The Paxton’s have piles of shit raining down on them. Seems fitting given that’s what their dogs have been living in.

RSPCA swoops on puppy farm as public outrage builds

The RSPCA last night raided a puppy farm exposed in a damning council report amid public outrage over the suffering.

Geelong Advertiser readers yesterday demanded authorities put a stop to the “sickening” conditions at the Beremboke farm, north of Anakie.

Animal welfare inspectors swooped on Leslie and Melinda Paxton’s farm to ensure the welfare of animals.

The investigation follows a damning Moorabool Shire report, which alleged the Paxtons kept 59 dogs in shocking conditions on the property.
…….

Photographic evidence taken by council rangers revealing the full extent of suffering was deemed too distressing to be shown to the public.

A council report said the kennels breached council policies for keeping dogs and failed the minimum standards for the Code of Practice for the Private Keeping of Dogs under the Planning and Environment Act.

See the story also in the Herald Sun, including these pictures;

The Paxton’s have, according to Council reports, been selling their puppies through the Melbourne Trading Post. If you are one of the people who have purchased one of these puppies and kept these guys in business, shame on you. There are literally thousands of website detailing how to avoid puppy farms and buy a healthy pup, but as you didn’t take the time to research where these pups were coming from, and now you are part of this.

There’s no law in the world that can stop mouthbreathers from setting up puppy factories. As the public who support their business we’ve got stop, knowingly or ignorantly, enabling their cruelty by buying their wares.

[ Debra Tranter speaks to ABC Radio ]

I’ve been waiting with baited breath (badum ching!) for this report to come out; a ‘Review of cat ecology and management strategies in Australia’ by the eradication happy Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. And while the topic of how to best dispatch cats is a bit pithy, it does shed some light on the situation for these animals in Australia.

First up, why eradication won’t work…

A nationally co-ordinated program of feral cat control across Australia is not feasible, as it is with other introduced species, and control efforts are best targeted at protecting threatened species or habitats. All successful cat eradication programs in Australia have been conducted on islands or within areas bounded by predator-proof fencing, and most have required the use of more than one control method. Successful techniques for the control or eradication of cats on islands have proved largely impractical on the mainland.

Next, a reminder that we humans are the primary disruptor of the environment and cats are simply living on the fringes of our waste-driven society. Cats live where people live…

The highest densities of cats have been recorded from areas associated with humans, where the animals exploit resource-rich habitats such as food dumps (Izawa et al 1982; Izawa 1983; Mirmovitch 1995) and farms (Macdonald and Apps 1978; Liberg 1980; Liberg 1984a and b), or are intentionally provided with food by humans (Dards 1978, 1983; Natoli and de Vito 1988, 1991). Densities reported in these studies range from the equivalent of 200 cats km2 to 2800 cats km2.

High cat densities have been recorded in Australia by Wilson et al (1994) at three rubbish dumps (Mac’s Reef Road, Mugga Lane and Belconnen) on the outskirts of Canberra. The cat densities were assessed as equivalent to 90 cats km2, 19 cats km2 and 38 cats km2 respectively. Hutchings (2003) estimated that 30-50 cats were exploiting a tip site in Victoria and Hale (2003) reported 51 cats exploiting the central holding sheds on a 12 ha pig farm in Menangle, NSW. Denny (2005) reported densities at tip sites at Oberon and Tibooburra in NSW higher than those found by Wilson et al (1994) and equivalent to those of Hutchings (2003) and Hale (2003).

Markedly lower densities of cats have been reported (<1-7 km2) where cats rely on hunting with very little or no food subsidy (Liberg et al 2000).

Also, supporting the ‘nature abhors a vacuum’ idiom that gets bandied about by groups watching cats be killed and re-killed, cat colonies really do come back when you kill them…

Wilson et al (1994) found that cats recolonised tip sites after removal, and suggested that control in perpetuity would be needed to prevent the re-establishment of high density colonies. Wilson et al (1994) also proposed the control of introduced rodents at tip sites to keep cat numbers at lower levels. Further investigations are needed to determine whether rodent control would substantially reduce cat numbers; whether tip cats would be able to survive without the rodent component of their diet; or whether rodent removal would encourage the cats to move away from the tip sites to become established in surrounding habitats.

