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

[Maddy]

I worry that the Gen Yers coming through - and how we cater to them, à la handbag dogs - will only make the problem worse in Australia.

Can't be much worse than the generations that came before them- letting dogs "experience" having at least one litter, dogs (and cats) being allowed to roam because "it's what they do" and so on and so forth.

Awareness of rescue is only on the increase and I can tell you from personal experience, not only is it becoming generally unacceptable to buy puppies from petshops or crossbreeders but there's also plenty of gen Y people actively involved in rescue (I'm one of them).

Younger generations have access to the sorts of information and services never available before so I don't think it's really fair to tar us all with the Paris Hilton brush- there's irresponsible people in every generation.

[Nic.B]

Great post Nic.

Where I was working, we did not have those rates of desexing either, far from it, and about 90% of the cats that came in were wild, so I agree that different areas can have a much different situation.

Yes, so very true Aussie3.

Different areas or socio economic groups for those working in pounds/shelters and rescue stick out like a sore thumb.

I can only share my experiences, though the great majority of impounded healthy rehomeable cats and dogs are entire. Very few are desexed and if they are it is a big bonus. The more vetwork, training and skills a dog has, the better their chances of finding a new home.

[Nic.B]

I worry that the Gen Yers coming through - and how we cater to them, à la handbag dogs - will only make the problem worse in Australia.

Can't be much worse than the generations that came before them- letting dogs "experience" having at least one litter, dogs (and cats) being allowed to roam because "it's what they do" and so on and so forth.

Awareness of rescue is only on the increase and I can tell you from personal experience, not only is it becoming generally unacceptable to buy puppies from petshops or crossbreeders but there's also plenty of gen Y people actively involved in rescue (I'm one of them).

Younger generations have access to the sorts of information and services never available before so I don't think it's really fair to tar us all with the Paris Hilton brush- there's irresponsible people in every generation.

I agree.

In my experience the majority of volunteers in shelters and pounds are young adults. They could be out running the streets or shopping with friends though these kids volunteer week in and week out on a saturday or sunday at the local shelter.

Parents go out of their way to drop the kids off and pick them up, they are great kids who really make a difference and love animals.

I believe the younger generation will be the ones who bring about real change.

[SpotTheDog]

With cats, I'd like to see a far greater onus on restricting their roaming. Your cat doesn't have to be indoor-only - it can have access to the garden if you cat-proof your fence. You can raise an extremely happy cat in this way.

Common myths (and I've been involved in cat rescue) I encounter are:

• I can't keep it indoors, that would be cruel.
  
• Most cats learn to deal with the road.
  
• I should let it have one litter before it's desexed.
  
• It's only just had a litter, it couldn't be pregnant again.
  
• She's too young to be pregnant (we've seen well-fed females come into their first season at 16 weeks, thereby having their first litter at six months).
  

By far and away the most irritating is stuff like 'dogs have owners, cats have staff' or 'cats are unfriendly' or 'a cat will desert you for the neighbours in a second' or 'I don't have to feed it while I go on holidays, they can hunt' and so on.

The biggest difference between cats and dogs is dogs are an amplifier and cats are a mirror. Whatever you put into a dog, he'll return ten fold. Whatever you put into a cat, he will return in absolutely equal measure. If you ignore your cat, he will ignore you. If you allow him to roam all day, he will indeed move in with the neighbour, a little old lady who watches telly with him beside her on the couch and hand feeds him tidbits. Cat body language is extremely subtle, but if you learn a bit about it you'll soon learn you can read moods, emotions, mischeviousness, moodiness and willingness to play, all in the angle of an ear and the position of a tail.

I wish people would take better care of their cats. They are such a rewarding pet if you just take the time to learn what to do.

[Guest donatella]

I kept my pet a secret in my rental until we could find suitable accepting pet friendly rental because there was a big fat ZERO chance of me surrendering her. My secret, no damage, no pound dog, no harm. Not my finest moment but it is the lengths I'll go to keep her.

Makes it hard though, I really feel dogs and cats do far less damage then children, a few bad owners with pets over time have ruined it for all the well behaved guys out there.

[Nic.B]

Children (and I have three) should not even come into the issues faced by dog owners in terms of rentals, holiday accomodation etc.

