The Bureaucracy, the Butchery and Meal Ticket that is Animal Welfarism

By Claudette Vaughan

It was hailed "The Inaugural National Summit To End Pet Population" yet there were more people in that conference room familiar and posed with their syringe of sodium pentobarbital, the drug of choice in killing companion animals, than in a busy full day's popular vet practice.

If this was a serious attempt to end pet population why was the fundamental premise of No-Kill never spoken about, let alone agreed upon at the on-set and why was a No-Kill status never ever discussed as a workable option? Everybody thinks they want No-Kill, everybody pays lip service to "the killing of healthy cats and dogs is not an option" praxis but the fact of the matter to anyone observing this conference, No -Kill was a serious threat to the status quo already in place in animal welfarism today in Australia.

There was even talk at the conference to rid the animal welfare movement of the term "no-kill" altogether because, they say, it's "diversive language". No-Kill, they told us, "makes us guys look like the bad guys."

But you are the "bad guys". You are the enemy. You do have blood on your hands. You have been earning your living for years off the backs of thousands and thousands of carcasses of dead cats and dogs, puppies and kittens for too long now. Let me give you some statistics from around the countryside, and I won't bore you with all the details as they are all much of a muchness, that you provided me with at the conference.

Killed in Australia yearly: 40-93% of unwanted cats (closer to 93%)

12-60% of all unwanted dogs (closer to 60%)

Shellhaven City Council: Their "Animal Management" plan killed 60-70% of all animals they see through their doors annually. So far, 600 dogs have been killed this year and 400 cats.

Lost Dogs Home In Melbourne: 14 councils involved

They see 10,000 cats and 10,000 dogs on an annual basis.

40% of all dogs are killed and 80% of all cats

Dr. Carole "I am among friends here today" Webb deserves a special mention. This self-professed "feline expert" spoke on figures from out of 48,000 cats and kittens in Victoria annually, a whopping 32,000 are destroyed. Digest that for a moment. Telling the conference that 96% of all unwanted cats and kittens in Victoria are being destroyed annually her solution, and remember this is a voice that has been involved for over 20 years with the cats and calling it the "kitten tsunami" as she quaintly calls it, is to increase demand for cats and kittens, decrease supply and improve a cat's image in Australia. The re-homing rate she quoted is appalling in light of the destruction being done. 0.1% to 4.% are re-homed annually.

Dr. Carole Webb's efforts in Trap/Neuter/Return between the years of 1986 - 1996 she said, didn't work and elaborated no further on the issue - although other people's hands-on efforts for the same years have had stunning results.

We say that the bureaucracy alive today in animal welfarism is killing the vital hands-on rescue work that is the backbone of genuine animal welfarism. If I presented with those kinds of figures after 20 years in the game I would bow my head in shame and consider retirement or another career that does no harm to any animal, at any time, ever again. Period.

And what is it about the cat? Is the cat the new pitbull? This conference showed no compassion to cats and kittens. Maybe compassion was present lying there somewhere in the hearts of the silent by-standers but if it was it certainly eluded me. If attempting to improve a cat's image in Australia is a serious campaign then let's start with this conference itself, shall we?

This whole idea that existed 30 years previously that cats can be termed "moggies", ferals versus domestics and the denigration of the free-roaming cat as a "nuisance" cat etc must change in the mind-set of those that purport to work for companion animals. Frankly the only acceptable designation concerning cats for myself would be simply cats and the other variety, the nervous cats (the homeless cats). And if I was a cat at this conference, I'd be very very nervous!

Are these people just dupes in a deliberate and organised plan to kill off the animal rights movement and also, surprisingly enough, the grassroot division of the animal welfare movement? This is occurring by the systematic and widespread bureaucracy of animal welfare, buying up the small not-for-profits, killing off the majority of grassroots efforts, placing people on committees that have no intention of going no-kill but are recognised as the leading industry "experts" in their field and for making decisions for the rest of us in "normalizing" animal welfare as business as usual. That, if it doesn't already need spelling out, involves killing large numbers of healthy non-human animals.

The only way the animal welfare movement will make a difference to the world of the non-human animal, and this is crucial, is by targeting and attacking the root cause of the problem. Demand change to the economic status of the breeders, the backyard breeders and then you'll really start to see things happening. But this is not being done and it's not being done for one reason only. It might interfere with ones weekly take-home pay packet. The Animal Welfare movement will just have to come clean and admit they are, in essence, glorified office workers, for the most part. Hardly activists. The work being done in animal welfare today, and I don't mean the rescue work, is on such a low level that it has no right to call itself "activism".

The system itself does not tolerate or support diversity. The system kills off diversity. The system supports the killing of "unwanted" animals. Your choice is either you are a part of that or not.

In years to come, let's hope that animal welfarists will be indicted for failing to come to the genuine aid of a non-human animal and that does not mean aiding and abetting by killing the animal in question. Nathan Winograd from No Kill Solutions said it best when he said, " There are people in the animal welfare movement today that should have moved out years ago". (See his interview with us.)

At this conference, The National Summit To End Pet Population , it was suggested by Lynne Fridley the US representative from Maddies Fund that Australia should follow the Asilomar Accords. The Asilomar Accords are outrageous. They should be offensive to anyone who takes the trouble to find out what's going on in the world of animal advocacy today. It's no surprise that The Asilomar Accords wants to kill off the term "No-Kill" as well. Wayne Pacelle, senior vice-president, with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) sits on the committee for the Asilomar Accords. The HSUS proactively discourages the term "No-Kill". The HSUS, for all it's vast wealth, owns not one shelter for exploited and neglected cats and dogs. The HSUS are currently in the business of buying up the small not-for-profits grassroots organisations and, there's no other way to say this, the HSUS milked Hurricane Katrina non-human victims for all it was worth. Donations arrived in their millions. So how do they remain credible?

In the Vegan.com Interview conducted by Erik Marcus, Wayne Pacelle was asked how "financially, even an organisation as large as the Humane Society of the United States can compete with the likes of large multi-nationals such as Tyson's Food which gives away millions of dollars a year to elected officials of both political parties."

Pacelle's response was notable for the fact that he believed that the "strength of grassroots constituency is greater than corporate donations. Politicians rely on money to get their message out, he said, but if the public is unreceptive to the message they will fail to be elected."

What does this mean in terms of them and animal welfarism? Appear to be pro-grassroots yet continue with the corporate agenda is the way to go for the HSUS. The HSUS is very very sensitive in making sure they are portrayed as an "animal welfare group". This caters to a "grassroots constituency" as they don't want to appear too corporate because people won't donate money for corporate concerns yet they don't want to appear too radical either like those "animal rights people". Keep it nice and vague and cuddly and become a master of the photo opportunity. They sit on committees to get No-Kill abolished while not one neglected or stray animal in the United States of America today is helped and assisted by them.

But back to Australia, in summarizing I would have to say this Inaugural National Summit To End Pet Population was all in all, just another brick in the wall. If you missed this one, don't worry there'll be another one next year, still rolling out the figures with the same people attending forever wondering why nothing seems to work.

Lastly, to Joy Verrinder, Strategic Development Officer with the Animal Welfare League of Queensland who was one of the major organisers of the Summit I would say this. Next time there's a conference and maybe an animal rights person wanders in off the street, don't try and prevent them from speaking. You may not like our anger, our aggressiveness or directness in challenging the pro-kill people, however, in leaving I offer you one definition of insanity and that is:

"Around and around they go, doing the same old thing year in and year out, yet somehow still expecting change."