Animal Control - a different approach?
There were some comments in an earlier post about the AVA's functions that I found very interesting. Anonymous mentioned the model in San Francisco.
I was interested in finding out more about a model where Animal Control itself looked for alternative solutions, and I didn't have to look very far. In Baltimore, where I am at the moment, the situation with their animal control was dire in 2004:-
To the Dogs
There was bad publicity due to the usual problems - lack of funds, not being able to hire people who were interested in animal welfare, etc. All these sound pretty familiar and I think are also faced in Singapore by the AVA.
This is what they decided to do. The Animal control decided become a quasi-government entity - and a non-profit. This meant they were able to raise funds from the public and also to hire the sort of people they want. They were also able to get volunteers to help because people knew that they would be helping the animals.
This is the result a year later. Adoptions are up and killing rates are down. Obviously it is a little different in that they are able to pass animals to animal shelters, but simple things like opening the shelter on 6 days a week as opposed to one, helped to raise adoption ten-fold.
Unfortunately this does not mean that cats aren't killed at all or that TNRM is used primarily as a means to control the community cat population. The good thing is that they were willing to look for other solutions that would lead to less killing.
I'm trying to get more information to see if it is a possibility that may translate to Singapore.