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

[Dame Aussie]

Very true megan, so many people lie as they know they're doing the wrong thing.

[mita]

mita - how are they determining the reasons that dogs are dumped though? In my very limited experience, people often lie about why they are getting rid of their dog to ease guilt/get more social acceptance. People rarely say "I was in no position to get a dog but got one anyway, it was an impulse buy etc". I often wonder how there are any people even left in Vic given the number of people who are "moving interstate and can't take the dog".

I didn't say that a mis-match between owner expectation and the reality was the only reason for dogs being dumped. I said it was 'one' reason already teased out.....given by a significant number of owners themselves that they hadn't expected specific issues would arise.

If you read the link I gave to the article about their research interest.....you'll see that Professor Rand says there's many reasons why dogs (& cats ) are dumped. And that they will continue to tease out both the human and animal factors involved (& the contexts in which they occur), using research protocols.

What they have already, can lead to reducing some risk. given it's now known that what the person expects of a new pet at point of sale or adoption.....needs to be subjected to a reality test. And also that the socialisation of puppies (& mother dogs) is critical for the development of behaviours that will better help dogs fit into humans' lifestyle.

Edited December 1, 2011 by mita

[Leema]

Thanks for the link, mita.

On a different note, I found this blog post today of someone's experience at a shelter:

http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/one-visitors-experience-at-the-new-mas/

It makes you think: Rescues and shelters really need better customer service skills, too, to make it easier for people to adopt dogs.

[~Anne~]

Thanks for the link, mita.

On a different note, I found this blog post today of someone's experience at a shelter:

http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/one-visitors-experience-at-the-new-mas/

It makes you think: Rescues and shelters really need better customer service skills, too, to make it easier for people to adopt dogs.

It's American, although I do concede that similar scenes would play out here. I think people overall need to learn customer service skills if they deal with 'customers' of any type. The world is lacking in customer service skills in this day and age.

[tdierikx]

Sounds like there may be a whole other side to that woman's story than what she wrote in that blog post... it seems that the staff at that particular shelter knew her through her rescuing exploits (read the last part where it mentions it)...

As we all know, there are some involved in rescue who really should not be allowed to represent rescue at all - pound/shelter staff from all over can tell some very interesting stories about encounters with certain types of rescue people. It's a given that most people in rescue are pretty dedicated to the cause - but that doesn't give any of us the right to treat pound staff badly when we don't get our own way. I don't know many people working in pounds that enjoy certain aspects of the job - that most of us don't have to deal with on a regular basis... as they do. Personally, I'd rather clean up a filthy kennel with my bare hands, than have to assist on "kill days"... and I'm pretty sure that the pound staff I deal with regularly through rescuing feel the same...

I'll say again - the pounds (and their staff) that actively work WITH rescue to avoid high kill rates, are my heroes... they are DOING something to make a difference, not just discussing it, or tut-tutting about the problem from a computer chair.

T.

[DAVERI]

New cat laws in logan qld will require all cats to be registered and wearing their rego tag, all cats to be desexed and be kept indoor or in a cat run. fines of $200 per offence will apply. also a max of 2 cats per house.

Im yet to hear new dog laws but i assume they will be much the same only insted of being in a run they will need to be in a fenced yard.

[Steve]

New cat laws in logan qld will require all cats to be registered and wearing their rego tag, all cats to be desexed and be kept indoor or in a cat run. fines of $200 per offence will apply. also a max of 2 cats per house.

Im yet to hear new dog laws but i assume they will be much the same only insted of being in a run they will need to be in a fenced yard.

Cats have had to be kept in and microchipped in NSW for 15 years - no one has policed it and its difficult to see its made a scrap of difference .

Around here feral cats a re a big issue - they are killing machines as they hunt in colonies. The idea someone would want one as a pet or desex and allow it to live here still is not my ideal. I see little difference in that and having a pack of wild dogs living on my property.

[ncarter]

I think that tenants should have to pay a much higher bond if they have animals or children, 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.

What has the original post got to do with children? You have obviously never been a struggling single parent. What do you think all children chew up the door frames and dig up the garden? Yes let's making housing less affordable for families :rolleyes:

[DAVERI]

New cat laws in logan qld will require all cats to be registered and wearing their rego tag, all cats to be desexed and be kept indoor or in a cat run. fines of $200 per offence will apply. also a max of 2 cats per house.