Where did kids fall into this?

How are kids also related to the number of dogs and cats being pts in pounds/shelters?

ETA aside from training related or settling issues between a new baby and a family pet/s.

This is most often not the dogs fault as training/or working toward change has not even taken place prior to surrendering a dog.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Nic.B

[Leema]

I do not agree that around 90 % of owned cats are desexed in Aust. The great majority of owned cats in my local shelter are entire, very few are desexed. Feral cats are not sheltered as they can seriously hurt or kill domesticated cats.

I do not believe 70% or so of dogs are desexed either. Once again, the majority of dogs in my local shelter are entire.

Perhaps the undesexed animals entering your facility are the ones that are in undesirable or irresponsible homes to begin with. I would suggest that the 70-something-% who do desex their pets are also the kind that keep their pets safe and secure, and do not surrender their animals at a 'drop of the hat'.

[dancinbcs]

I do not agree that around 90 % of owned cats are desexed in Aust. The great majority of owned cats in my local shelter are entire, very few are desexed. Feral cats are not sheltered as they can seriously hurt or kill domesticated cats.

I do not believe 70% or so of dogs are desexed either. Once again, the majority of dogs in my local shelter are entire.

Perhaps the undesexed animals entering your facility are the ones that are in undesirable or irresponsible homes to begin with. I would suggest that the 70-something-% who do desex their pets are also the kind that keep their pets safe and secure, and do not surrender their animals at a 'drop of the hat'.

Exactly. Responsible owners that desex their pets are less likely to dump them at a shelter or in the street to become strays. It is the "don't give a damn" types that get a cheap puppy, don't desex or train it and get rid of it when it becomes a nuisance. Then they go out and get another cute puppy and so the cycle continues. You have to work in a shelter accepting surrenders to believe the attitude of these people. Puppys and kittens are easy to get and just as easy to dump when the novelty runs out. These people are the number one reason so many animals need to be pts in shelters. they tend to put no thought into the type of dog or cat and pick somehting that is unlikley to appeal to to many others when they get sick of it. All puppies and kittens are cute but a lot are not so attractive when they grow up.

Then there are the impulse pet shop or online buys by people who realise they didn't really want to have look after an animal.

When I worked in a shelter about a quarter of the surrenders were sad cases were the owners really could not find suitable housing that allowed pets or the pets had belonged to elderly people and no one was able to take them when the owner passed away or went into car. These are the genuine cases where more needs to be done to help and most of these animals were already desexed.

The other three quarters of the surrenders were from owners that simply didn't care what happened to the animals so long as it was no longer their problem.

[DAVERI]

still don't agree that anyone that has pets should be paying higher rent etc. shouldn't good referees acount for something. Any rental i ever lived in was always left in better condition than it was when i moved in. part of being a good pet owner is making sure that your pet has a clean enviroment to live. my experience with 90% of landlords is they want everything for nothing and believe that they own the home so you owe them something or believe that they have a right to tell you how you can live. If your pets are looked after there shouldn't be anymore wear on a property than what was normal for not having them there. And if they did cause damage then the tenant should repair it as they would if it was their own home. Rentals are just to expensive as it is now. in some areas in Australia people are on waiting lists for government houses as long as 18 years because normal rentals are just becaming out of reach. I see no point in paying $500 plus a week for a rental when you could be paying off your own home for that. Years ago we worked to live, now we live to work.

[sandgrubber]

still don't agree that anyone that has pets should be paying higher rent etc. shouldn't good referees acount for something. Any rental i ever lived in was always left in better condition than it was when i moved in. part of being a good pet owner is making sure that your pet has a clean enviroment to live. my experience with 90% of landlords is they want everything for nothing and believe that they own the home so you owe them something or believe that they have a right to tell you how you can live. If your pets are looked after there shouldn't be anymore wear on a property than what was normal for not having them there. And if they did cause damage then the tenant should repair it as they would if it was their own home. Rentals are just to expensive as it is now. in some areas in Australia people are on waiting lists for government houses as long as 18 years because normal rentals are just becaming out of reach. I see no point in paying $500 plus a week for a rental when you could be paying off your own home for that. Years ago we worked to live, now we live to work.

Having been a landlord who takes tenants with pets, I can understand why most landlords don't. Irresponsible tenants with pets can cause expensive damage and a lot of annoyance. The 'If your pets are looked after' is a big 'if'. Working pet owners who leave pets locked in and unattended when they work can be a problem. Chewing and scratching doors, hair in carpets, smells, barking and neighbours complaints, destroying the lawn/vegetation in the back yard . . .

I have also had great tenants with pets. But the bad ones make you regret that you didn't put a 'no pets' clause in the rental agreement.

References, unfortunately, can be cooked up and tenants from hell sometimes come up with great references.

[Talien]

I had to pay a $500 premium on top of the bond for the house that I am living so I could have my pets, I don't think it is unreasonable, I see the damage that is caused by pets but I know that as a pet owner who could never ever surrender an animal (I've worked at the RSPCA) and how much I love my babies it's completely worth it. It does make it hard to get a place, very hard, but if you have good rental history and are willing to go the extra mile you can usually find a place. Some people just don't care enough about their pets to find a way around it

[Nic.B]

I do not agree that around 90 % of owned cats are desexed in Aust. The great majority of owned cats in my local shelter are entire, very few are desexed. Feral cats are not sheltered as they can seriously hurt or kill domesticated cats.

I do not believe 70% or so of dogs are desexed either. Once again, the majority of dogs in my local shelter are entire.

Perhaps the undesexed animals entering your facility are the ones that are in undesirable or irresponsible homes to begin with. I would suggest that the 70-something-% who do desex their pets are also the kind that keep their pets safe and secure, and do not surrender their animals at a 'drop of the hat'.

I agree that this is an aspect for sure and you have made a good point.

However, even if you look at the small number of dogs and cats entering this particular pound from one council area (who come from a very high socio economic area and pets are often reunited with their owners) the great majority of dogs and cats remain entire.

90% of owned cats desexed is a huge number along with 70% of dogs. Do you mind me asking where those figures come from and what area? I am really interested.

Great topic by the way

[Nic.B]

I do not agree that around 90 % of owned cats are desexed in Aust. The great majority of owned cats in my local shelter are entire, very few are desexed. Feral cats are not sheltered as they can seriously hurt or kill domesticated cats.

I do not believe 70% or so of dogs are desexed either. Once again, the majority of dogs in my local shelter are entire.

Perhaps the undesexed animals entering your facility are the ones that are in undesirable or irresponsible homes to begin with. I would suggest that the 70-something-% who do desex their pets are also the kind that keep their pets safe and secure, and do not surrender their animals at a 'drop of the hat'.

Exactly. Responsible owners that desex their pets are less likely to dump them at a shelter or in the street to become strays. It is the "don't give a damn" types that get a cheap puppy, don't desex or train it and get rid of it when it becomes a nuisance. Then they go out and get another cute puppy and so the cycle continues. You have to work in a shelter accepting surrenders to believe the attitude of these people. Puppys and kittens are easy to get and just as easy to dump when the novelty runs out. These people are the number one reason so many animals need to be pts in shelters. they tend to put no thought into the type of dog or cat and pick somehting that is unlikley to appeal to to many others when they get sick of it. All puppies and kittens are cute but a lot are not so attractive when they grow up.

Then there are the impulse pet shop or online buys by people who realise they didn't really want to have look after an animal.

When I worked in a shelter about a quarter of the surrenders were sad cases were the owners really could not find suitable housing that allowed pets or the pets had belonged to elderly people and no one was able to take them when the owner passed away or went into car. These are the genuine cases where more needs to be done to help and most of these animals were already desexed.

The other three quarters of the surrenders were from owners that simply didn't care what happened to the animals so long as it was no longer their problem.

I agree the majority of surrenders are by people who simply dont care. These pets mean nothing to their owners.

We have had some beautiful desexed, fully vetworked and well trained dogs surrendered though these are a minority. Simply mind blowing, I will never be able to understand it as long as I live...

[Leema]

Regarding my statistics of '70-something%' of dogs and '93% of owned cats' are desexed, this comes from the Australian Veterinary Association - but which document, I'm having trouble finding. It was used to make claim that mandatory desexing is not useful as voluntary desexing is already so common.

[Nic.B]

Oh poop! I lost my long post.

Wont go through it again other than to say I have found this doc from the G2Z summit in QLD this year re cats.

