A no-kill America? Yes, we can -- and so can Australia

I spent all day yesterday in Las Vegas at Maddie's Fund's day-long seminar on no-kill sheltering. There were over 200 people there. The list of speakers included some of the nation's top shelter directors, from all kinds of shelters -- open admission animal control shelters, private shelters that partner with their local animal control agency to find homes for their dogs and cats, and private shelters operating independently in their communities.



While this talented group of animal welfare leaders had a lot of specific advice, most of what they said can be summed up as follows:

• Believe you can do it



• Inspire your staff to believe it, too -- and if you can't, let them go



• Work your ass off



• Try anything



• Eliminate the phrases "We can't because..." or "It won't work because..." from your lexicon

I've felt for a while that this is going to be a sea-change year in the effort to end population control killing in American shelters, and the energy and enthusiasm -- the sheer hunger -- for this change that the more than 200 attendees showed just reinforced that feeling.



So it's ironic that the first news story I read this morning when I dragged my exhausted butt out of bed and was sipping my first cup of coffee was this new story, from Australia's Sydney Morning Herald:

(H)eads are shaking as to whether a no-kill policy could work in Australia. While neutering animals before adoption is now widespread, and in the past 20 years the numbers of unwanted dogs have dropped, the country is still overwhelmed by unwanted cats.



The chief executive of the RSPCA in NSW, Steve Coleman, said the organisation's policy was not to reject any animal, including those which it would be cruel to keep alive.



"Often organisations encourage people to take animals they cannot deal with to the RSPCA," he said. "Our staff have to deal with them on a day-to-day basis. It is one of our biggest challenges to keep our staff objective and balanced when people surrender animals that have become a nuisance to them. But even then, we don't want to see these animals dumped on the side of a road or abandoned somewhere."



But he said the continuing influx of animals meant there was simply no room to accommodate them, and tough decisions would have to be made.



"This no-kill policy just cannot be. I know there have been a number of books written and a number of organisations in the states advocating it.



"We would love to be in the position of no-kill of healthy animals [but] animals keep coming in, and there are not enough homes to go around."

All the same myths, nay-saying, and gloom-mongering: Too many pets, not enough homes. It might work there, but it won't work here. "No-kill" means letting untreatably injured or sick animals live, because if you euthanize them it means you're not no-kill. If we don't kill them, they'll just be warehoused here and we'll have to close our doors to people wanting to surrender their pets, and then their rotten owners will dump them by the side of the road. We have problems those other places don't have. It can't happen here, we can't do it, and not only that, but it can't be done.



It exhausts me just to type that. It must be incredibly demoralizing to live with it inside your head.



Mr. Coleman, take heart. Every single community in America that has ended population control killing started out thinking and feeling exactly as you do.



And every community that rejected the inevitability of killing animals to control their numbers did so pretty much the same way: by deciding to do it, by making allies of their communities instead of enemies, by implementing a set of programs that targeted the source of unwanted pets in their communities -- feral cats, unplanned litters, etc. -- such as trap/neuter/release or low cost accessible spay/neuter, and then a companion set of programs that increase adoptions: satellite adoptions, advertising and marketing, convenient shelter hours, good customer service.



I not only believe American can and will do this, but that it already is. And if Australia wants to do this, it can. But not if its leaders start out with the assumption that it's not possible.



(Note: I was covering the seminar for an article I'll be writing for Maddie's Fund, for whom I've been doing some editorial consulting recently.)

Comments

[Christie Keith]

Kate, I think everyone agrees it will take work. And it's not something you just do and then you're done, either. It's ongoing work.



But I agree with you that it's worth the effort. :)

[Kate]

The world is in a state of chaos and people are to worried about their own basic survival right now. It certainly doesn't help anyone when the "experts" suggest a no kill policy isn't worth the effort, won't work, or will cost to much.



There's been progress but let's not delude ourselves it's going to take time, determination, and effort for the cause to flourish.

[Christie Keith]

I’m constantly told by the head of Animal Services here in Miami-Dade County that our area is “different.” That we don’t have the cultural outlook other areas enjoy to make a change towards no-kill.



What's ironic is that EVERYONE says "It won't work here" at first. Then they do it.



And then someone else says, well, it worked there but it won't work here!



Until it does.

[Rosemary]

We just have to keep on hammering home that "no-kill" doesn't mean keeping suffering animals alive when they ought to be euthanised but is about normal, adoptable animals and there's no reason why we should think it's necessary to kill them to control population.