Im yet to hear new dog laws but i assume they will be much the same only insted of being in a run they will need to be in a fenced yard.

Cats have had to be kept in and microchipped in NSW for 15 years - no one has policed it and its difficult to see its made a scrap of difference .

Around here feral cats a re a big issue - they are killing machines as they hunt in colonies. The idea someone would want one as a pet or desex and allow it to live here still is not my ideal. I see little difference in that and having a pack of wild dogs living on my property.

here in both ipswich and logan properties are stop checked. my animals are registered but in the 4 years ive lived in the area i've been checked at lease 3 times that i know of by rangers searching every property in the area. some still get away with it but with new rangers just being employed its only a matter of time. I do own two cats both older, and take steps to stop my beloved pets hurting or killing other animals. both desexed, wear bells and rego tags, are kept inside when im not home and rearly go outside anyway and if they do they never stay of my property. I live on acreage and have never had any of my cats kill a bird etc. but i have seen cats in my area without collars roaming from property to proptery. no every cat owner or pet owner for that keeps a close eye on their pets as i do but.

[DAVERI]

I think that tenants should have to pay a much higher bond if they have animals or children, 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.

I missed this post. honestly seems a little two faced. one part of the post tenants should pay more rent and bond next it should be illegal to discriminate and land landlords should find alternate investment Do tenants no have the right to live just as a home owner. I personally see no reason to refuse a tenant accommodation because they have a pet or children or charge them high bond or rent. As long as the tenant keeps the property clean and tidy and the all pets are within the local laws, the pets are being looked after and no damage is being done. I'd also like to point out that its not just tenants with children and pets damage property or don't take care of them, loads of property owners have their pets and children taken away!

[Greytmate]

I think that tenants should have to pay a much higher bond if they have animals or children, 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.

What has the original post got to do with children? You have obviously never been a struggling single parent. What do you think all children chew up the door frames and dig up the garden? Yes let's making housing less affordable for families :rolleyes:

Animal owners are discriminated against by many landlords. I used children as an example of something it is illegal for landlords to discriminate against, because I believe this type of discrimination against pet owners is a major contributing factor in the over-population of cats and dogs.

The more people in a house or animals in a house, the more wear and tear. I am not talking about the extra damage that untrained dogs and feral children might do. Never been a struggling single parent, but have been a landlord who does not discriminate about children or pets. We have had to repair more property damage done by children than pets.

[MalteseLuna]

Animal owners are discriminated against by many landlords. I used children as an example of something it is illegal for landlords to discriminate against, because I believe this type of discrimination against pet owners is a major contributing factor in the over-population of cats and dogs.

The more people in a house or animals in a house, the more wear and tear. I am not talking about the extra damage that untrained dogs and feral children might do. Never been a struggling single parent, but have been a landlord who does not discriminate about children or pets. We have had to repair more property damage done by children than pets.

Asking for extra rent or bond/deposit is discrimination. It's passing the judgement that because of X (pets or children) the tenant will cause more damage or be more work etc etc. Isn't the purpose of the bond there for the event of the tenant leaving without repairing damage (besides normal wear & tear).

I get frustrated when renting a house, the landlord I have does NO maintenance on the house, the screens are rusty and damaged and falling apart, the gutters are sagging/rusty/leaking, the wiring is horrible, the plumbing is falling apart and the kitchen is . We were lied to about the state of the garage (i.e. it having power), it has a mould problem which was obviously painted over etc etc etc. Yet they didn't want me to live there with a small 2.5 kg dog (that doesn't shed...much). The real estate agent "apparently" talked them into allowing me have a dog... but really we were the only potential tenants interested or we would have been passed over.

So many times whilst looking at rentals I was told that 1 dog was okay (though not ideal...they would prefer no pets), 2 dogs or 1 dog and 1 cat was asking for too much and I should think about giving up one of the animals.

Sadly I know of families that rent who have had to surrender their pets (knowing they will be put down) because they are unable to find a home that allows them to keep pets. They had little options and tried to find friends/family/rescues who would take the dogs on but due to the age and personality of said dogs nobody was willing/able.

[Dame Aussie]

It is a huge issue at the moment, one only has to do a pet friendly search on all of Victoria on realestate.com and come up with less than 20 properties, to see that.

I agree that landlords should not be able to discriminate against children or pets, and also agree that the state of a lot of the houses these landlords dont want pets in is substandard at best, I know, I've lived in them.

