Data and facts about the shelter dogs of New Zealand.
Jump to: Animal Rescues
Highlights
Animal Rescues
Jump to: Profile
Study on Companion Animal Rescue Organisations in New Zealand
External Link:
Roseveare, C., & Gates, M. (2024). Characteristics and challenges of companion animal rescue organisations in New Zealand. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 72(4), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2024.2344560
Organizational Profile
- Charitable Status: 74% of the 106 Companion Animal Rescue Organisations (CARO) surveyed were registered charities.
- Years of Operation: Half of the CARO had been operating for at least seven years, with registered charities having a longer median operating time (7 years) than non-registered charities (5 years).
- Geographic Reach: The majority of CARO (71%) serve only one region of New Zealand, with 9% serving two regions.
- Geographic Distribution: While more organizations are in highly populated areas, there isn’t a strong correlation between the number of organizations and the number of households in a region. The rate of coverage varies significantly, ranging from 0.7 CARO per 10,000 households in Auckland to five CARO per 10,000 households on the West Coast.
- Capacity for Care: Most CARO care for a single species of animal (64%)or two species (14%), with 22% providing services for three or more species.
Estimated number of animals cared for each year
| Species | Number (%) of CARO | Median | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cats | 64 (60%) | 200 | 37,427 |
| Dogs | 40 (38%) | 95 | 7,689 |
| Birds | 20 (19%) | 20 | 9,566 |
| Rabbits | 18 (17%) | 25 | 1,582 |
| Sheep | 13 (12%) | 5 | 180 |
| Horses | 13 (12%) | 2 | 159 |
| Cattle | 13 (12%) | 3 | 71 |
| Goats | 12 (11%) | 4 | 150 |
| Wildlife | 12 (11%) | 20 | 2,421 |
| Guinea pigs | 11 (10%) | 7 | 485 |
| Camelids | 8 (8%) | 2 | 23 |
| Rats | 8 (8%) | 2 | 94 |
| Mice | 7 (7%) | 6 | 27 |
| Total | 59,874 |
Operational Details (for Dog and Cat CARO)
Services
| Services | Number | % |
|---|---|---|
| Rehoming of animals | 72 | 84 |
| Housing unwanted animals (including fostering) | 70 | 81 |
| Trap, neuter, and return | 42 | 49 |
| Providing veterinary care | 39 | 45 |
| Sanctuary | 37 | 43 |
| Education | 37 | 43 |
| Community microchipping | 27 | 31 |
| Finance | 9 | 10 |
- Admissions: Most of the 86 dog and cat CARO have policies that limit admissions.
- Limited admission: 33%
- Managed admission policies: 22%
- Restricting admission when full to capacity: 6%
- Only 9% describe themselves as having an open admission policy.
- Euthanasia Policies: Of the 79 organizations that provided information,
- No stated policy on euthanasia: 23%
- Euthanize animals for welfare reasons: 77%
- Animal difficult to re-home: 8%
- Euthanize for capacity reasons: 1%
- Veterinary Services: The majority of CARO (58%) use multiple local veterinary clinics for their services, while 28% use a single clinic. Only 3% have an in-house clinic or veterinarian.
- Funding: Donations were the main source of funding (84%), followed by adoption fees (78%), fundraising (65%), grants (47%), and self-funding (44%). Registered charities were more likely to receive grants (63% vs. 4%) and donations (91% vs. 65%) , whereas non-registered charities were more likely to be self-funded (78% vs. 32%). Nearly all CARO (90%) rely on multiple sources of income.
- Technology: Spreadsheets were the most common tool for tracking animals (45%). Only 26% use specific shelter management software, and 42% still rely on paper-based systems.
Staffing
Number of Staff per CARO
| Staff | Range | Median | IQR | Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paid full-time (n = 72) | 0–650 | 0 | 0–0 | 668 (12%) |
| Paid part-time (n = 70) | 0–9 | 0 | 0–0 | 16 (0.1%) |
| Volunteer full-time (n = 69) | 0–50 | 0 | 0–1 | 168 (3%) |
| Volunteer part-time (n = 72) | 0–3,500 | 5 | 0–20 | 4,847 (85%) |
| Total | 1–4,150 | 11 | 5–25 | 5,699 (100%) |
| Number (%) | |
|---|---|
| Number of full-time, paid staff | |
| 0 | 62 (86%) |
| 1–4 | 8 (11%) |
| ≥5 | 2 (3%) |
| Total | 72 (100%) |
| Volunteers as a proportion of all staff | |
| 100% | 57 (79%) |
| 90–99% | 7 (10%) |
| 80–89% | 5 (7%) |
| <80% | 3 (4%) |
| Total | 72 (100%) |
| Number of total staff (including volunteers) | |
| 0–10 | 35 (49%) |
| 11–50 | 27 (36%) |
| >50 | 11 (15%) |
| Total | 72 (100%) |
Number of staff and animals cared for by CARO that care for cats or dogs (n = 67)
| Number of CARO staff (including volunteers) | 1–50 animals | 51–100 animals | 101–250 animals | 251–500 animals | >500 animals | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1–5 | 10 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 18 |
| 6–10 | 4 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 12 |
| 11–20 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 11 |
| 21–50 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 16 |
| 51–99 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 6 |
| ≥100 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 |
| Total | 19 | 6 | 23 | 10 | 9 | 67 |
Key Challenges and Future Needs
- Support Required: The most-needed support from public, private, or government organizations was financial assistance (85%), followed closely by supplies and policy changes (both 72%).
- Willingness to Join a National Database: A large majority of CARO (74%) would be willing to register on a voluntary national database. A small minority indicated that there would be no benefit from such a database and 3/106 (3%) that they would not be interested.
- Concerns with National Database: The primary concerns about registering were the time commitment (55%), security of information (33%), and fear of how the information might be used (31%).
- Comfort with Information Sharing: While most organizations are comfortable sharing public information like their services and the species they care for (77%), they are less comfortable sharing sensitive data, such as contact information (60%). A smaller percentage of CARO were comfortable sharing information on staff numbers (35%), animal sources (40%), or capacity (43%).
- Just over half of the respondents reported feeling comfortable sharing information about outcomes for the animals entering their organisation being publicly available (56/106; 53%)
Willingness of CARO (n=106) to share anonymised data
| Groups to share data with | Would definitely consider | Might or might not consider | Would not consider |
|---|---|---|---|
| Emergency services | 76% | 21% | 3% |
| Veterinarians | 76% | 21% | 3% |
| Researchers | 74% | 25% | 1% |
| Companion Animals New Zealand | 69% | 29% | 1% |
| Ministry for Primary Industries | 60% | 34% | 5% |
| Other rescue organisations | 53% | 43% | 4% |
| Public | 43% | 47% | 10% |