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.

Perfect kitty camouflage - 'almost died when my towel blinked at me'

 

Only one thing to say: cats love airing cupboards and bathrooms because that is where there is often some warmth and the scent of their human caregiver. Certainly, used towels are a favorite. I have a picture of my own which is below. It is sort of dark and moody. I wanted that look. The towel was damp as I had just used it. He loved it. He wanted to revel in it and transfer his scent onto it and take my scent from it: scent exchange it is called.

Actually, I can think of a second thing to say! The camouflage of the domestic cat's ancestor is designed to protect them in the wild as their coat is a brown tabby. The coat of the domestic cat has evolved over 10,000 years of domestication to fit in with the human environment. Although, ironically, my cat is pretty much a lookalike of a wild cat.

To declare the domestic cat an "invasive species" is stupid

You may have heard that Poland's scientific community (Polish Academy of Sciences) has declared the domestic cat in their country an invasive species. They are technically correct but they are stupid. The domestic cat is, indeed, an invasive species in Poland and in all other countries where the domestic cat did not originate. That's most of the world's countries. 

The domestic cat is a domesticated North African wildcat and it is believed that the first N. African wildcats were domesticated in the Fertile Crescent which is now Syria and the area around Syria including the North of Egypt and the east coast of the Mediterranean Sea. From there these early domestic cats were exported to other places with commercial travellers.

RELATED: Poland puts domestic cat on invasive species database.

The Maine Coon cat originates from barn cats from the middle of the 1800s and those cats originate from cats imported into America with the first settlers who came from Europe around 400 years ago. Are we saying that the Maine Coon cat is an invasive species? It is stupid to think like that.

But for the first 2000 years or more these were tamed wildcats. They were not true domestic cats. And they were all tabby cats. It was only during the era of the ancient Egyptians that true cat domestication took place. That was about 4000 years ago which is around 6000 years after the first wildcats were tamed.

Those are the general thoughts about the domestic cat's early years. But when you are talking in thousands of years it is no longer feasible to speak of the domestic cat as an invasive species. The domestic cat is perhaps the world's most popular pet. They been around in true domestic form in places like Japan for more than a thousand years. The same applies to Turkey. And the UK.

In the UK, the Romans who occupied the UK in around A.D. 200 brought domestic cats with them. This is around 2000 years ago. Technically the domestic cat is an invasive species in England and the rest of the UK but it is stupid to state that.

There must come a time when an invasive species is no longer an invasive species. And if you don't believe that, you are going to have to state that humans are also an invasive species in most of the world.

The human originates from Africa. They evolved on that continent and then migrated out to the rest of the world. So, the human is an invasive species in almost all countries of the world. Of course, we're looking at millions of years ago when the human first originated but the point that I'm making is that there must be a time limit on when an invasive species no longer becomes an invasive species. What is that time limit?

Well, the domestic cat was first imported into the USA, it is believed, with the first settlers from England and Europe around 400 years ago. I will state that it is impossible to describe the domestic cat in America as an invasive species. Often people do and these are normally ornithologists and people who dislike the cat and dislike the fact that they prey on native species. But after 400 years of living in America, the domestic cat is no longer invasive. America is their home.

And also, the phrase "invasive species" is normally a derogatory comment. It is descriptive of a species which damages the ecosystems and environment of the country in which they find themselves. The domestic cat does prey on native species and this causes consternation among conservationists. But they also provide a huge amount of pleasure, comfort and entertainment to many millions of people on the American continent. That must be set against the negatives.

And lastly, it is humans who describe the domestic cat as an invasive species in places like Australia or America. But it is also humans who imported the domestic cat to those countries in the first place. The problem is with humans. The cat is an innocent victim of human behaviour. This should prevent the human from criticising the cat an invasive species. The criticism should be directed at people and they should take steps, humane steps, to deal with the so-called feral cat problem in Australia.

Ginger tabby in Turkey nurses parentless bunny

Osmaniye, Turkey:  A domestic cat named 'Sarikiz' is seen nursing an abandoned bunny. A lone rabbit was found in a field by Sarikiz's owner and brought home and they began feeding it. The ginger tabby domestic cat, Sarikiz, which had recently given birth to kittens welcomed the abandoned bunny and decided to breast-feed the little creature along with her litter. 

Ginger tabby cat nurses bunny in Turkey. Image video on Weibo.

Ginger tabby mothers a parentless bunny. Image: Weibo video screenshot.

It is not uncommon for a mother cat to breast feed another species of animal. It is cute though. It is generous and kind. You wonder what goes through the mind of cats when they do this. Do they know that they are being kind and generous? Is it merely an instinctive act as if she is programmed to let a bunny suckle at her breast? 

She must recognise that the bunny is not a kitten. It seems that there is altruism in the animal world.

Air Canada flies man's cats to California without him

Abbas Zoeb, a software engineer, has two cats, Mimi and Bubba. They are young siblings, brother and sister from the same litter, 19 months of age. He was flying to San Francisco, USA from Toronto, Canada on Air Canada as he was relocating for a new job.

Before he embarked on the aircraft, he was questioned about the start date on his visa. The questioning went on for a long time causing him to miss his 8 AM flight.

His baggage was offloaded from the plane but Mimi and Bubba were not taken off and they were flown to San Francisco without him.

Abbas Zoeb’s cats, Mimi and Bubba. Photo by Abbas Zoeb.

After the questioning about his visa he spent hours looking for his cats. He was very worried. He thought he had lost them. Cats travelling by air are sometimes lost at airports and it can take a long time to find them.

RELATED: How long can it take to find a lost cat at an airport?

Air Canada called him in the afternoon to tell him that they Mimi and Bubba had been flown to San Francisco and that he could wait to see his cats in San Francisco or he could have someone pick them up in San Francisco.

Zoeb requested that they be returned to Toronto which meant waiting until 11:45 PM because the flight takes 5.5 hours.

He told the Washington Post "I just had a bad feeling that something has happened because they are just too nonchalant about this". He was referring to the attitude of Air Canada personnel. I guess that they don't always understand the relationship between cat and human.

As I understand it, there were flown back to Toronto. When he saw them they looked tired. He said that they were sneezing for about a week.

Air Canada said that they will refund his ticket, baggage, pet fees and other fees for the missed flight. They also offered C$200 in compensation to use towards a further flight.

They apologised but Mr Zoeb thinks that the amount paid in compensation is derisory and he wants the airline to give him a more public apology. He is considering taking legal action over the amount of compensation that he received.

He said: "C$200 is totally insignificant for how much I’ve been going through and how much time I’ve put towards this and what my pets have gone through.

“I did let them know that that is not an acceptable apology or not an acceptable amount if they want to rectify anything ... They said that’s the most they can do.”

Air Canada refused to pay any more in compensation. Apparently, in Canada airlines must compensate travellers up to $2300 to replace lost items or damage to items while in the carrier's control. That would not seem to be irrelevant in this instance.

Air Canada are no longer taking requests to transport animals in the cargo hold until September 12, 2020 because there are unusual delays at airports which, incidentally, reflects the problems encountered in the UK.