Greyt Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Until we get true stats which tell us exactly why dogs are put down so we know which ones have incurable illnesses or temperament issues etc and until we have true figures on where they come from ,who dumps them and why etc its all just grabbing at straws . Figures are manipulated and few players are capable of being objective. We can't wait for objective stats... they will probably never come anyway but kill rates in the 40%+ bracket are just not acceptable and we shouldn't tolerate them, nor is killing 40% plus dogs that come into pounds that major pounds and shelters claim are not rehomable due to health or temperament issues.... the assessments that major pounds and shelters make in this country is needlessly killing tens of thousands of dogs every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Yep. Some of those advocating for pounds and shelters to work more closely with small rescue groups need to stand back and accept that they are responsible for pounds and shelters being reluctant to work with them. Many high profile pounds and shelters do not have a set of processes (application forms, criteria,process, follow up) in place , even in late 2012 when there are mountains of anecdotal evidence to suggest this is best practice., costs little, extends the time available for the dog to be re-homed and can save on vets bills. Pounds and shelters, if they were managed effectively, would have these things in place so that rescues could assist them to save more dogs. They would offer among other things, education, support, assistance with marketing, policies and procedures, selecting and dealing with foster carers etc In the meantime kill rates in the high 40 percentiles still occur. Yes agreed but each state is different and most of these things are legislated in Victoria. Some of the high profile pounds being named did let small rescue in and they were trying to work with them and they ended up in all kinds of bad PR when the people they let in began critising them. In Victoria there are very strict laws about what dogs can and cannot be offered for rehoming and if these stats are going to be included they need to be broken down in case its the stupid laws and not stupid policy thats a bigger problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leema Posted September 25, 2012 Author Share Posted September 25, 2012 (edited) Edited September 25, 2012 by Leema Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greyt Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I don't think pounds are totally to blame but they are making millions pretending their goal is to regime when it's not Pounds cost most rate payers money. They're not generating funds for their councils. RSPCA NSW made an operating surplus of $12 Million plus in 2010/11... see their annual report for details Here is a LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Yes but how much of that was profit from dumped animals and not donations etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckandsteve Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Yes but how much of that was profit from dumped animals and not donations etc. The point most of that money was given by people under the belief it would be used to save lives and they aren't doing it Look at Save A Dog they save almost all their dogs, and I don't believe they just luck out and get all amazing dogs while 55% of the lost dogs home were aggressive/so ill vet treatment wouldn't help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greyt Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Yep. Some of those advocating for pounds and shelters to work more closely with small rescue groups need to stand back and accept that they are responsible for pounds and shelters being reluctant to work with them. Many high profile pounds and shelters do not have a set of processes (application forms, criteria,process, follow up) in place , even in late 2012 when there are mountains of anecdotal evidence to suggest this is best practice., costs little, extends the time available for the dog to be re-homed and can save on vets bills. Pounds and shelters, if they were managed effectively, would have these things in place so that rescues could assist them to save more dogs. They would offer among other things, education, support, assistance with marketing, policies and procedures, selecting and dealing with foster carers etc In the meantime kill rates in the high 40 percentiles still occur. Yes agreed but each state is different and most of these things are legislated in Victoria. Some of the high profile pounds being named did let small rescue in and they were trying to work with them and they ended up in all kinds of bad PR when the people they let in began critising them. In Victoria there are very strict laws about what dogs can and cannot be offered for rehoming and if these stats are going to be included they need to be broken down in case its the stupid laws and not stupid policy thats a bigger problem. I could easily see how the PR nightmare might happen. Sometimes, however it is deserved and effective managers could even use BAD PR to make GOOD changes. More than likely though, they probably turn inward and ban future partnerships with rescues rather than work in a way that will both create future positive PR opportunities (= more goodwill and future $) as well as SAVE more dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_ Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 My not-particularly-well-thought-out comments on this: The reason for high kill rates is complex - there isn't just one cause. Sure, pounds and shelters should work harder to rehabilitate and rehome dogs. To think that no kill = problem solved seems very naive to me. Complex problems need complex solutions. US stats don't apply here. Even if we applied them here, stats only tell us a limited story - lots of people want dogs (duh!), it doesn't mean that lots of people should have dogs. I own a reactive dog so I see another side of dog ownership - most people I meet have no idea about dog body language etc and I honestly have a very low opinion of most dog owners these days. I have a vest for her that says "PLEASE GIVE ME SPACE" yet I still have people trying to let their dog say hi! They make life very hard for my girl to just go on walk in an on leash area. So I don't really care what demand figures say - the demand is too high. We live in a different world from the one that most of us grew up in - people are working more, doing more and often don't have time for pets. I read a survey not so long ago that showed that over 50% of dogs are never walked. Ever. That is no life for a dog. At training I see a lot of dogs that have been rehomed when they're not ready for it. They're not dangerous dogs necessarily, just dogs with no manners and waaaaay to strong for their owners. I feel so sorry for the owners because they have a dog that they can't control. Even if they aren't dangerous I can see years of heartache in front them. This is the major reason that I hate, hate going to most obedience classes. I know so many people who bought a dog for their kid and now it is locked in the backyard, or rehomed, then they get another dog ("this one is better for our family"), cycle continues... These are educated people too. I'd like to see the demand for dogs steadily decline (ala some of the Scandinavian nations). I'd like people to really assess whether they can take on a dog and commit to it for the next 10 - 15 years. I'd like them to think about their housing situations, plans for the future, career, kids etc. I'd like to see people save for a pet and wait for stability before buying one. I'd like people to consider what they can offer a dog, not just what a dog can offer them. There needs to be a cultural shift away from getting a dog for the kids/because I grew up with one/because I love dogs. That would save lives. Shoving them into a home - any home - won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancinbcs Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I don't think pounds are totally to blame but they are making millions pretending their goal is to regime when it's not Pounds cost most rate payers money. They're not generating funds for their councils. RSPCA NSW made an operating surplus of $12 Million plus in 2010/11... see their annual report for details Here is a LINK But the RSPCA isn't a pound and mainly gets it's profits from donations. They take surrenders and cruelty cases, not strays. Strays go to council funded pounds and in NSW about 80% of stray dogs are returned to their owners due to their microchips. NSW pounds also have plenty of dogs up for adoption if you want a Staffy/Amstaff/Pit type or a Sibe/Mal type plus a few other options. So there is a big oversupply of breeds not many want and a shortage of breeds that people do want. Owner surrenders of unsocialised and untrained dogs make up a big part of those euthanised and why should people feel they have to fix a problem someone else created. Cats are a whole different matter entirely and sheer numbers all being born within the few months of kitten season means there is an enormous oversupply. The large shelter I used to work for who took all surrenders or wild cats, pts approx 50 kittens a day during kitten season compared to 3 or 4 adult cats and/or dogs per day and maybe a litter of puppies per week. They had approx 30 adult dogs, 40 cats, 40 kittens and a litter or two of puppies available at a time for adoption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_ Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 The stats also assume that a dog is a dog is a dog. Part of the problem I suspect is that the dogs that people are looking for don't often end up in pounds. Australian pounds are overflowing with high-energy, high prey drive breeds - these don't suit a lot of homes. It doesn't matter if 1 million people are looking for a low-drive, laid back, small to medium dog if there aren't a lot available in pounds/shelters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisovar Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 The majority of dogs that end up Euthed at our regional Pound are not strays they are surrenders. The ones Euthed are generally the ones not suitable for rescue or that there simply is no room in rescue for. The ones that rescue take often fail too and bounce back. It certainly is not the regional Councils fault that these dogs are there, they were put there by owners who would not or could not commit to giving these animals a forever home. I fail to see how making the Pound out to be the bad guys helps with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Yes but how much of that was profit from dumped animals and not donations etc. The point most of that money was given by people under the belief it would be used to save lives and they aren't doing it Look at Save A Dog they save almost all their dogs, and I don't believe they just luck out and get all amazing dogs while 55% of the lost dogs home were aggressive/so ill vet treatment wouldn't help Yes but not all shelters get to choose what dogs they take. Its easy for someone who only takes in small white fluffies which they temp test before they bring in to state they are no kill - huge difference to a pound that gets in dogs which they get no choice on. You cant seriously believe that all dogs should be or could be saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_ Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 While I don't like LDH, it is a pound so it doesn't get to choose what dogs it takes. It is really "easy" to be a no kill shelter when you can pick your dogs. When you're a pound it is a different story. The terms pound and shelter often get used interchangeably but they are totally different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Yep. Some of those advocating for pounds and shelters to work more closely with small rescue groups need to stand back and accept that they are responsible for pounds and shelters being reluctant to work with them. Many high profile pounds and shelters do not have a set of processes (application forms, criteria,process, follow up) in place , even in late 2012 when there are mountains of anecdotal evidence to suggest this is best practice., costs little, extends the time available for the dog to be re-homed and can save on vets bills. Pounds and shelters, if they were managed effectively, would have these things in place so that rescues could assist them to save more dogs. They would offer among other things, education, support, assistance with marketing, policies and procedures, selecting and dealing with foster carers etc In the meantime kill rates in the high 40 percentiles still occur. Yes agreed but each state is different and most of these things are legislated in Victoria. Some of the high profile pounds being named did let small rescue in and they were trying to work with them and they ended up in all kinds of bad PR when the people they let in began critising them. In Victoria there are very strict laws about what dogs can and cannot be offered for rehoming and if these stats are going to be included they need to be broken down in case its the stupid laws and not stupid policy thats a bigger