While we struggle to combat this terrible virus our companion pets will need all the support we can give them over the next few months because through no fault of their own, they could be subjected to wide ranging and long-lasting negative welfare implications. It is important that we do not succumb to misinformation and paranoia over the risks of transmission of the virus from them.
Most scientists appear to support the notion that there is no compelling evidence animals can pass the virus to humans even though this pandemic apparently began with a jump from animals into humans because of the unsanitary conditions in Asian markets and of cultural eating habits. But human nature being what it is, many of us are quick to panic.
The animal to human contagion that caused the pandemic is believed to be linked to Asian wet markets.
Some pet owners around the world are allegedly abandoning or killing their pets. There have been lurid reports of Chinese owners throwing dogs and cats to their deaths from the balconies of high rise apartments through fear of being infected by them after media news that a dog, a cat and a tiger supposedly tested positive. Cats have been particularly singled out as being able to transfer the virus on their fur which could potentially cause a backlash towards them.
Pets and animal charities face long term effects from the pandemic.
With most animal rescues temporarily closed to adopters, the unlucky inmates face even longer incarceration and with staff numbers and visitors reduced to just essential workers, may suffer mentally from isolation from human contact. Some shelters have seen an increase in demand for pets from people seeking companionship during their enforced stay at home and are taking the opportunity to offload as many animals as possible. There is criticism that this is misguided and many fear that when everyone returns to their normal routine it could add to an even bigger influx of unwanted animals.
Many animals will have to remain in shelters for months longer due to coronavirus restrictions and may suffer stress and anxiety through lack of visitors and attention.
Not a time to consider renouncing our pets.
At any given time there are always thousands of owners looking to rehome their unwanted pets and with no facilities to take them to owners may take the easy way out resulting in a scenario of mass abandonment. The aftermath will be stray cat and dog populations increasing in many countries and a backlog for many months to come. This could result in increased euthanasia due to lack of space particularly in countries with high rates already such as the USA and Canada.
Animal welfare and rescue charities are already suffering a huge reduction in income and the present climate is not ideal for fund raising appeals when so many humans are suffering hardship. The major animal charities with their much criticised large contingency funds will no doubt continue to function adequately, while those with their hand to mouth approach to funding may well struggle to survive or even close permanently leading to more pressure on the larger charities.
The lions of Kruger national park take the opportunity of the coronavirus lockdown to take an undisturbed nap on the roads. Photo: Richard Sowry
While wildlife may not be missing us one bit, but our companion pets are seeing a lot more of us, particularly those once home alone. They are getting the bonus of 24/7 attention from owners, although they shouldn’t get too accustomed to it.
It is that time of year when animal rescues the world over brace themselves for a rush of unwanted and abandoned animals, but how easy is it to part with a pet? In this modern era of disposable pets, the acceptance of unwanted animals by the larger independent and national animal rescue charities has become an extremely complex operation.
Should unwanted animals be turned away because they do not fit the right profile?
They have been forced by our reckless pet ownership to use animal profiling and retail business practices in order to cope. They have to aim for a quick turnover by maintaining a balance of products (animals) to satisfy the whims and needs of potential customers (adopters) and measure their success by the amount of merchandise they shift. This is particularly so with dogs.
This means that for many owners it is no longer a simple case of fronting up or telephoning your local rescue and expecting to have your pet accepted for rehoming. It can be a long process or you may be refused altogether if your dog does not fit the required profile.
The continual overpopulation of dogs and cats in most countries forces rehoming rescues to be “selective” in what animals they accept as they cannot afford to take in too many animals that “clog up” their kennel space such as the old or sick, those with severe behavioural problems and unpopular breeds such as Bull Terrier type dogs.
Understanding the world of Selective and Non-selective intake policies.
Most professional organisations have a mission statement and what is called an intake policy on their website. These lay out the ethos of the charity and govern the circumstances under which they will accept or refuse to take in your pet for rehoming. These are normally a selective or a non-selective open door policy. Some charities try to use the term non-selective to their advantage in the compassion stakes by highlighting it in their literature, decrying others for not doing so.
The U.K. Battersea Dogs and Cats Home is one charity that follows a “NON-SELECTIVE”policy and states that:“Our open intake policy is increasingly rare in the animal rescue sector and it’s at the heart of everything we stand for”, but still accepts that this is “subject to space”.
“Our mission is to never turn away a dog or cat in need of our help. Subject to space, we will open our gates to all dogs and cats in need of care and shelter and we will do all we can to either reunite them with their owners or to rehome them into loving new homes”
Rescues strive to maintain a balance or varied choice of breeds which are appealing to the whims of adopters. They accomplish this by refusing the difficult ones and concentrating on the young, healthy, well behaved and attractive breeds that provide a “quick turnover” with the least outlay and cost, referred to by some in the industry as the “desirables“. Organisations which have a selective policy either make a judgement on the telephone or by a suitability selection interview whereby the owner brings the dog in to be assessed.
Understandably, desirable dog types are far easier to rehome, but what about the less desirable.
When refusing an animal most charities helpfully put details on a waiting list, often never to call back, and give owners a list of telephone numbers, websites and addresses of other rescues that might be able to help. In reality these are generally full as well and when contacted commonly try to refer owners back where they started It can become a frustrating nightmare merry-go-round to part with a pet.
By using these strategies, U.K. charities have the luxury of not killing healthy unwanted animals and would not dare do so as it would be suicide for them. But local authorities do still kill an estimated 2,000 stray dogs each year which generally passes almost unnoticed as does the fate of those turned away from rescues.
Unfortunately charities in most other countries which suffer from huge populations of stray, roaming and unwanted dogs and cats only have two options: either leaving them to their fate or to euthanise many of them to make room for others. And this happens in many or our well regulated civilised countries such as the U.S.A where an alleged 2-3 million dogs and cats, representing 36% of those handed into rescues, are killed each year, many of them healthy.
Although these shelters and staff are declared evil and heartless, the guilt solely lies with the irresponsible owners who put them in this situation and society’s failure to get on top of the problems.
If being ‘selective’ means more lives saved, then selective we will be
A year or so ago I read an interview with a executive of a dog rescue who summed up the present situation quite succinctly: “priority is given to dogs most likely to be rehomed, and when taking in dogs, we generally look for those that have a good temperament and are not incurably ill. Those with temperament problems have to stay longer for training and the longer they stay the fewer dogs we can save and those that pose a risk to staff are not accepted. Good temperament is important as we want dogs to share kennels helping to maximise the numbers of dogs saved. If being ‘selective’ means more lives saved, then selective we will be. We are in control of which dogs come into our centres. We do not have breed specific policies but do seek to ensure that our centres do not become full of any one particular breed.”
The major issue that arises with these polices is the fate of the unpopular, difficult and elderly dogs which are refused, theundesirables so to speak . In many ways the whole system seems biased against them and yet they are possibly the most vulnerable to ill-treatment, abandonment or being passed on to unsuitable owners via social media and arguably most in need of compassion and help. So should charities be more concerned about the future welfare of those turned away.
In fairness most rescues do their upmost to accept as many animals as possible, but in reality find themselves fighting a losing battle and for this reason can only pick and choose. Charities the world over cannot be blamed in anyway for whatever decisions they may make in order to cope with our selfish attitude to pet keeping. Until the time arrives when we make serious attempts to solve irresponsible ownership once and for all, the demand for space for the unwanted will sadly never decrease and tens of thousands will spend the yuletide in cages.