A lot of people surrendering their pets are having to do so because of this and it would be a shame to just say that unless you own your home you cannot have a pet.

On another note, regarding the blog that was posted earlier, I can totally understand that as when I was working in the industry there were certain people who would really hound the staff about things that were out of their control, euth rates, whether or not dogs passed assessments etc. Do people really think the staff wouldn't change things if they weren't being dictated to by management?

So, yes, maybe customer service isn't the best in these places, but keep in mind that they have to deal with the dregs of society on a daily basis, and after a while, as with any job like this, patience gets worn down, especially when it involves serial pests, and by that I do not mean people involved in legitimate rescue. I mean crazies who say they are.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Aussie3

[Greytmate]

I do not discriminate against children or pets, but the main reason that landlords do is that they perceive that they will cause extra damage. By paying extra rent it reduces the financial disincentive to discriminate. While it is illegal to discriminate against families with children, there is nothing at the moment to deter landlords from doing so quietly.

Pets not being allowed in rental properties is a major reason stated for why people surrender pets. This is upsetting, because most of these pets can assumed to be wanted or even loved.

[jacqui835]

I do not discriminate against children or pets, but the main reason that landlords do is that they perceive that they will cause extra damage. By paying extra rent it reduces the financial disincentive to discriminate. While it is illegal to discriminate against families with children, there is nothing at the moment to deter landlords from doing so quietly.

Pets not being allowed in rental properties is a major reason stated for why people surrender pets. This is upsetting, because most of these pets can assumed to be wanted or even loved.

It is terrible but true. I struggled for ages to find somewhere that would let me have my dog in Sydney and in the end it came down to a house that no-one really wanted, quite expensive though ($580/wk) and it was me vs a family with 2 young children. The owner decided the dog would cause less damage than the children (the agent was very frank and my dog had references) and so I got the place.

The houses in my area without pets were all $100 less per week. I knew I was paying the extra money to keep Sammy and not everyone would be in a position to be able to afford that. I would never have given up Sammy, but to the person who posted that a lot of people give their pets up when circumstances change and don't have to, I slept a few nights in my car to avoid having to give up my dog, not to mention how dependent I was on the generosity of friends breaking their own rental rules and letting me stay in apartments where dogs weren't allowed. Not because I didn't have the job and the money to be able to afford rent or excellent references, but because I just couldn't find anywhere that would accept dogs and I was homeless very suddenly. How many people realistically could do that?

[aussielover]

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.

[Nic.B]

The problem of unwanted animals in pounds and shelters is multi-pronged IMO.

It is certainly no coincidence that the number of unwanted dogs and cats rises significantly during christmas and the new year, easter, school holidays and long weekends.

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.

I do believe TNR would be a step in the right direction for feral cats or community cats.

There appears to be a huge difference in socio economic areas directly relating to the number of animals impounded and the number of animals reunited with their owners.

Unplanned/unwanted litters are an issue, along with those who breed/sell irresponsibly and home poorly.

Training is definitely an issue. Many large breed dogs are surrendered between 6 months of age and 18 months, often they have no basic training, though do incredibly well with it when given the chance and are very responsive.

Elderly people often break my heart as they go into full time care. Many try to do the right thing to rehome their pet, though the new owners may change their mind or worse, the family lies to the elderly person and surrenders the dog to the pound without them knowing.

Rentals is definitely an issue. I would hate to be looking for a decent, pet friendly rental with my bunch.

Pounds and shelters are low on resources and have tight budgets in regard to running costs, staffing etc. The staff and volunteers at my shelter often give their own time and money to meet the animal’s needs. Our local council exceeds the minimum standard required which is great, though there is still a long way to go. We rely heavily on donations which pays for flea treatments, wormers, shampoos, medical needs etc which are vital.

The work and effort that goes into finding dogs and cats homes or rescue is extraordinary on a daily basis and it never ever ends. You get one bunch out and then you are straight onto the next lot who are falling due.

Mass education is needed. Even the simple things like "plan for your pet at the same time you are planning your holiday"

I honestly believe there needs to be a public equiry to identify and address the issues.

[Dame Aussie]

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.

[Purdie]

I also think education is urgently needed ,My daughter is a teacher,and she recently asked her class "How do you take care of a dog'',What Things do they need ?

The class was silent.Most of them had never had a pet and many had never patted a dog or cat.These kids go on excursions to the aquarium and study about dinosaures yet they know little about animals that are kept as pets in the community.

[toshman]

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!