Charities & Causes

Animal Welfare, R.S.P.C.A. and other Dogs Homes Management/ Funding Problems

Charities & Causes

Posted by: simla

21st Dec 2012 11:47am

Recent headlines in the news in Tasmania highlights the age-old problem of dogs homes. What methods would work best to limit the numbers of animals needing to be re-homed? A Commonwealth Forum for ideas / input from the various sectors is needed, to set new and innovative ideas to tackle the problem. Present methods don't appear to work, and banning breeders is not appropriate or acceptable in a free society. Educating them is in every ones interests. Councils could change their present code of regulations to allow breeders to accept back (till re-homed) any dog / cat that was bred by them, without penalizing the breeder by revoking their licence for having 'extra' dogs. The initial licence could have this as a 'duty of care' provision and it be made compulsory. This would/ should have the effect of making the breeder aware of their responsibility in regard to 'mass producing' untold numbers of animals. Also a mandatory course in Animal Husbandry and Genetics would be needed to help stop the perpetuation of genetic faults. There ,unfortunately will always be need for emergency housing of unfortunate animals as owners die, become ill or move unexpectedly. What other ideas do you think would help?

Comments 22

jjdrer
  • 1st Jun 2022 06:56pm

I'm not sure about the RSPCA but I know the Animal Welfare League actually desex all animals before they are allowed to go to new homes. It is included in what they charge people to purchase a cat or dog. The reason vet bills are so high is because none of the medications are as cheap as human ones are. There is no subsidy for pet medications at all, including what is used when a pet is desexed or vaccinated. Some of the councils don't actually have pounds. They take them to a shelter. The owner has to pay a fee to cover the pet's food etc. It is excellent that dogs and cats can be microchipped. The Animal Welfare League in Adelaide also boards animals if the owners have to leave them for any reason,

jjdrer
  • 4th Jun 2021 11:50am

Make it compulsory that All breeders must registered. Apart from Official Breeders every dog and cat should be neutered. Interbreeding also causes illnesses in many cases. Under many council regulations the maximum number of dogs on a property is 2. People need high fencing to make sure their dog / cat cannot escape.
If you have gates - even high ones lock them from the inside. I personally know a family whose dogs were let out then their owners weren't home. The gates had timber and bricks behind them (on top of solid concrete) so the dogs couldn't escape. The gates opened outwards. A lock on the outside can be broken, even hard can be broken with a sledge hammer. Unfortunately the neighbours didn't take any notice as there was houses being built on adjoining blocks of land using noisy equipment. The council caught the dogs. It resulted in an expensive court case as well as fines and pound fees (fortunately that included their food) to get their dogs back. One consolation was the dogs weren't injured.

Redbecca
  • 8th Sep 2014 04:27pm

In Canada you have to have a licence to own a dog and that costs about a thousand dollars per dog. That limits both the breeders and people not serious about owning dogs. The money is then spent on education people about animal welfare etc. I guess it is because it is so much colder over there too.
No one seems to complain about the costs of this too much and you don't see much animal cruelty over there.
There are really strict punishments for people who don't have the correct licences.
Here the RSPCA are considered as the last resort as they weak organisations in regard to the various dog fostering companies I work with.
I believe it is all the scrutiny they are under as in too afraid they might do something wrong... We don't have that problem.
We want Oscars Law for example is such a slow process here and won't work we need a licence situation like Canada as only money talks and people listen and care about welfare and take it seriously.
The money could then fund something like the Blue Cross which is an organisation in the UK which is for low or no income earners to see a vet free of charge which I think we are going to need more and more of,
No animal should be in pain just because their owner has financial difficulties....

ninna
  • 4th Mar 2013 04:07pm

Personally I think animals should not be sold in Pet shops as there is no accountability & quite often the animals have an illness or congenital defect which then costs the owner medical costs further down the track. Reputable breeders should have limits on how many litters per year they can produce & all pets should be spayed before being sold to a buyer. If desexing is mandatory when you buy them it is going to significantly reduce the number of unwanted cats & dogs, less strays who will produce every time they are in season. I know it sounds harsh but there is so far there nothing in place to stop these backyard breeders & puppy farms so something really needs to be done.
If they discount desexing more people would use that option, when I went to register my dog they said its cheaper if the animal is neutered. When I looked at the cost to register him both neutered & entire it was actually cheaper to keep him intact. There is no incentive for anyone to neuter their pets when going through the mandatory registering of them & so many people would look at the cost & say forget it.
My dog is still an entire male but he is unable to get out & he has never mated in his 10 years because I take responsibility for him but I see so many other dogs running loose who are not neutered & it is sad to see the females in pup so often because their owner does not care.

HopeTN
  • 10th Jan 2013 10:02am

Perhaps if people were aware too of the benefits to their pet of desexing (such as the reduced or eliminated risk of certain cancers when done by a certain age, the reduced tendency to run away, fight, mark territory etc) not just the obvious result of being unable to reproduce, there would be more people likely to desex their animals.

mandy
  • 9th Jan 2013 09:35pm

The above suggestion has merit but I also believe that private pet owners should not have animals that can breed.Although it the cost an awful lot of money initially I believe the various city councils should do a house to house check and anyone with un-desexed animals should have one month to de-sex them and after that they will be confiscated. It is a long term goal but one I believe should be implemented as soon as possible. Responsible pet owners should not have a problem with this. Also animals that are sold in pet shops must be de-sexed before leaving the shop.Councils could also subsidise people on a limited income

simla
  • 10th Jan 2013 07:43am
The above suggestion has merit but I also believe that private pet owners should not have animals that can breed.Although it the cost an awful lot of money initially I believe the various city...

Hi mandy, your basic idea has some merit, but in this society you can't really think that confiscating ones pet is an acceptable way to deal with the issue. (someone would end up getting shot!) May be the free de-sexing voucher given to the offending owner would shame them into doing something, eg. getting it de-sexed or getting a licence to breed in a responsible manner? The councils would pay for the de-sexing vouchers from the licencing fees paid by the breeders.

wheelinmotion
  • 9th Jan 2013 09:13pm

I think the problem of what to do with your pet when you go on holidays is a major cause of pet abandonment, and maybe a trial adoption program could include temporary care of someone's elses own pet when they go away, creating a network of people wanting to have their pet looked after and those contemplating taking on a pet permanently, this could easily be done online.

The RSPCA should have an approved breeder scheme also, if not have already.

simla
  • 10th Jan 2013 07:55am
I think the problem of what to do with your pet when you go on holidays is a major cause of pet abandonment, and maybe a trial adoption program could include temporary care of someone's elses own...

What a wonderful idea wheelinmotion! There could be a good job for somebody to setup such a website to cater for this much needed service!

HopeTN
  • 9th Jan 2013 01:09pm

I think there should be a compulsory exam for all potential, and I suppose current, pet owners that MUST be passed in order to obtain a license for pet ownership, and retaken at set intervals. If current owners fail the exam, they are to retake it until they pass, so that it is certain that they know their responsibilities. The exam should cover areas such as proper care and treatment of animals (required fence heights, how often and how long to walk, what to do in hot weather, when to vaccinate and worm them, how often to have vet checkups, what to feed them, which 'human' foods are harmful, etc), the local council regulations, and also make the potential owner aware of all costs involved in owning a pet, including food, vaccinations, desexing, registration fees, vet bills etc. In addition, an inspection of the potential owners home should be done to ensure adequate fencing and yard security, which I think the RSPCA already do for their animals, maybe??

Desexing, micro-chipping and vaccinations should be compulsory BEFORE selling an animal to be a pet. "Backyard breeders" should be banned.

Nobody should give be allowed to give pets as presents, ever. If you want to give the gift of a pet, pay for the person to take the exam for the license. Only people presenting the required license and signing a legal document to say that they take full responsibility for the animal, should be allowed to purchase a pet.

Pet shops should stick to selling food, treats, aquariums, toys, pet-care books, leads, collars and the like. Not pets. Registered breeders only. At least that way you're not going to be sucked in by the adorable puppy eyes in the window only to get the animal home and find out that the training, mess and time are just too much for you. Actually taking the trouble to seek out and visit a registered breeder might weed out impulse buys.

simla
  • 10th Jan 2013 07:26am
I think there should be a compulsory exam for all potential, and I suppose current, pet owners that MUST be passed in order to obtain a license for pet ownership, and retaken at set intervals. If...

Yes HopeTN, responsible pet ownership is at the core of the issue. The methods you suggest would certainly impress upon people the importance of that responsibility.
Some councils do ban breeding of dogs, others ban the keeping of certain types or breeds. Some must be muzzled when out and about in public. These rules are strict and limit our freedom, which , in a free society such as Australia is not very acceptable to a majority of the population. Having said that, some would argue that the harm done by curtailing that freedom is negated by the resulting benefits to society. Eg, not so many dogs dumped, ending in the pound.
What i'd like to see someday is the preservation of the freedom, without the necessity of too many imposed 'laws' to force people to do the right thing.
The schools could help by having lessons on pet care and animal classes(what to expect animals to do, training.)
Some schools do have a version of this, in primary schools, they sometimes have a school pet, rabbit, fish or chickens. Other secondary schools have a garden which may include chickens, ducks. Country schools sometimes have horse riding as a sport or sheep and cows in an animal husbandry program.
This is a positive move towards education, as many children don't have parents who are fond of animals.
I believe that a love of animals often begins in the home, so it is by setting a good example that parents will influence the values of the future. This is where our hope lies.

scruffy
  • 9th Jan 2013 11:37am

I believe the cost of desexing is the main cause. If this was made a LOT cheaper, then it would certainly help the cause. Also DON'T give animals away. Anyone can get one then and dump it if it doesn't work out. If people pay for animals then they are more likely to care for them.
My ex would go and get a giveaway dog, then he would become bored with it, and just dump it near some houses, hoping that someone would find it. I forget how many dogs we had over the years. If he had to pay for one, then it would have made him think twice!

simla
  • 9th Jan 2013 03:13pm
I believe the cost of desexing is the main cause. If this was made a LOT cheaper, then it would certainly help the cause. Also DON'T give animals away. Anyone can get one then and dump it if it...