And cats probably are just one factor amongst lots of really serious factors in native fauna extinction…

The difficulty in assessing the impact of cats on populations of native species, as opposed to predation on prey individuals, is the teasing out of the relative contributions of all the variables that can lead to reductions in the abundance, distribution and densities of species. These variables include climatic events (drought, fire, flood, etc), habitat modification, disease, and food resource distribution and density. It is not sufficient to simply document the diet of cats and assume that this equates to impact at the population level, although several studies have attempted to do this. Such extrapolations are inappropriate for several reasons. First, cats may prey most readily upon the ‘doomed surplus’; that is, the individuals in a prey population that are too young, old, or weak to reproduce (Banks 1999). Their removal clearly makes no difference to a population’s rate of increase. Second, remaining prey individuals may respond to the removal of conspecifics by showing improved survival and increased reproductive output, thereby compensating for individual losses at the population level.

… they might even eat the things that compete with native animals.

Third, cats may eat individuals of a particular prey species but have positive effects on prey population growth and size if they depress other species that would otherwise impact on the prey species more strongly. Such indirect interactions are pervasive in natural systems, and are likely to have particularly strong effects in predator-prey systems (Glen and Dickman 2005; Dickman 2007).

In short, cats are eating lots of non-native animals…

Although native species are well represented in the diet of cats in Australia, most studies of cat predation indicate that introduced species form the bulk of the diet.

In a semi-arid environment, for example, Catling (1988) found that the introduced rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) formed the greatest prey component in cat stomachs by both occurrence and weight. Similarly, Bayly (1978) found that rabbits formed the bulk of the diet of cats in an arid environment. Rabbits also formed the bulk of the diet of cats at Lake Burrendong in central eastern New South Wales, although house mice (Mus musculus) increased in importance after rabbit numbers were reduced by the appearance of rabbit haemorrhagic disease (RHD) (Molsher et al 1999).

Several studies in Australia have reported high frequencies of occurrence of rabbit in the diet of cats in arid and semi-arid zones (eg Bayly 1978; Jones and Coman 1981; Catling 1988; Martin et al 1996; Risbey et al 1999; Read and Bowen 2001) as well as in more temperate regions (eg Coman and Brunner 1972; Jones and Coman 1981; Barratt 1997; Molsher et al 1999; Kirkwood et al 2005). Catling (1988) reported the frequency of occurrence of rabbit in the diet of cats in western New South Wales as varying from 72 per cent to 90 per cent. Read and Bowen (2001) recorded a similar frequency of occurrence of rabbits (>60 per cent) in the diet of cats in arid South Australia, while Risbey et al (2000) found that the frequency of occurrence of rabbit varied from 19.4 per cent in the diet of semi-feral cats, to 66.6 per cent in the diet of feral cats in Western Australia. Jones and Horton (1982) found that rabbits constituted the bulk of cats’ diets on Macquarie Island, and Jones and Coman (1981) found that rabbits and house mice contributed most to the diet of free-living cats in Victorian mallee areas.

Holden and Mutze (2002) reported a substantial reduction in the population of cats in the Flinders Rangers, South Australia, following a rapid decline in rabbit numbers following the release of RHD.

And that cat eradication programs, by their nature, are incredibly inhumane…

Veitch (2001) described a cat eradication program in New Zealand that commenced in 1977 and concluded in 1980 using cage traps, leghold traps, dogs and 1080 poison. The author found that leghold traps and 1080 poison were the only effective methods.

And they don’t really work anyway…

Feral cats currently cannot be controlled effectively in large remote areas, so management should aim to prioritise sites, areas and regions that would be most likely to benefit from intensive cat control.

And we’re gonna have to do it, pretty much forever…

Programs for the control in perpetuity of cat colonies exploiting resource rich, artificial habitats, such as rubbish tips, should be a management requirement. Cat eradication should be conducted regularly at such sites at six-12 month intervals.