It does refer to a 90% desex figure, though also discuses reasons why those stats could be off.

Hope it works for you, I am not good with computers!

Alberthsen Corinne and Rand Jacqui What Can 191 000 Cats Te.docx

[Steve]

Why are so many being PTS is something I have opinions on but it would take assumptions for me to have a go at that.

But Pacers have been working with a lot of people who are staring down the barrel of having to surrender their animals for a variety of reasons and Im more knowledgeable on the facts surrounding that.

Lack of money due to unexpected events which have changed their ability to cover food for the dogs as well as the kids.

Lack of the ability to find pet friendly accommodation

Becoming ill , accidents, being incapacitated etc.

Some people will go to extremes to keep them ,others have already done what they feel they could possibly do and others havent as yet tried that hard to find another solution.

Lots of things impact on that - such as whether they have kids to consider or whether its just the owner and the dog. Fact is there is a fair amount of pressure for people to simply give up the dog by a variety of human welfare groups and quite a few animal welfare groups.

Lots of people who are under extreme stress cant see or dont know what their options may be. Most times if you can reach out a hand before they make the big decision you can help them and most times given options and choices they decide to work with you to try to keep them or in some cases to be involved in choosing a new owner and ensuring the dogs are in safe hands rather than a pound. Most times you can help people to accept some temporary help as a bandaid and then work with them to help them to find longer term solutions to ensure they dont hit the brick wall again.

So whilst I agree that there are some irresponsible people who dont care - see them as disposable and dump them etc there are a lot of people making a lot of money and gathering a heap of "Im an angel" type feelings from the system as it is too.

It seems to me there is a difference between those which end up in pounds which are put there deliberately by their owners and those which are not. By helping the owners, providing temporary feed and accomodation for their animals,counselling them to help them to find long term solutions etc we have been able to prevent hundreds from being surrendered by those who felt they had little choice. Our "angels" [ foster carers] dont get to feel that they are saving dogs which have a gun to their heads which have been in the pound but they do know they have saved one from getting there in the first place. We have been able to offer advice on how they can ensure their dogs always stay intheir yard, dont bark and upset the neighbours, training etc all different options and choices with support that most never considered or knew about.

So there needs to be a refocus on what has been because what has been isnt working. As always in the dog world one group who cant imagine themselves being in the place someone else is in makes judgements and assumptions on all manner of things and because they cant see the dumper as a potential person who needs empathy,education, and support they look for various other reasons as to why we have too many dogs in pounds and judge that based on what they know. Clearly some cant be helped but we are showing that a hell of a lot can be and a lot more could be if we had funds to do more.

One of the options for voting maybe should have been because owners dont have access to support and help and education before they get to that point.

[Steve]

I feel the problem is not enough responsible owners for all the animals out there

I do not feel subsidizing irresponsible owners is fair on the rest of society. Whilst there are many benefits of owning a pet, it is a CHOICE.

I have heard stories of people dumping pets in pounds and then going on holidays and coming back for a cuter puppy or kitten on their return. So I don't see how subsidised desexing and no surrender fees will help the majority of people.

I would think most BYB dogs are not bred because owners can't afford desexing. There are plenty of responsible owners who have entire dogs (and cats) and manage to not let them breed, so I don't really think desexing in itself is going to be the answer.

There are too many people who want a cute litter of pups or kittens for the "kids to experience" or to make a quick buck. I think education and possibly some kind of regulation is key to addressing this.

I believe that if those people dumping pets in pounds to go on holiday had the opportunity of taking those pets on holiday with them (I guess I mean dogs mainly) then maybe the problem might be reduced a bit - the same with being able to rent with dogs/cats. Australia is generally a really unfriendly place for owning dogs, perhaps if we were allowed to let our pets participate more in our lives publically (sp? It doesn't look right!) the dumpage rates might not be quite so high?

I read an article a few weeks ago in the Sydney Morning Herald - promoted by the awarding of a dog with the VC (or doggy equivalent) for braveness in the line of duty - but somewhere in the article she quoted figures which showed that here in Australia we PTS around 250,000 cats and dogs each year in pounds/shelters. In England however the figure is 25,000. How does that compute, given the huge difference in human and animal numbers between the two countries? Could it be that there in England a) they don't sell pets in pet shops and b) dogs are allowed in all sorts of public places...?

Just putting it out there - I really have no answer to your questions Leema!

Some people dump animals to go on holidays but around this time of year people who are in financial hardship suffer more and feel they have no option too . A neighbour used to look after animals for people once now its boarding kennels and pet sitters etc - perhaps if we could encourage people to join a buddy system where they looked after each other's animals when each went away that would stop some who dump them to go on holidays? This system worked really well just after the bushfires where people were too frightened to leave their animals at home while they went to work so we had others who didnt live in a high risk area looking after them while they were away from home.

Those peope were repaid by the peopel they had helped by various means including looking out for their animals when they went away. It works. Pacers helps to set these systems up.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Steve

[Nic.B]

I agree 100% Steve that offering help and support prior to surrender is desperatley needed and makes a huge difference for some owners and their pets. Thank god for organisations like Pacers, I have no doubt you witness some incredible success stories on a daily basis.

It works, I have been helping a local family with their dog this week. They are good people and have been trying to find a great home for their sons dog for over two months (son has left the family home).

The elderly couple are moving into a small ret villa. The dog is a good dog, fully vetworked and adored though they had no idea where to start and need some support and guidence.

[Nic.B]

I feel the problem is not enough responsible owners for all the animals out there

I do not feel subsidizing irresponsible owners is fair on the rest of society. Whilst there are many benefits of owning a pet, it is a CHOICE.

I have heard stories of people dumping pets in pounds and then going on holidays and coming back for a cuter puppy or kitten on their return. So I don't see how subsidised desexing and no surrender fees will help the majority of people.

I would think most BYB dogs are not bred because owners can't afford desexing. There are plenty of responsible owners who have entire dogs (and cats) and manage to not let them breed, so I don't really think desexing in itself is going to be the answer.

There are too many people who want a cute litter of pups or kittens for the "kids to experience" or to make a quick buck. I think education and possibly some kind of regulation is key to addressing this.

I believe that if those people dumping pets in pounds to go on holiday had the opportunity of taking those pets on holiday with them (I guess I mean dogs mainly) then maybe the problem might be reduced a bit - the same with being able to rent with dogs/cats. Australia is generally a really unfriendly place for owning dogs, perhaps if we were allowed to let our pets participate more in our lives publically (sp? It doesn't look right!) the dumpage rates might not be quite so high?

I read an article a few weeks ago in the Sydney Morning Herald - promoted by the awarding of a dog with the VC (or doggy equivalent) for braveness in the line of duty - but somewhere in the article she quoted figures which showed that here in Australia we PTS around 250,000 cats and dogs each year in pounds/shelters. In England however the figure is 25,000. How does that compute, given the huge difference in human and animal numbers between the two countries? Could it be that there in England a) they don't sell pets in pet shops and b) dogs are allowed in all sorts of public places...?

Just putting it out there - I really have no answer to your questions Leema!

Some people dump animals to go on holidays but around this time of year people who are in financial hardship suffer more and feel they have no option too . A neighbour used to look after animals for people once now its boarding kennels and pet sitters etc - perhaps if we could encourage people to join a buddy system where they looked after each other's animals when each went away that would stop some who dump them to go on holidays? This system worked really well just after the bushfires where people were too frightened to leave their animals at home while they went to work so we had others who didnt live in a high risk area looking after them while they were away from home.

Those peope were repaid by the peopel they had helped by various means including looking out for their animals when they went away. It works. Pacers helps to set these systems up.

Great idea. A bit like a babysitting club for families!

We mind children in our home for local families and if we need a babysitter the favour is returned with no cost to either family other than a house full of kids, a few grey hairs and some fun!

[Nic.B]

In regard to the article I have posted from the G2Z summit this year.

I can relate to the frustration re desexing/surrender/lost figures as compared to the stats of 90% owned cats desexed.

It is very common for dog and cats owners to claim the dog or cat they are bringing into a pound is lost rather than their own cat or dog. This is probably due to shame upon surrender and also avioding the surrender fee.

Staff in pounds and shelters witness this on a daily basis, though as their prime concern is the welfare of the animal they will always take them into care to avoid pets being further neglected, dumped or let loose somewhere.