Yes scruffy, a good example of what could be avoided, if people breeding/giving away /selling dogs had to be responsible and take them back if the new home is not suitable. There would then be nothing to be gained in dumping the animal to fend for itself.

TimsGirl
  • 9th Jan 2013 06:06am

Simply providing free desexing. Yes this will cost money in the short term, but what costs more? desexing one female .... or the RSPCA being dumped with dozens, hundreds and even potentially thousands of her descendants in the future.

Yes pet owners should theoretically be responsible for this, but you do get irresponsible ones who don't think, and if offering free desexing solves the problem and saves the RSPCA millions of dollars in the long run, in avoiding thousands of dumped animals, isn't it worth it???

simla
  • 10th Jan 2013 08:05am
Simply providing free desexing. Yes this will cost money in the short term, but what costs more? desexing one female .... or the RSPCA being dumped with dozens, hundreds and even potentially...

Yes you have hit the nail on the head TimsGirl. The responsibility does lie with the owners, but the costs involved are excessive for those of us on the pension, out of work or on low incomes. It's often a job to find cash for the food for the adored pet, in times of hardship, let alone 'extra' expenses of vets bills. Many cruelty cases are really 'hardship' cases.
Much could and should be done by the 'powers that be' eg councils. They are in a position to help from the massive revenue they derive from their constituents.

wheelinmotion
  • 9th Jan 2013 02:10am

I think the RSPCA or similar should run an temporary trial adoption service for their dogs. The benefits would be two fold, people could experience if they really wanted a dog and there would be a possibility of adopting the trial dog also.

The RSPCA should have a program for all dogs adopted from shelters where the owner can have access to subsidised dog accomodation and veterinary services.

As for funding RSPCA should raise money conducting online surveys for company research. Participants could donate time, business could get KUDOS for supporting a charitable organization, and the money paid by corporations helps the cause.

simla
  • 9th Jan 2013 03:37pm
I think the RSPCA or similar should run an temporary trial adoption service for their dogs. The benefits would be two fold, people could experience if they really wanted a dog and there would be a...

Hi again wheelinmotion, the trial adoption is a great inovative idea. A similar option is available with the Greyhound Adoption Program. It saves so many that would otherwise be put down. I seriously hope someone grabs the idea and runs with it.

simla
  • 9th Jan 2013 02:32pm
I think the RSPCA or similar should run an temporary trial adoption service for their dogs. The benefits would be two fold, people could experience if they really wanted a dog and there would be a...

Some excellent ideas there, wheelinmotion! Lets hope someone in a position of influence reads this.

Sammbo
  • 8th Jan 2013 10:09pm

It might be extreme but worth considering if there was an embargo on Pet Shops selling Puppies for a six month period, say June leading up to December (Christmas).
Then people would be forced to go to "reputable" breeders and Shelters getting a dog or puppy that desperately needs a home.
It would certainly ease the load on the shelters that so often have trouble re-housing dumped dogs and pups

simla
  • 9th Jan 2013 03:06pm
It might be extreme but worth considering if there was an embargo on Pet Shops selling Puppies for a six month period, say June leading up to December (Christmas).
Then people would be forced...

Yes sammbo, you are right, it would indeed make an impact on the numbers of puppies bred. Breeders would have to skip a mating, thereby halving the number of puppies destined for sale through pet shops. There are still the missguided people who believe it's good for a bitch to have a litter of puppies before being speyed. They are the ones who don't really care what they mate her to, as it's the 'experience' of having the puppies that is their goal. After the 'experience'. they are so desperate to rid themselves of the troublesome puppies, that they are happy enough to offload them to the first person who will take them!

Jayne Collins
  • 8th Jan 2013 07:31pm

I believe pet shops should have a register of names and details of breeders who sell them the puppies. That would give some accountability.
It might also help identify those horrific "puppy farms", which should be outlawed anyway. The RSPCA has some good ideas on how we can all have a say in closing puppy farms - see http://www.rspca.org.au/how-you-can-help/campaigns/puppy-farms.html
If we can stop this sort of thing at the source, it would go a long way towards helping the situation.

simla
  • 9th Jan 2013 03:32pm
I believe pet shops should have a register of names and details of breeders who sell them the puppies. That would give some accountability.
It might also help identify those horrific "puppy...

hi zoejayne, your suggestion sounds good in principle, however i'm not sure the S.P.C.A organizations are the ones to run such a campaign. Here in Tasmania there is so much in-fighting and conflict of interests. Preventing cruelty is one thing, raising money and administration is another.

Help Caféstudy members by responding to their questions, or ask your own in Café Chat, and you will get the chance of earning extra rewards. Caféstudy will match these and donate equally to our two chosen Australian charities.

AMCS
Australian Marine Conservation Society are an independent charity, staffed by a committed group of scientists, educators and passionate advocates who have defended Australia’s oceans for over 50 years.
Reach Out
ReachOut is the most accessed online mental health service for young people and their parents in Australia. Their trusted self-help information, peer-support program and referral tools save lives by helping young people be well and stay well. The information they offer parents makes it easier for them to help their teenagers, too.