[Dr. Patty Khuly]

I'm constantly told by the head of Animal Services here in Miami-Dade County that our area is "different." That we don't have the cultural outlook other areas enjoy to make a change towards no-kill.



In some ways I believe this dedicated veterinarian. I know she wants what I do. The difference is that I have faith that it can be done. She doesn't.



We just voted for a $600 MM ballpark. Imagine the good that could do for the public life of a city that loves its dogs as much as any does. What it takes is commitment--and faith, of course.

[Sue Cosby]

I don't believe that anyone has ever achieved greatness by beginning with the belief that it couldn't be done.

[mary]

I heard on PBS there will be a series by Jacques Cousteau's son - sorry can't remember his name - anyway he said when we protect the oceans we protect ourselves - I believe when we protect animals we are also protecting ourselves - we are expanding our capacity of compassion -

[Christie Keith]

Yes, the subject of getting more pet-friendly housing was addressed several times, not notably by Betsy Saul of Petfinder.com.



I proposed not long ago, half seriously and half joking, that instead of working so freaking hard on legally mandating sterilization of people's pets, they instead started mandating that landlords and HOAs could no longer ban pets.



THAT would empty the shelters, and reduce intake, faster and to a greater degree than forcing the small percentage of people in this country who still have intact animals to alter them.



Of course, laws to force me to alter my pets against my will and without regard for my ownership of them, or my wishes about my own animals, or the fact that they are living creatures who could potentially be harmed by this forced surgery don't seem to bother anyone half as much as the idea of telling a landlord or HOA what they can do with their property.



And yet -- soiled carpet can be replaced. Chewed up doorjambs, the same.



This country has its head up its butt about this issue.

[Lis]

I proposed not long ago, half seriously and half joking, that instead of working so freaking hard on legally mandating sterilization of people’s pets, they instead started mandating that landlords and HOAs could no longer ban pets



To get anything other than cats and small dogs into housing that way, you also have to mandate a change to insurance company policies. Speaking as a landlord who IS a responsible dog owner, and whose insurance company is graciously indifferent to the presence of dogs weighing twenty pounds or less.



Had a lovely prospective tenant last year, who would have had her daughter's lovely, sweet, well-behaved Siberian husky three days out of seven. I wanted so bad to rent to her...

[JenniferJ]

Our rescue will help people keep dogs. Including foster care when there is space and food or arranging some vet care. But a lot of people on the bubble are scared. No, actually they are terrified of the next one, two, six twelve months. Some will accept help. Others are truly at a point where they will lessen the weight of responsibility anyway they can. At that stage, seeking out a rescue or at least bringing the animal to a shelter is sure better than a trip to nowhere and outta the car or left in an abandoned home.



If folks have already reached that saturation point, they won't keep the dog. If we can get the to ask for help and have them see that there are options other than giving up their pet before they hit that stage, it would make a great difference I think.

[Dorene]

I was listening to "All Things Considered" on NPR yesterday as I was potting up my seedlings. They had a heart-rending story about a construction worker who had two dogs (both around 7?) that he had raised from pups. He had to give up his dogs because he lost his job, and thus his house and he couldn't find anywhere that would take both him and his dogs.



This "foreclosure pet upswell" has got to end. Why are we re-homing the dogs of a responsible dog owner? How can we change the laws (dog has to get a Canine Good Citizen certificate or something, cats should just be allowed) so that responsible pet owners CAN TAKE THEIR PETS WITH THEM?



How do we encourage not only responsible pet ownership, but LANDLORDS that reward responsible pet ownership, whether that be government transitional housing OR private landlords?



Christie -- did anyone at the conference talk about how we encourage landlords to allow pet ownership?



As long as we're changing the world, let's change the rental landscape so that responsible people can keep their pets.

[PeonInChief]

Historically, landlords prohibited pets because pets often came with children but, since it's illegal to discriminate against children, prohibiting pets would keep the kids out. As this has become less true--many people have pets because they don't have children (the furbaby phenomenon)--more landlords accept pets. But landlords frequently use pet prohibitions to discriminate for other prohibited reasons (race, for instance) by permitting white tenants to bring pets while prohibiting African American households from having pets--thus sending the undesired tenants searching elsewhere for housing.



Unfortunately it's unadulterated cowardice on the part of the HSUS and local SPCA groups. They don't want to confront landlords who have political/economic power, so they put the burden on the powerless.