problem. I could easily see how the PR nightmare might happen. Sometimes, however it is deserved and effective managers could even use BAD PR to make GOOD changes. More than likely though, they probably turn inward and ban future partnerships with rescues rather than work in a way that will both create future positive PR opportunities (= more goodwill and future $) as well as SAVE more dogs. Deserved or not most businesses - most people would shut shop if they were belted when they opened it. Im not saying they were wrong Im saying they have to see what part they played and nothing has changed . If they let the same ones in again they will find something to go public about and therefore impact on their donations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckandsteve Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 The other thing to consider is how difficult it is to get your dog back. One of my fosters got out the first day at her new home (long story how she got out) it took me 5 days and $650 dollars to get her out of the LDH. The reason they didnt want to release her..... She stared back at them when they looked her in the eyes!! It was $200 and something impound fee $200 and something dog at large and some other fine. Mainly because they found it annoying I went down there everyday to see if they had sorted out the paperwork yet. As apparently they have a dog attack a human every 2 hrs down there, so they don't have the time to release dogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 The other thing to consider is how difficult it is to get your dog back. One of my fosters got out the first day at her new home (long story how she got out) it took me 5 days and $650 dollars to get her out of the LDH. The reason they didnt want to release her..... She stared back at them when they looked her in the eyes!! It was $200 and something impound fee $200 and something dog at large and some other fine. Mainly because they found it annoying I went down there everyday to see if they had sorted out the paperwork yet. As apparently they have a dog attack a human every 2 hrs down there, so they don't have the time to release dogs the fines are set by the state government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisovar Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 While I don't like LDH, it is a pound so it doesn't get to choose what dogs it takes. It is really "easy" to be a no kill shelter when you can pick your dogs. When you're a pound it is a different story. The terms pound and shelter often get used interchangeably but they are totally different things. This! There is a huge difference which seems to escape many people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckandsteve Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Yes but how much of that was profit from dumped animals and not donations etc. The point most of that money was given by people under the belief it would be used to save lives and they aren't doing it Look at Save A Dog they save almost all their dogs, and I don't believe they just luck out and get all amazing dogs while 55% of the lost dogs home were aggressive/so ill vet treatment wouldn't help Yes but not all shelters get to choose what dogs they take. Its easy for someone who only takes in small white fluffies which they temp test before they bring in to state they are no kill - huge difference to a pound that gets in dogs which they get no choice on. You cant seriously believe that all dogs should be or could be saved. Save a dog is a pound. Councils themselves use neighboring councils to compare performance So I don't see why you consider this an unfair comparison If you look at Knox council DAMP the year they changed to RSPCA the kill percent lept right up from when they used a small pound facility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckandsteve Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 The other thing to consider is how difficult it is to get your dog back. One of my fosters got out the first day at her new home (long story how she got out) it took me 5 days and $650 dollars to get her out of the LDH. The reason they didnt want to release her..... She stared back at them when they looked her in the eyes!! It was $200 and something impound fee $200 and something dog at large and some other fine. Mainly because they found it annoying I went down there everyday to see if they had sorted out the paperwork yet. As apparently they have a dog attack a human every 2 hrs down there, so they don't have the time to release dogs the fines are set by the state government. Well each local council does, sorry I confused 2 trains of thought, it was more 5 days for a microchipped desexed vacced registered dog to be released, can't tell you how much work I missed to get this dog out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Arcane Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 (edited) Shel from PetRescue posted this on FB today. I thought it was fitting: **** Things that kill pound pets **** - a lack of positive marketing of individual pets - an inconvenient location, or opening hours - refusing to release pets to community rescue groups - a lack of rehabilitation programs for common behaviour and health issues - failures to reunited lost pets and owners (including lost pet photos on the internet and the use of volunteer pet detectives) - poor disease control procedures - a poorly run, or no adoption program whatsoever - no veterinary and training programs which help needy owners keep their pets. - breed generalisations, including bans on ‘pit bull type’ dogs - laws which require community cats be impounded - arbitrary laws which see pets seized from their families; mandatory desexing laws, pet limit laws, breed bans - an ‘open door’ policy for community cats (rather than aggressive desexing programs) - a lack of placement opportunities for untame cats (ie. barn cat adoptions) - unnecessarily laborious adoption processes - a lack of on-site adoptions & adoption events - no foster care program, especially for unweaned kittens - multiple tender ’super pounds’ collecting more animals than they can reasonably home - poor shelter and shelter management and a lack of compassion by staff - pound management choosing to support a culture of killing Before all that, the primary thing that 'kills pound pets' is that they end up there in the first place. Why so many dogs and cats are being killed in pounds isn't the same question as why do so many cats and dogs end up in pounds. We need to look at why they end up there first. Edited September 25, 2012 by Arcane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now