And then we’re gonna have to kill other animals too…

As cat control becomes more target specific, measurable and effective, it will be important to measure the responses of not just the target species or systems that are the intended beneficiaries of cat management, but also the responses of other species with which cats may interact. Populations of rabbits and introduced rodents will be the most obvious targets for monitoring in most situations.

So yeah. Welcome to the future of cat control according to the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre – The Hands-free Robotic Killing Tube!

Professor Steven Lapidge is trialling new traps which arouse the natural curiosity of cats.

“This is a tunnel that emits a phonic of a sound and bright features that attract cats to it,” he said.

“It requires them to walk through a tunnel and if they set off certain sensors in a certain configuration, then it detects the shape of the animal.

“If it is a cat then it will deliver a short spray onto its belly of a toxic substance that puts them to sleep.”

The trial will begin on South Australia’s Kangaroo Island next month.

A council’s animal management department can be a huge asset to its community; working to keep its public safe, offering a service that protects people and their animals and leading the way in compassion. Or it can work against its public, seeing them as an enemy that needs to be coerced with more laws, more fines and convoluted bureaucracy.

And sometimes it sits in the grey area between.

But what is certain amongst all pounds and shelters in 2010 is that the public are informed about, comparing and critiquing their local animal organisation’s performance like never before. Online discussion and the community’s feeling that pets are ‘family members’, combined with the realisation that other countries have made huge advancements in sheltering techniques that save the lives of animals, has lead to pet owners questioning the role of modern animal management. If people feel they aren’t getting the best from their local departments, they’re starting to ask why?

When family pets entering the pound system, fail to make it out alive (especially when the reason they’ve lost their lives are the cost of impoundment fees, paperwork mix-ups or short holding times) distraught pet owners are fighting back. And when they do, they’re taking their message to the masses.

• When Michala Herbert discovered her kitten missing just before Christmas, she door knocked her neighbourhood, finding her kitten hand been handed into the RSPCA by a neighbour. Although the family went to claim the cat nearly immediately, the shelter staff suspected ringworm and it was killed on arrival;
  
  

  A wandering kitten has caused heartache for the Herbert family after the cat was put down after just a few hours at the RSPCA.

  

  Ms Herbert claimed when she arrived at the shelter she was told her kitten, Lucky, had been put down as there were too many kittens at the shelter.

  
  

• In the same month, a golden retriever cross named ‘Brindle’ entered the Lost Dogs Home Cranbourne pound two days before Christmas.
  
  

  
  
  

  

  Ms Bierman received a call from the pound telling her Brindle was there, but despite offering to collect her straight away she was told she couldn’t because Brindle was registered in her former partner Paul Lindley’s name.

  The next day, when Mr Lindley went with their children to collect Brindle they were turned away because her microchip details were in Ms Bierman’s name.

  Despite being just 30 minutes from closing for the Christmas holiday period, the pound refused to give the children their dog.
  …..
  After repeated phone calls between Ms Bierman, the pound and animal welfare officers at Frankston Council, Ms Bierman was told on New Year’s Eve that Mr Lindley could collect Brindle.

  Less than 10 minutes later she received another call from the council to tell her Brindle was dead.

  
  

• Another miserable Christmas for a family in Ipswich, where the pound killed a dog that had been a family Christmas present, ordered from a purebred breeder interstate.
  
  

  The family had only had ‘Josephine’ a few days over the holiday break, before she escaped. The family reported the loss to the RSPCA, but with limited knowledge of the pound system, mistakenly believed they would be contacted if their dog was found. They weren’t and Joesphine was killed after the pound’s three day holding period.

  
  
  Ipswich City Council Pound did not cross reference with the RSPCA before they put her down otherwise Josephine would have been returned to us. I would have thought the RSPCA would be the first place they would liase with.
  .

  
  

• And in our newest case of an owned pet losing its life, is the story of ‘Biscuit’ – killed by Mount Isa City Council.
  
  

  Mount Isa Isa City Council pound has killed a dog who escaped from its owners yard during last Wednesday’s thunderstorm, after taking money from its owner for its release.

  The Jack Russell-cross named Biscuit was destroyed despite its owner, Georgie Martin, identifying the dog as hers.

  The council has a policy of putting dogs down if they remain unidentified after three days, but Biscuit was not even given that long.

  Ms Martin found Biscuit in the pound the day after she went missing.

  “She was so happy to see us, but there was nobody there,” she said.
  ….
  “My husband went down there on a Friday and he could see (Jacqueline) in the cage. I rang the pound and asked if I could come get her tomorrow. But because it was Friday, they said I’d have to come get her on Monday,” Jacqueline’s owner said.

  “I went in to get her on Monday and she wasn’t there.”

  
  
  The experience of Jacqueline’s family did not go unnoticed, with the story leading to other owners coming forward to sharing their experiences of pets being held to ransom.
  

While each of these stories are littered with failures – the result is the same. Pets with owners who loved them are dead. It’s worth noting all of these cases have happened in just three months.

Our pets deserve better.

All avenues must be exhausted to keep pets from becoming lost, and when they are, every effort made to reunite them with their families. Whether it’s keeping pets longer, making it easy for people to register their pets through online systems, lost pet databases or promotions highlighting the value of a collar and tag, these stories of heartbreak should serve to re-enforce the notion that impounded pets are nearly always lost family members. Killing a pet who has an owner should be regarded as the ultimate failure of an animal management system, and when it happens pet lovers everywhere have the right to question why.

With stories are being brought into the public domain for discussion, killing is no longer happening behind closed doors. And this new wave of people questioning why the system fails is vital to continuing to improve outcomes for shelter pets.

Why mandatory desexing fails to save the lives of pets;

In her article, Davis wrote, “On February 12, 2008, The City Council of Los Angeles passed a law that requires all cats and dogs in the city be spayed or neutered (desexed) after the age of 4 months (with some exceptions).” Unfortunately, Davis failed to present the kill data in Los Angeles shelters from before and after the time that law went into effect.

Beginning in 2001 the numbers of dogs entering shelters in L.A. and the numbers of them killed dropped every year until 2008 when the law was passed.

In 2001 40,442 dogs entered shelters in LA. 22,675 of them were killed. By 2007 canine deaths in L.A. shelters had plummeted to 6,038 – still too many, but a dramatic improvement.

In 2008, immediately following the mandatory spay/neuter law, dog deaths in L.A. shelters increased for the first time in 7 years. They increased by 24% from 6,038 in 2007 to 7,514. They rose again in 2009, erasing virtually all of the progress that had been made in the two years prior to the law.

The explanation for this is actually pretty simple: spay/neuter laws expend resources rounding up and killing animals. Those same resources can and should be spent spaying or neutering animals for people who many not be able to do so themselves.

The cost of seizing, holding, killing and disposing of an animal because their owner has not neutered it could cover the cost of sterilizing the pet, plus others.

Furthermore, spay/neuter laws place more authority in the hands of people like Los Angeles Animal Control and justify the catching and killing of more animals.

Read the rest of the article here…

Give some volunteers posters and shopping lists and get them out their doing the food shopping for you!

EZ Food Drive Success
400 pounds of pet food collected in three hours

Focus on Felines Campaign specialist Shelly Kotter, along with Shannon Riddle, Four Directions community cat program coordinator, and a handful of volunteers spent half a day collecting pet food—and it was oh so easy.

In fact, their process of collecting food is so easy, they’ve dubbed the program the EZ Food Drive.

Armed with a few chairs, a table, and some preprinted shopping lists, the volunteers were able to collect more than four hundred pounds of pet food in under three hours.

“The response was overwhelming!” says Kotter. “We handed shoppers a list of needed pet food and supplies. When those shoppers left the store, they gave us the items they bought from the list.”

It’s that easy.

Kotter is hoping that rescue groups across the country will follow suit and get permission from local retailers to set up EZ Food Drives in their communities.

Adds Kotter, “With a minimal amount of effort, we were able to collect enough pet food to supply local groups for a few weeks.”

Don’t forget the pre-printed thank you notes!

Now, before you read this just remember, Pets Paradise made a cool $80 million dollars profit last year from pet and pet product sales.

Heart money

Cally Loridas and puppy Harry were born with the same heart condition.

A Berwick girl is using all of her pocket money to kick start fundraising efforts for a critically ill puppy in need of surgery.

