Annons:
Etikettertnrskygga-katter
Läst 1678 ggr
Lena
2/15/15, 2:32 PM

Nya bevis på TNR-metodens Effektivitet

Bild 1. Klicka för att öppna i full storlek.

En studie från 2014 visar återigen att Trap Neuter Return-metoden minskar intag på djurhem. Totalt fångades in 2366 katter, ungefär hälften av områdets hemlösa kattpopulation. Intag av katter på djurhem sjönk med 66% över 2 år.

Studien bekräftar även på nytt att den hemlösa kattens genomsnittliga hälsan är bra. Enbart 0,5 % av katterna avlivades pga hälsoproblem som gjorde att de inte kunde släppas tillbaka eller placeras i hem. 

Ladda ner studien här: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090023314001841

//Lena - medarbetare Hittekatter iFokus samt Katter iFokus
"Ett liv utan katt är inget liv alls. Låt katter leva utan att bli flera - kastrera mera!"

Annons:
Katthemsmatten
2/16/15, 10:17 AM
#1

Hoppas att många kommer att läsa och lära av studien. TNR är det näst bästa efter att kunna omplacera. Och det enda som på sikt kan få populationen av hemlösa och oönskade katter att minska.

Medarbetare Hittekatter iFokus

majvi
3/1/15, 11:54 AM
#2

En positiv bieffekt är att antalet hundar som togs in på djurhemmet minskades med över 1/3 jämfört med mindre än 1/10 i andra postnrområden som inte omfattades av TNR programmet.

Why did the TNR program result not just in a 66% decline in cat intake, as would be expected, but a significant decline in intake of dogs who were not part of the program? While the authors opine that “the community education component” of the TNR project created what they called “a bystander effect that motivated [residents] to take action on behalf of all animals in their care,” the obvious mechanism was the policy shift and practices of animal control officers in the target area.

Instead of “responding to calls with offers of immediate impound” which is what they would have done in the past and continued to do in the non-target areas, they connected “residents with community resources to keep animals in place.” In other words, they went from rounding up and killing animals and presenting that course of action as acceptable and “humane,” to solving problems and educating the public.

As I have also long argued, intake and death rates are primarily determined by shelter policies. 

This study bears that out and shows that the rate of intake and killing is not just a function of what the public does or does not do, but is, in large part, directly in the control of shelter managers and staff and what they do or don’t do. In other words, shelters that are proactive, rather than passive, can help drive intakes and killing downward beyond a pet retention program in the shelter (http://bit.ly/JV5dor), working with rescue groups (http://bit.ly/13jSZJY), adoption programs (http://bit.ly/198sATv), and increasing reclaim rates (http://bit.ly/1FygMN5 and http://bit.ly/1050UPb).

 What ACOs do on the street and how they respond to calls and interact with the public can have a major impact on preventing intakes in the first place and helping keep animals with their responsible caretakers, too. In other words, their actions and attitudes influence the attitudes and actions of the people in the community. And when they provide the community with an alternative to impoundment and killing, those who might be inclined to defer to them as the “experts” on what is best for animals emulate their newer, more enlightened view.

https://www.facebook.com/nathanwinograd/posts/929890390368539:0

“In a world filled with hate, we must still dare to hope. In a world filled with anger, we must still dare to comfort. In a world filled with despair, we must still dare to dream. 

Upp till toppen
Annons: