Saving Pets

[Steve]

http://www.savingpets.com.au/2011/01/more-...s-in-australia/

More on ‘overbreeding’ of dogs in Australia

A lot of time is spent lamenting the ‘overbreeding’ of dogs in Australia and its implications to shelter and pound intakes. “Irresponsible pet owners access puppies too easily and then abandon them” the theory goes, “if we could restrict the number of puppies bred each year, less would end up in shelters.”

Anyone who reads this blog, know’s I love to put a good sheltering theory to the test. And as it turns out, this one was pretty easy.

Australia has 3,754,000 dogs (source: Contribution of the Pet Care Industry to the Australian Economy 2006). But for ease of our examination today, lets look at just 1,000 dogs and their likelihood of entering a pound.

Less than 5% of dogs ever need the services of a pound or shelter (source: The National People and Pets Survey 2006). So from our model 1,000 dogs 950 of these dogs will not enter a shelter, and 50 dogs will enter a shelter.

From that tiny 5% of dogs entering shelters, 85% of these are entering the shelters as strays (lost pets), or 43 of the 50 dogs.

Just 15% are owner surrenders, or around seven of the dogs. These are our so called ‘irresponsible owners’. (Source: What Happens to Shelter Dogs? An Analysis of Data for 1 Year From Three Australian Shelters (2004))

So, of these seven dogs, what could we be doing to stop them being ‘dumped’ at shelters?

No Kill advocates call a euthanasia rate for untreatably sick or aggressive pets as less than 10%. We’ll call that one dog of the seven.

Leaving us around six dogs entering the shelter.

Let’s give the public the benefit of the doubt and say half of them have genuine reasons for giving up their pets. So we have

Three dogs who were surrendered for genuine reasons

and

Three dogs who were surrendered by ‘irresponsible jerks’.

So in a wrap up – as animal advocates we need to consider that we have low resources, are short of time and really want to be working on programs which show maximum impact. By these calculations, if we work on programs to restrict breeding and pet ownership, for every 1,000 dogs, we’ll be improving outcomes for just three.

What do these figures mean in the real world? Remember our overall figure of 3,754,000 owned dogs in Australia? Approximately 188,000 of these dogs will enter shelters; which *does* seem like a lot. But when you consider the overall percentage of 5%, it really does reflect a pretty responsible community. While just a little over 11,000 dogs (from nearly 4 million!) end up in shelters because of truly ‘irresponsible’ owners.

While there are groups who are working hard to make dog breeding more humane and ethical (and I’m not meaning to pass judgment on their work, as I do believe what they are doing is important), when we look at it purely from a ’shelter intakes’ point of view, our work should focus much, much less on this. In fact, it could and should be prioritised as the following:

• 95% of resources should be invested in initiatives which help dogs and owners live healthily and safe in the community
  Dog training opportunities, dog parks, pet friendly accommodation, pet hotels, dog socialisation opportunities, improving acceptance of dogs in the wider community including cities, cafes and public transport.
  
• From the remaining 5% of resources:
  - The majority of this (around 85%) should be invested on improving shelter and pound collection rates: microchipping, getting photos of pets up on the internet, improving pound opening hours, pets being taken straight home and impound fees waived for ‘first offenders’, and education about pet ownership responsibilities.
  - While a smaller amount (around 15%) should be spent on a combination of helping owners retain their pets, targeting ‘irresponsible owners’ before pet purchase, and reducing risk factors for health and behaviour issues.
  

Which is definitely not how we’re prioritising things, when we focus solely on ‘reducing breeding’ or ‘restricting ownership’ as the solution to pound killing

[Raelene]

Interesting article. Not entirely convinced of their interpretation of an "irresponsible dog owner"

85% of these are entering the shelters as strays (lost pets), or 43 of the 50 dogs.

Just 15% are owner surrenders, or around seven of the dogs. These are our so called ‘irresponsible owners’.

Wouldn't the reasonable number out of the 85% that don't collect their strays which may well be euthanased be "irresponsible owners" too? I would have thought that not keeping your dog safe with secure fencing and then knowingly leaving it in the pound to its fate would indicate an irresponsible owner?

Edited January 16, 2011 by Raelene

[Steve]

Interesting article. Not entirely convinced of their interpretation of an "irresponsible dog owner"

85% of these are entering the shelters as strays (lost pets), or 43 of the 50 dogs.

Just 15% are owner surrenders, or around seven of the dogs. These are our so called 'irresponsible owners'.

Wouldn't the reasonable number out of the 85% that don't collect their strays which may well be euthanased be "irresponsible owners" too? I would have thought that not keeping your dog safe with secure fencing and then knowingly leaving it in the pound to its fate would indicate an irresponsible owner?

Or that you dont know its there or you dont have the money to pay the fines.

[shortstep]

Thanks for sharing this, really valuable to understand!

I also really like that this came from the rescue community.

I could not agree more with the ideas, more efforts spent on reuniting lost pets and preventing them from getting lost, improving community support and acceptance of pets and their owners (yes!!!) and stop waisting time on attempting to limit pet breeders and restricting pet ownership.

Good on them! some very good ideas that would make real change in outcomes!

Edited January 16, 2011 by shortstep

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Link to The National People and Pets Survey 2006 is here http://www.petnet.com.au/sites/default/fil...d_Pets_2006.pdf

[Kissindra]

ok so I am ridiculously tired, am going to need help to understand what they are getting at.

