A Look at the Lost Dogs Home Accused of Killing Dogs for Cash

The Lost Dogs' Home, Melbourne's largest pound, has been criticized for high kill rates and alleged cash-grabbing practices for the better part of a decade. Social media regularly erupts with claims that they kill almost half the animals in their care and refuse to work with the animal rights groups begging to help. Perhaps it's naive of me, but it always seemed a little too ghoulish to be true.

I have experience with the home, as that's where I got my cat Milkshakes. She was brought in half-dead as a kitten after being bitten by a snake. The Lost Dogs' Home kept her for six months before she was ready for adoption (and even when I got her home she was still pretty weak) so when I see the accusations I always think, well if they didn't put down my awkward-looking half dead cat, why would they kill others?

Then last month Agriculture Minister Jaala Pulford announced she was heading an investigation to explore accusations against the home of "high euthanasia rates, issues around the identification of owners of animals, accommodation and housing of animals, and the assessment of animals for rehoming."

A few of my friends work with or rescue animals, and they've always insisted the home was run by money makers who gave zero shits. But until Minister Pulford stepped in I wondered if everyone wasn't being too sensitive. But now a full-scale investigation is underway, could the Cruella de Vil style claims be true?

According to chair of the Lost Dogs' Home, Dr. Andrew Tribe, audits of this type were common and the home has always passed. Speaking over the phone, he responded to the numerous claims littering social media by saying, "Some of the things they say are true, but many of the things they say are simply not. Some former staff are coming forward and talking about things that happened five or ten years ago. The home has developed and changed greatly."

Dr. Tribe also disputed the much-quoted 45 percent euthanasia rate, insisting the home's reported rate of 13 percent for last year was accurate; adding that this month they're predicted to come in at under 10 percent.

But Allie Levine from Rescued with Love, the most vocal group against the Lost Dogs' Home, takes issue with how those figures are reached. The group claims the percentage is taken from the 12,000 dogs taken in each year, which includes lost dogs that are reclaimed by their owners within days and are never in danger of being put down. Allie claims, "If you look at the dogs that are never claimed, that they can do something with, of those dogs 45 percent are euthanized."

The Lost Dogs' Home's 2013/14 report backs up that figure. It noted that 12,422 were impounded but 8,721 were reclaimed, leaving 3,701 dogs and cats. 1,662 animals were euthanised that year, or 44.9 percent of those brought in and not immediately picked up by their owners.

For its part, the Lost Dogs' Home does admit to having a higher kill rate than many other shelters, but it insists that's due to their size. They operate as an open, pound-style shelter that accepts all animals, including strays brought in by the council. Dr Tribe continues, "We get some lovely dogs, most of them are lovely dogs, but also what you might call the riff-raff of society in terms of dogs and cats. Animals that are really not suitable for rehoming."

After spending days speaking to people on both sides, all of whom seem to really love animals, the major difference in opinion seems hinged on the definition of "not suitable for rehoming." Rescued with Love has repeatedly said it's willing to assume the responsibility for animals that the home has scheduled to destroy. The home on the other hand has continued to refuses to hand them over, which means they're being put down instead.

When I pushed Dr. Tribe to explain why anyone would kill an animal rather than allow it to become someone else's problem he pointed to the matter of community welfare. "One of the things the Lost Dogs' Home have emphasised over the years is that we can not rehome animals that we think might be a problem later on and could bite someone. We have enough problems with dog attacks in the community," he said. In short, they don't want to risk being held responsible for handing over an aggressive dog if it bites a kid.

I was curious about this last part. If the home transferred ownership, would they really be liable in the event of an attack? A litigation lawyer told us only restricted breeds, such as pit bulls, are prohibited from having their ownership transferred unless it's to a relative or a pound. In the case of other breeds, ownership can only be restricted if the animal has been declared dangerous by the council in court. But even then there are restrictions, not blanket bans, around transferring the animal's ownership.

Most of the animals marked dangerous by the Lost Dogs' Home are not legally declared so. There is therefore no legal restrictions on passing them onto a rescue group. But the institution adds an extra layer of confusion to the issue with it's murky definition of what constitutes an aggressive dog.

Dr. Tribe pointed to unpredictably in an animal as being a factor, but there appeared to be no set definition. You can see why Rescued with Love and other activists feel this is an easy way to cover your their asses when deciding to put down a pet rather than spending months re-socializing it. Allie also mentioned several times that the home rejected their offers of help when it came to working with difficult animals.

For a third voice on the matter, VICE requested a list of rescue groups the Home claims to work with. They all reported supportive and ongoing relationships: a spokeswoman from Chihuahua Rescue Victoria said she was in weekly contact with the home, they often initiated contact when they had a difficult dog they felt needed to be worked with for aggression issues. Jan Hutton from Stafford Rescue Victoria agreed, adding the home had gone as far to put a dog in foster care for them until they had the space to take her.

Speaking to them was comforting, but it was also clear they worked exclusively for specific breeds of dogs. Most of the dogs killed are strays, mutts, and damaged animals who no one wanted or cared for. These dogs are rarely pure breds, but are the most likely to be picked up by the council in line with pound contracts.

The home admitted their practice wasn't perfect, but had started the process of hiring a specialist rescue coordinator to work as a link between the home and the various rescue groups. At the time of writing, this role is yet to be filled.

The aforementioned council contracts can be worth tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars and although the home insists they barely break even, they've been accused of aggressively competing for them. With 16 contracts, they hold the most in the state.

But despite my sweet broken cat, or Dr. Tribe's grandfatherly phone manner, the fact remains that the same accusations keep coming up, and a lot of animals are dying. Dr. Tribe offers that the home is "obviously not answering our critics well enough, or dare I even say it, embracing them." I don't believe people are killing dogs for profit, but whether some are slipping through the cracks, or they're not forgiving enough with a difficult animal, there is a breakdown in care somewhere.

Ultimately what we're attempting to do here is answer an unanswerable question. Pulford's inquiry will be tasked with putting a number on how much time and money an animal's life is worth. There will always be those who feel that figure is unlimited, and others who firmly disagree. And the only certainty is that no government ruling is going to settle that.

Follow Wendy on Twitter.