Why does the no-kill cat shelter policy mean that 10% of the cats are killed?

You may have wondered why the much vaunted no-kill animal shelter and cat shelter policy results in 10% of the cats being killed. Surely "no-kill" means no killing whatsoever? I'm afraid not. 

What it does mean is that there is no killing i.e. euthanasia of healthy cats but exceptions are made for cats with severe medical conditions that cannot be treated causing significant pain and poor quality of life and cats with severe behavioural issues that pose a danger to life to humans or other animals and where rehabilitation efforts are unlikely to succeed.

These cats are euthanised. The term euthanasia would genuinely apply to a chronically ill and terminally ill cat but under any other circumstances it wouldn't really apply. We have to use the word "kill" under circumstances where the cat is euthanised because of behavioural issues.

There is a muddying of the waters in terms of the language used at cat shelters. However, the no-kill movement - which is the brainchild, as I understand it, of Nathan Winograd, American's greatest advocate of saving the lives of shelter animals in America - has reduced unnecessary euthanasia.

The no-kill philosophy focuses on saving all healthy and treatable animals and with that in mind it can dramatically reduce the number of animals euthanised due to the limits of space at shelter facilities and time limits.

The concept is there to focus the minds of managers and workers to use their best possible practices and imagination to find ways to save lives. And there's been a quite dramatic - I think it's fair to say - increase in the number of no-kill shelters in America over the past decade.

The euthanasia rate has dramatically dropped in America over the past decade too. It's still pretty high but much better. There is still work to do.

Some people decry the no-kill movement. I've read quite a lot about PETA but once again there is misleading language used against them in my view. But they seem to believe that killing feral cats is preferable to looking after them and putting them back on the street under TNR programs. 

I think that is a misleading idea about PETA. But ironically Nathan Winograd is in a running battle with PETA about saving cats and killing cats. Nathan Winograd hates PETA as he thinks that this very high-profile animal charity kills too many cats. Either they promote the idea of killing feral cats or they kill themselves and he consistently says this. It's a shame because both of great animal advocates. We don't want people on the same side fighting each other over policy decisions.

I'm told that in 2017 a milestone was reached when for the first time the total number of dogs and cats euthanised in US shelters fell below 1 million. The actual number is estimated at 800,000. I'm also told that it is difficult to obtain accurate data on the number of cats killed 10 years ago compared to the number of cats killed today at shelters. There's been a reduction though so no-kill has worked to a good extent but more work needs to be done.

------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

PETA compares eating fish to eating dead cats. People need to 'sea' things better.

NEWS AND COMMENT: A spokesperson for PETA said: 

"Grimsby – the centre of the UK’s “seafood” processing industry is catching some heat from PETA with a new lenticular billboard – showing a smiling fishmonger holding a limp fish from one angle and a dead cat from another – urging locals to see fish as intelligent, sensitive individuals and opt for vegan fare instead."

PETA chose Grimsby, UK because it is a fishing town; historically connected with fishing and they put the sign outside a fish and chip shop.

PETA compares eating fish with eating dead cats. Image: Grimsby Live.

Apparently if you look at the billboard poster from different angles you either see a fish or a dead cat. 

A clever aspect of the billboard is the use of the word 'sea' which sound like 'see'. They are asking people to see more clearly what they are doing.

Separately, it might be worth noting that thousands of people in Asia like to eat dead stray and domestic cats particularly if they have been killed brutally as it improves the flesh's medicinal properties.

As you can tell from the statement at the top of the page, PETA want people in general to consider fish as sentient beings. And further they want people to opt for a vegan diet.

Personally, I am also pushing for fish welfare. A study has found that fish feel pain (link below). Because millions of fish have been caught over the years, it seems that human kind regards fish as harvesting wheat and not killing billions of animals in a painful way through suffocation.

RELATED: Fish endure prolonged suffering due to a failure to stun them before slaughter.

It's time for a change. It's a time to change the perceptions of the general public. It will be difficult because the fishing community is pushing back against this poster on the sidewalk. This about protecting jobs.

And also, fish is constantly promoted as a healthy food source. It will be many years before people come off fish solely because they regard them as sentient creatures.

But things are changing because little by little people are realising that animals are sentient and have the power to feel emotions. Animal are often far more intelligent than the vast majority of people believe. Studies are gradually revealing this intelligence.

Personally, I am totally for PETA on this and in all the work they do. They push tirelessly for animal welfare and they don't mind shocking. In fact, they have decided that creating shocking campaigns is the best way to catch people's attention and change their attitudes.

Some American communities place over 95% of rescue animals in new homes

In an email to me, Nathan Winograd, "The voice of America's displaced pets and the conscience of the animal sheltering industry" tells me that in a number of American communities they place over 95%, and as high as 99%, of rescue animals in their care at shelters. He says that they are following his no-kill policies and he has consistently said that it is possible to genuinely place far more animals than is currently the case in many shelters through good management and a progressive and imaginative approach to saving lives through increasing adoptions. This is my interpretation.

Shelter cats needing a quality home. Image in public domain.

He quotes three successful communities:

• Gunnison County, CO, reported a 99% placement rate for dogs, 98% for cats, and 100% for other small animals.

• Flat Rock, MI, reported a 97% placement rate for dogs and 99% for cats.

• Shiawassee County, MI, reported a 97% placement rate for dogs, 99% for cats, and 100% for other animals

He says that these communities prove that animals are not dying in pounds because there are too many rescue animals or too few homes in which to place them, or that people don't want the animals. He said that they are dying in many pounds because people are killing them. What he is saying is that when the focus is on euthanasia of shelter animals (a euphemism for killing) rather than on how to rehome them and a commitment to that second objective, you end up with a higher death rate.

He calls it his "No Kill Equation". He has an enemy in PETA. PETA claim that his thoughts are misplaced. PETA prefer to euthanise animal shelters as a means of dealing with them if there are too many as it is the humane way under tough circumstances. 

And they say that there are too many cats and too many killings at shelters because of bad cat management i.e. through informal breeding and carelessness et cetera. The problem is with people and their ownership of cats not with the volunteers and workers at shelters who are doing sterling work.

And they also say that if a shelter tries to implement Nathan Winograd's 'No Kill Equation' they can end up with big issues and problems. One problem that they seem to point out is that sometime shelters, in an effort to stop euthanising animals, stop taking them in and push the problem back on the general public which can lead to animal cruelty outside of the shelter. They provide examples of that. For example:

"A Virginia woman who was convicted of cruelty to animals in the shooting deaths of six puppies testified that “she was angry and frustrated that even though she tried to do the right thing, she wasn’t able to find a place for the animals.” She reportedly contacted two shelters, but one was full and the other wouldn’t take the puppies because they belonged to her son. The woman said that she then shot them to death and disposed of their bodies."

If that is true then the shelters it seems to me are not implementing Nathan Winograd's policies. I don't think his policies suggest that shelters should reject incoming cats and dogs. I think what he wants people to do is to use more progressive methods to rehome them and focus on that.

Arguably, it is PETA who have misplaced thoughts in this regard. It is possible - and I'm not sure - that PETA don't fully understand Nathan Winograd's no-kill policies. And that may be because he doesn't explain them clearly enough. And perhaps his policies demand a rigour and commitment in shelter workers which is perhaps beyond their capabilities.

Although I am an admirer of Nathan Winograd, I think one problem that he has is communicating through the written word. He is a lawyer and therefore a great legal communicator but his language is tangled up in complexity. I don't think he writes in a clear and concise way which would help to get his message across to the general public at large i.e. to everybody. This I feel is a failing and something which holds him back.

Alec Baldwin and wife Hilaria buy a Bengal cat for daughter Carmen

NEWS AND VIEWS: So what is the big deal about the title to this post? Carmen, the Baldwin's daughter expressed a wish to adopt a cat companion from the age of 2. The trouble with satisfying that perfectly good request is that Alec Baldwin is allergic to cats we are told by his wife Hilaria. So they had a dilemma. Another dilemma that they had is that Hilaria and Alec Baldwin speak up for animal rights and support PETA.

Alec Baldwin and wife Hilaria by Bengal cat for daughter Carmen. Photo: Twitter.

They probably discussed, quite extensively, adopting a rescue cat from a rescue organisation as this would support PETA and support the idea that if people want a new cat they should always go to a rescue centre first. 

But the cat allergy problem scuppered that objective, they thought. So they decided to buy a Bengal cat from a breeder. Hilaria, we are told, did a lot of research and discovered that the Bengal cat is hypoallergenic meaning that the cat does not produce the allergen, or produces less of the allergen Fel D 1, which is a protein in a domestic cat's saliva which causes the allergic reaction in 10% of the population.

I suspect that the research included a discussion with a cat breeder of Bengal cats and the breeder wanted to promote her cattery so she convinced them that Bengal cats do not contain this allergen. I'm afraid they were misled if that is a true assessment. Bengal cats are not hypoallergenic. No domestic cat is in fact. 

They gave a false reason for buying a Bengal cat rather than adopting a rescue cat, which is that Alec Baldwin is allergic to cats and therefore they were forced to go down the route that they did. Note: they knew that all rescue cats will not be hypoallergenic but they did not realise that all purebred cats are the same notwithstanding what the breeders say.

PETA are annoyed but polite because they emphasised that the Baldwins have always supported them and do good in terms of animal welfare. But they say that they have inadvertently encouraged people to purchase a purebred cat rather than adopt a rescue and possibly save that cat's life from euthanasia at a rescue centre.

Perhaps the point of the story is that the Baldwins could have found a better route to compromise. The research should have thrown up the information that Purina have made a dry cat food which masks or suppresses the feline allergen that I mention above. It is called LiveClear and it is on the shelves at the moment. The reviews are pretty good and it seems to me that it works at least well enough to help control the problem.

And there are other ways to manage having a cat companion if you are allergic to them. Quite a lot of people who love cats are allergic to them but they find a way around the problem. An alternative to what I mentioned might have been to adopt a rescue Bengal cat. There are some unwanted Bengal cats out there at rescue centres and with certain organisations such as Purebred Cat Rescue. Her research should have led her to these sorts of organisations and to the Purina food.

I suspect, therefore, that Carmen expressed a strong desire to adopt a Bengal cat and therefore they could not get around that problem. And perhaps she wanted a kitten as well. Most of the rescue animals at shelters are adults.

Therefore, I have to reluctantly conclude that the Baldwins used a false reason for purchasing a Bengal cat but we don't know the full story behind it. I am speculating. There is one final point in that the higher filial wildcat hybrids are a little bit difficult to live with in my opinion and a lot of people don't prepare themselves for it. Although, I suspect that the kitten in the photograph on this page is probably an F5 Bengal cat. I hope so because if he is he will be very much like a typical domestic cat because the wild cat component is a very small percentage of the cat's DNA.

PETA's horrific outside cat stories should shock but no pictures please

PETA has to force change to improve animal welfare. They set out to shock people to achieve this goal. They want to force reality down the throat of the complacent public. There is apathy and ignorance about a lack of animal welfare in society. People live blinkered lives and PETA wants to open their eyes.

I agree with their philosophy but personally I cannot look at the photographs which accompany their 'horrific outside cat stories' on their website. These are photographs of cats that are truly suffering with terrible injuries and illnesses. They are normally feral or stray cats.

PETA is against the existence of feral cats. I get that too. They don't want to see feral cats suffering and in the past it seems to me that they have recommended that all feral cats be trapped and euthanized. There was uproar in some quarters about that and this philosophy does not seem to be universally accepted among all senior PETA staff.

I digress...because this your post is about forcing people to accept failure in animal welfare while at the same time not putting people off reading PETA articles. Personally I will not click on a link which describes 'horrific outside cat stories' on the PETA website and which are thrown up in Google search results. This is because I know there are likely to be photographs of badly injured cats

I cannot look at these photographs any more. They damage me. I cannot get them out of my head. I would ask PETA to use words as effectively as possible to describe the plight of these cats but to restrict the use of gory photographs because if I am being put off by them them I expect other people are too.

It's time to stop calling our companion animals "pets"

I have always thought that describing companion animals as "pets" is inappropriate or to put it another way, we can do better. I subscribe to the attitude of PETA in this respect. It's interesting and ironic that the word "pet" is in their acronym which stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. This is why they have asked the public to pronounce the acronym as if they are saying "Peter". It's a slight embarrassment to the organisation, but back to the point of this article.

Discussing the topic: Are humans more valuable than animals? And: the pros and cons of using the word "pet".

The point is that the use of language effects the behaviour of humans. It works backwards. Humans create the language and if that language is imperfect it can have an impact upon the behaviour of humans. Or it perpetuates bad behaviour. Use of the word "pet" encourages the notion that people own sentient beings and can do what they like with those animals. Clearly, the vast majority of people treat their companion animals nicely but there will always be a significant minority who don't. Changing the use of language may have a beneficial impact upon these people and upon society in general which may in turn improve companion animal welfare. The law supports the notion that people own animals as they are considered "chattels" under the law in the UK. The law needs upgrading.

In the video we see Piers Morgan barely giving the lady from PETA a chance to respond to his questions. He bullies and dominates and she handles it very well. It is very hard to deny that she has good sense. It is hard to argue against PETA's argument. It doesn't matter whether you're right-wing or left-wing or down the middle. Piers Morgan is clearly a right-wing personality or at least he behaves like that. Right-wing people are more prone to regard pets as an object to be owned. That is the stereotypical argument.

They also discuss other sayings like "let the cat out of the bag". This is a very old fashion saying which goes back to times when farmers were selling pigs in a bag. Rather than put a young pig in a bag they put a cat instead because the cat had a lower or nil value and if the cat escaped the fraud was exposed hence the phrase "let the cat out of the bag", which means that a lie or fraud has been exposed. PETA don't like the phrase because it denigrates the domestic cat. It's a phrase from past times which should be pensioned off to put it politely.

As a society, we owe it to ourselves to do all we can to improve animal welfare. It reflects on us. Small changes to language may help us achieve that objective. Piers Morgan should do better as an interviewer! Although, I do like him.

Killing Cats

Killing cats (the cat opposite is not dead just under anesthetic) (and dogs) goes on all the time, unnoticed by the vast majority of the population. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) are hostile towards cat and dog breeders. Cat and Dog breeders are, in response, hostile towards PETA.

I'll refer to cat breeders for the rest of this as this is a cat website. Cat breeders' hostility is due to the fact that PETA blames cat breeders for increasing the cat population when there are already too many domestic cats. They have produced some startling videos in which they say that if a person buys a cat one is killed (they actually refer to dogs but I guess the same rule applies), meaning that the cat in the rescue center should have been adopted and if not she will be killed.

They also suggest that the breeding of purebred animals is akin to being part of the Klu Klux Klan in that the intention is to make a superior race of animals (purebred cats or dogs).

It is impossible to ignore these arguments if you are a decent sort of individual with the welfare of cats in mind as opposed to simply pandering to the preferences and likings of mankind.

I am forced to think about this topic. I think the idea that cat breeders are trying to breed a master race of pets is manifestly incorrect. 99% of cat breeders in the USA (my guesstimate) are in the business of breeding as an expression of their love for cats and to make some money (not necessarily a livable income) on the side. They genuinely have the welfare of cats in mind.

I don't think that it is fair to place a responsibility on cat breeders (who all breed purebred cats) for the general problem of the uncontrolled breeding of feral mixed breed cats (other than the same responsibility we all have for that problem). However, I don't though think that cat breeders do enough to deal with the problem of abandoned purebred cats.

There are, it seems, many purebred cats that are abandoned. This seems peculiar as someone, I must presume, bought the cat. I myself don't like the idea of buying and owning cats - we don't own them. Perhaps it is better to say that when a person buys a pet he or she actually compensates the breeder for the care of the cat and the mother and father cats until handed over to the new keeper. The abandonment of a cat that was bought indicates that the buyer thinks of cats and animals as a "product" like a washing machine. They are not fit to care for a cat. How do we spot them and refuse them a cat?

I think then that cat breeders should do more to ensure that "buyers" are absolutely under an obligation to neuter (if not already done by the breeder) and care for the cat throughout her life. This may be difficult to enforce but I would have thought it was not impossible. I know some (perhaps many) breeders who do take action along these lines.

What I am saying is that it is better to work with breeders and make the breeding process more accountable rather than stop it all together because cat breeding is the kind of thing that humans like to do. It is difficult and probably foolhardy to try and stop humans doing what comes naturally to them even if sometimes it seems morally wrong. It is better (and more successful) to work with it and modify the behavior and achieve gradual change that way.

In order to be fair, PETA should also look at the other end of the process, the buyers. They are the ones who are abandoning cats. It is they who make the market that allows the cat breeders to produce more cats. If they was no market there would be no breeders.

Also, it seems that by far the biggest reason for the overpopulation of cats and subsequent horrific euthanizing process is the feral cat population that is out of control. There are some brave and honourable people who do something about it (trap, neuter, return) but generally it seems this problem drifts on. PETA don't seem to do much with regard to that problem.

Lets see PETA tackle the bigger problem first and then lets refine the breeding program. Finally I do not think that cat breeders even think about breeding a master race of cats. They just like the look of fine and attractive animals, a natural human instinct, which admittedly needs regulation and control in the interests of the welfare of our much loved cats.

Source: Me

Photos:
top of feral cat copyright Feral Indeed!
bottom copyright mac_vegetarian

From Killing Cats to Home Page