Very much with them that a focus on "overbreeding" and breeder restrictions is not a way to make effective impact on euth rates. - when people focus on this they miss the very real contribution that other issues like shelter management make to the yearly numbers - we have pounds who don't even offer a sale program, pounds who rehome entire dogs, pounds that refuse to work with rescue, facilities that have not increased in size in line with population growth in the area and that have restrictive fines and opening hours ect. ect. ect.

however they seem to be saying that since a small proportion of dogs end up needing help overall then we should not focus majority resources on those animals. And I don't know that I could see any logic in that unless they have a real solid case to make that the pool of resources is large.

By all means advocate for groups to examine the effectivness of their campaigns/ideas and to look more broadly at the issues so that euth rates can be lowered, but don't lets minimise the plight of animals and the worth of devoting resources to help those in need because they are a statistical minority. Any examination of what funds should go where needs to take into account individual populations, how big or small the pool of available funds is, what those funds have to cover (because it wont just be dogs afterall), exhisting resources, upgrade requirements and a host of other things which make it pretty damn hard to simplify ratios if you want to take into account a needs based system.

Also - targeting breeding practises is not solely done in the name of reducing pound numbers, there is a real need to examine large scale breeding practises and the impact of this on animals - I'd like to see a damn sight less emotion and a damn sight more science and stakeholder input involved in these arguments but still, there is a real issue at play. Again, I often disagree with the campaigned for changes, and I think they often miss their mark, but I still find it a worthwhile goal to examine the issue sensibly.

Not entering the pound system is not indicative of always living a fine and happy life. How many hundreds/thousands wont see the inside of a pound because they are locked in a shed somewhere far away from anyone likely to see how they live?

sorry this is all over the shop(sleep is aparently not something I do at the moment) but they also need to clarify who they mean when they talk about distributing resources - is it in reference to council based animal management, animal welfare or rescue groups?

Edited - because I missed the fact that this was a linked article *yay no sleep*

Edited January 21, 2011 by Kissindra

[~Anne~]

Interesting interpretation they have taken of the stats. One thing that stands out for me is the fact that the overwhelmingly majority of dogs are owned and we assume, cared for, by responsible people. Sometimes I htink we can easily forget this fact when you look at how many end up in rescues and shelters across the country.

[Staranais]

Interesting article. Not entirely convinced of their interpretation of an "irresponsible dog owner"

85% of these are entering the shelters as strays (lost pets), or 43 of the 50 dogs.

Just 15% are owner surrenders, or around seven of the dogs. These are our so called ‘irresponsible owners’.

Wouldn't the reasonable number out of the 85% that don't collect their strays which may well be euthanased be "irresponsible owners" too? I would have thought that not keeping your dog safe with secure fencing and then knowingly leaving it in the pound to its fate would indicate an irresponsible owner?

I agree. I'm not sure if people that let their dogs stray or don't collect them from shelters could typically be called "responsible owners".

Of course, there are sad cases where a responsible owner loses their dog despite taking every precaution and then somehow can't find them at the shelter despite looking diligently, but on the whole, I'd put these people with stray dogs in the "irresponsible" basket.

[Inevitablue]

3 out of 1000. I can see your workings in this issue.

I just wonder though how that number might increase if you looked at how many dogs are neglected enough to be seized by council, but 'fly under the radar' due to a lack of resources. 30 out of 1000?, 130 out of 1000? who knows.

Agree though that resources need to be more aimed at a proactive approach to dogs in society in general, rather than a reactive approach.

[bonny_beagle]

Interesting but I can't see how those figures are remotely accurate.

The 2006 survey was only 1000 people and those figures for desexing is not what I see.

As for the tiny % of animals needing the services of a pound, the question posed was in relation to a lost animal, they weren't asked if they dumped any animals at all, so in reference to the total population data that is even less representative because for dumped animals the service provided is often to destroy them.

Sorry am not convinced, in fact it's disturbing to me where this comes from and if reading it anywhere else would have assumed it was pure propaganda from the pet shop industry.

Edited January 22, 2011 by bonny_beagle

[LizT]

Interesting but I can't see how those figures are remotely accurate.

The 2006 survey was only 1000 people and those figures for desexing is not what I see.

As for the tiny % of animals needing the services of a pound, the question posed was in relation to a lost animal, they weren't asked if they dumped any animals at all, so in reference to the total population data that is even less representative because for dumped animals the service provided is often to destroy them.

Sorry am not convinced, in fact it's disturbing to me where this comes from and if reading it anywhere else would have assumed it was pure propaganda from the pet shop industry.

Then there are those that are seized or surrendered directly to a Breed Rescue and fostered. Never steping foot, err sorry paw into a Shelter or Pound. What's the figure on those?

[Kelly_Louise]

Sorry am not convinced, in fact it's disturbing to me where this comes from and if reading it anywhere else would have assumed it was pure propaganda from the pet shop industry.

Totally agree.

[Keira&Phoenix]

Interesting but I can't see how those figures are remotely accurate.

The 2006 survey was only 1000 people and those figures for desexing is not what I see.

As for the tiny % of animals needing the services of a pound, the question posed was in relation to a lost animal, they weren't asked if they dumped any animals at all, so in reference to the total population data that is even less representative because for dumped animals the service provided is often to destroy them.

Sorry am not convinced, in fact it's disturbing to me where this comes from and if reading it anywhere else would have assumed it was pure propaganda from the pet shop industry.

Then there are those that are seized or surrendered directly to a Breed Rescue and fostered. Never steping foot, err sorry paw into a Shelter or Pound. What's the figure on those?

This is a VERY good point Liz. Many dogs go to breed specific rescues, what about the dogs that people don't want to "surrender" the unlucky ones who are murdered by their "loving owners" or the ones who are given back to the breeders.