the financial means to do it - wear and tear on cars, petrol, time away from family and their own dogs etc. For us it just wasn't possible - God knows I couldn't afford to spend $100 on petrol every week to transport dogs.

[DAVERI]

you will never stop animals being inpounded and PTS but somethings could be changed to help lower the numbers

+ for one pet shops will always sell pets because without them they would in many cases go broke. so why not make them sell with a desexing voucher or condition of sale. more than 90% of pups are given for free to pet shops who pay about $50 ea to have vet checked and first needles. then they mark up the price anywhere from $290 to $700 ea. and kittens are almost always given free and in most cases you have to prove they have been wormed reg too. again they too are marked up.

+ new laws in qld making all dogs, cats, kittens and puppies needing to be micro chipped just to be advertised is going to also make a difference. there are no reason not to have them micro chipped as even free now have to be micro chipped too. thow maybe this could also work in a bad way with more being dumpped due to not wanting to pay for the micro chip.

+ I think cheaper council reg is in need. $100 a year or more per pet in some cases is just stupidity! I remember when i first got a puppy as a kid and council rego was only about $5. If your dog strays outside the council area and/or looses its collar a local rego will not help them any way. I remember years ago when i got my mini she was micro chipped and registered on a nation wide register so that if she went missing and her chip was scanned any vet in australia could access her details. I had just moved to QLD and with in the week i had a guy from brisbane council hanging over my fence. no knock at the door. when i went out to see what was going on cause the dog was barking he told me he was here for a spot check and that not only was my dog not registered with council i had a pitbull which was not aloud in the area. having papers to prove she was in fact a bull terrier and not a pitbull i then asked him why i should register my dog at $120 per year with council when she is all ready registered for free nation wide. he couldn't answer me. cut a long story short people whould be more likely to register pet if it was cheaper.

+ i don't think all pounds give the time needed to find lost pets. some only keep them for 3 days and often don't rehome. with the floods this year so many more pets ended up in pounds and miles away from home. i for one was stuck at home cut off for almost 5 days and alot of other people a lot worse off than me. with loved ones missing. i guess finding lost kids, mothers etc came before 3 day deadlines to find there pets even if they dearly loved them. i also beleive that if a pet is suitable to be rehomed than they should at least have something in place to do so. not just be PTS or sent to the sale yards after 3 days.

[Guest lavendergirl]

I haven't read the whole thread but I would have liked to have seen an option to vote on perhaps " unresolvable behavioural issues" as I think many genuine pet owners do try to keep their pets but may not be offered - or be able to afford - the access to professionals who can perhaps help them. Hence they feel they have no option but to "surrender" their dogs.

[Dame Aussie]

I haven't read the whole thread but I would have liked to have seen an option to vote on perhaps " unresolvable behavioural issues" as I think many genuine pet owners do try to keep their pets but may not be offered - or be able to afford - the access to professionals who can perhaps help them. Hence they feel they have no option but to "surrender" their dogs.

What would you call an unresolvable behavioural issue?

[RubyBlue]

simple - no cats or dogs for sale in pet shops!

[Guest lavendergirl]

I haven't read the whole thread but I would have liked to have seen an option to vote on perhaps " unresolvable behavioural issues" as I think many genuine pet owners do try to keep their pets but may not be offered - or be able to afford - the access to professionals who can perhaps help them. Hence they feel they have no option but to "surrender" their dogs.

What would you call an unresolvable behavioural issue?

Anything that is impacting negatively on the owners or the community and that the owners feel may be unresolvable.