Lauren Callander decided to help three-month-old Harry Heart Murmur, a King Charles Cavalier puppy who has a serious heart condition and is being cared for by Pets Paradise at Parkmore Shopping Centre in Keysborough, because she too has a heart condition.

The 10-year-old was diagnosed with a heart condition during her mother Michelle’s pregnancy and had open heart surgery when she was only 10 months old.

Lauren wanted to lend a helping hand to Harry Heart Murmur who has been diagnosed with the serious heart condition known as Patient Ductus Arteriosis.

The puppy needs surgery, which has been estimated to cost up to $10,000.

“I want to help fix the dog like the doctors fixed me,” Lauren said.

“I feel sad for him because I know what it feels like.”

The Berwick Chase Primary School student said she would feel proud of herself if she could help raise the much-needed $10,000.

“I’m going to donate my pocket money. I have $95 in the bank,” she said.

“The kids at school are also helping make posters to hang up around the school.”

Lauren and her family are hoping the community will also dig deep and support the fundraiser for Harry Heart Murmer.

I think I’m going to vomit.

In case you’d like to let the journalist for this series know what you think of Pets Paradise, Kelly Yates, can be reached on Kelly.Yates@starnewsgroup.com.au.

Be nice.

Planning Application 2008-047; Mr. L. Paxton; Use of the Land to Keep 30 Dogs (Animal Keeping); 456 Marshalls Lane, Beremboke

Approval is sought for the use of the property for the keeping of thirty (30) dogs (Animal Keeping) in a Farming Zone. This application is retrospective and the use of the site for animal keeping has been established for several years without approval.

In excess of 30 dogs (59 confirmed by a site visit undertaken by Council Compliance Officers) are currently being kept on the property.
………

From photographic evidence provided by the Compliance Officer it is apparent that the applicant fails to comply with the Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Establishments.

- Photos show raw meat on the ground for animals to eat, and water containers tipped over.

- Pens do not appear to be cleaned regularly, faecal matter and significant amounts of mud present in pens, around property and on dogs.

- Current method of faeces disposal (Waste bin provided by SITA environmental solutions) not satisfactory. A waste removal method must be implemented which complies with the EPA code of practice.

- All areas appeared to be wet and unclean in photos, there had recently been rain however the dog pens should be designed to provide shelter from this.

- Photos show standard wire farm fencing approximately 1-1.4 metres high, with a family of pigs grazing on the opposite side, next to the road. Neighbours have reported dogs and livestock escaping on a number of occasions.

- All kennels appear to have concrete bottoms, do not appear to provide protection from rain and five kennels are not sufficient to provide for 30 dogs.

- Photos show between 2 and 5 adult sized, large dog species (eg. Alaskan Malamutes) being kept in one pen.

- Applicant has previous history of unregistered dogs.

Objects to the planning application based on the following:

Investigations on the property show that the applicant is running a puppy farm and often advertises through the Melbourne Trading Post. Compliance Officers attended at the property on the 07/09/2009 and 08/09/09 and obtained photographs of the living conditions that these animals are currently enduring. A copy of these photos has been given to planning. Other issues that arose from the visit were;

• The inappropriate and unhygienic manner of animal carcasses left to rot on the ground
• Uncontained livestock on the road
• The number of dogs on the property- 59
• The manner in which the dogs are housed. The house does not provide adequate shelter or space per animal and as shown on the photographs obtained by compliance officers, many of the animals were living and covered in their own faeces.

And today;

The pleas of a Beremboke couple to keep 30 dogs on their property fell on deaf ears last night, as Moorabool Shire councillors unanimously voted to deny them a permit.

Melinda and Les Paxton addressed councillors at a meeting at Bacchus Marsh last night to defend themselves against claims in a council report that they had as many as 59 dogs on their property at one time.

The couple made a retrospective claim to house the 30 animals on their Marshalls Lane property.

“The whole thing has got out of hand a little bit,” Mr Paxton said.

“There have never been 59 dogs on the property,” Mr Paxton said.”There were 46 and when (the council worker) told us we could only have 30, we put the rest up for sale on the internet and got rid of them.”

Neighbouring property owners complained about dogs escaping, excessive noise and people shooting kangaroos to feed the dogs.

Council compliance officers also reported that dogs were chained to trees and cars, kept in cages with concrete floors without sufficient water, and that raw meat was thrown on the ground for the dogs to eat.

Still think you should buy that internet pup?

I sometimes wonder if I should rename this blog to ‘the thing someone said at work today that made my head explode’.

Our valentine’s day promotion was a huge success. We broke the record for, wait for it, the single highest number of pets adopted in a weekend. 40 pets altogether. Great huh?

Except.

A meeting after the event revealed the troops weren’t happy. Why? Because we had promoted adopting pets at Valentine’s Day, but as ‘a pet is for life, not just for Christmas’… we actively tell people not to adopt at Christmas. Doesn’t that make us hypocrites?

FFS!

I’d like to point out that the ‘a pet is for life, not just for Christmas’ slogan came out in 1978. Or to put it another way, a full year before I was even born. Or to put it another, another way, the slogan came out when large-screen tvs looked like this;

Certainly, it was a snappy catchphrase back then. But the rationale behind it is just so goddamn outdated now, I actually can’t believe in 2010 I’m hearing people criticise our new promotion that saved just so many lives, in favour of the wisdom of a bumper sticker from 32 years ago.

So while my headsploded all over the office and I listened to the dusty thinking being bandied about through long epilogues of judgement and righteousness, I wondered; how do we ever get over this retro idea that promoting rescue pets during holidays and seasonal events is wrong somehow?

So this is my call; the banishment of the unhelpful cliché  of ‘a pet is for life, not just for Christmas’ from our thinking forever.

• A pet is for life, especially at Christmas when people are taking holidays and spending time with family.




• Promotions at Valentine’s day are not only a great (and proven successful) way to increase awareness and adoptions, but an idea we should be expanding to include every single event into our arsenal, including Australia Day, Easter, Halloween and small local occasions.




• There is absolutely no evidence that shunning holiday and event opportunities in any way protects pets.




• There is absolutely no evidence that the ‘a pet is for life, not just for Christmas’ idea has ever kept anyone from buying a pet during the holidays. Nor should we want it to, as discouraging rescue pet adoption during the busy intake season is simply ludicrous.

We have to recognise that all of these internal debates are exactly that – internal debates. The only people who care about treating this slogan with any kind of reverance… are those people who work in rescue. The public couldn’t care less and get a pet, whenever it’s most convenient for them and overwhelmingly, go on to be perfectly capable pet owners.

It’s time to ditch once and for all, that dated, dreary old platitude, ‘a pet is for life, not just for Christmas’.

See also: Busting the holiday adoption myth

Well, not entirely; she has to share her ‘Secret Cat’ title!

Research has shown that 40% of cat owners are secretly feeding a cat they don’t own. Compassionate cat-lovers across the country are giving outdoor kitties extra help. Wild, stray or homeless; whatever you call them, they’re Community Cats.

Anyone who has followed this blog knows how I feel about the dreary, catch and kill campaigns we’ve seen in Australia in the past.

But rather than just bitch about it, we’ve created our own program which focuses on just how compassionate our community is when it comes to outdoor kitties.

We’ve sent this information to every vet in Australia. And so far it’s been a huge success, with councils also wanting to get in on the action, contacting us to request dozens more posters.

Looking forward to making 2010 the year of the cat!

Posters can be downloaded here.

Slashdot is arguably one of the world’s most famous websites. As a provider of news for nerds and the intellectual set, Australia doesn’t rate a mention very often, but we got a mention with this:

Australian Farmers Told To Dynamite Rabbits

The South Australian Environment Department has told farmers that they should use poison gas or even explosives to deal with the out-of-control rabbit population. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Invasive Animals chief Professor Tony Peacock, owner of the largest business card ever, says that blowing up rabbits isn’t as inhuman as people might think, and has been ranked by the RSPCA as one of the best ways to destroy warrens.

Honestly. This is the animal welfare equivalent of a ‘Hey, Hey It’s Saturday’ skit.

See also: Cute kids, fluffy bunnies and sports stars