Released tomorrow is the new ‘Code of practice for the management of dogs and cats in shelters and pounds‘ from the Victorian Department of Primary Industries. With the advisory panel for this legislation featuring some of the largest and most wealthy animal shelters in Victoria, including the RSPCA VIC and Lost Dogs Home, this review had the opportunity to revolutionise animal sheltering in the state; mandating a life-saving focus and removing outdated restrictions to expand the capacity of the community to become involved.

Unfortunately though, rather than look to promote those initiatives that have been shown to save the lives of shelter animals, the new code of practice further reduces the claim of rescue groups on homeless pets and is set to propel Victoria into a monopolised, ’super pound’ future. Shelters with millions of dollars of community resources at their disposal are able to kill under government mandates, while shutting their doors to private and community rescues, who are no longer a recognised resource able to offer death row pets a second chance.

Why greed is being put before life-saving

In 2010 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 lives, has lead to pet owners questioning the efficacy of their own community’s animal management. Empowered by the realisation that they, the community, are part of the solution, a huge movement towards the creation of foster care groups is gaining momentum across Australia.

With websites like PetRescue, connecting these groups with thousands of potential adopters, without the need for a shelter, private foster care groups working alongside compassionate pounds and shelters have become the new model of modern animal management.

However ‘old school’ shelters, running pound contracts and killing the majority of pets in their care, have donor bases and bequests worth many hundreds of millions of dollars. Concerned that this new swing towards community based life saving might eat into their profits, they look to disparage the capabilities of community rescue groups and have become complicit in an effort by the government to shut out private rescue and give councils more reasons to kill, rather than save pets.

The new plan to kill community rescue in Victoria

The existing ‘Code of practice for the management of dogs and cats in shelters and pounds‘ already contains several outdated mandates that see pets killed unnecessarily in Victorian shelters.

A mandatory euthanasia deadline

In Victoria, impounded animals must be held for 8 days, before being offered for sale, or killed. However, rather than give adoptable pets an unlimited chance to find a new home, pounds are required to kill them or move them off site.

The maximum time any animal selected for sale can be held at a shelter is four weeks. At the conclusion of this period, the animal must be euthanased or permanently removed from the facility, for example, by placement in a foster program.

Shelters could have lobbied the government to remove this mandate, as the use of modern animal sheltering techniques, enrichment and off-site foster homes mean pets can be kept healthy for a unlimited amount of time. However, pounds and shelters in Victoria, not interested in expanding their programs beyond killing, simply accepted the governments addition of two weeks to the holding period.

With the exception of animals seized and under legal challenge, the maximum time an Animal, that has completed the statutory eight days, can be held at an Establishment is six weeks from the end of the eighth day. At the conclusion of this period the Animal must be euthanased or permanently removed from the facility, for example, by placement in foster care.

New code of practice

Rescue groups now have just 6 weeks to find any animal a new home.

The mandated killing of unweaned or underage kittens and puppies

Some shelters work with foster carer groups who specialise in saving the lives of the pets who need extra care. A lazy animal shelter will simply kill all unweaned animals. Rather than embrace and encourage programs which work to save underage animals, the legislation supported by the largest and wealthiest shelters in Victoria, mandates their immediate euthanasia;

Unweaned animals without a queen or bitch must not be placed in foster care.

Kittens must be a minimum of 400 grams and condition scored to 2 or greater. Puppies a minimum of 4 weeks before they can be placed in juvenile foster care. Any animal under these minimum weights or ages, without a queen or bitch, must be humanely euthanased.

New code of practice

And rather than encourage private rescue and foster care groups to form to help with capacity and special needs pets, finally…

The elimination of foster care and community rescue groups

Foster care can no longer be used to make space at the end of an animal’s holding period.

The only times an animal can be placed in foster care is on the grounds of juvenile or rehabilitation foster care. The animals placed in foster care must be permanently identified by microchip and remain the property of the establishment and must be returned for re-homing. Foster care must not be considered as the animal being ‘permanently removed’ from the establishment.

An animal in foster care must not be sold or rehoused from the foster care premises.

New code of practice

Instead a new ‘limited access’ foster care program, can be run internally by shelters. Private foster care groups are no longer permitted and each foster carer must work as a volunteer of the shelter.

While mandating that foster carers be limited, there is no mandate for shelters to actually offer a foster care program. Pets can be impounded, killed and if the shelter chooses not to run a foster program, the community have no claim to save the lives of these pets.

What we’re losing in Victoria

In states other than Victoria, foster groups are leading the way in community lifesaving. There are over 750 groups using PetRescue, growing at the rate of about 2 new groups a day. Each one of these community groups brings new resources, new knowledge and new passion into our industry. Not to mention capacity to save lives.

By allowing large, wealthy groups who use killing as their primary tool for managing pets to lobby government for a monopoly on animal sheltering; by allowing then the power to shut their doors to community rescue groups, foster carers and giving them expanded powers to kill, we’re moving as far away from a No Kill future as it’s possible to do.

The public will have less ability to access information on shelter statistics, and less accountability as the private rescuers who often act as whistle-blowers to abuse and poor performance are forced out. While the very organisations who have lobbied the government for these changes, are the ones most likely to benefit from expanded pound contracts and lack of competition within the sector.

Thousands of pets, who would have been given a second chance will be killed. While million dollar animal shelters will wring their hands and have a new defence for the killing.

“We have to kill, it’s the law…”

How Disneyland shows compassion and care for free-roaming cats and is reaping the benefits in return;

After dark, the dirty work at Disneyland begins
LA Times, May 02, 2010

Years ago — no one seems to know when — feral cats began to sneak into the park, living among the park’s trees and shrubs during the day. At night, they venture out, and an estimated 200 cats now prowl through Disneyland and neighboring California Adventure Park. But instead of evicting the cats, Disneyland’s animal wranglers work to control the feline population by spaying and neutering the adult cats and finding homes for all kittens born in the resort.

The cats eat at five permanent feeding stations installed throughout the two parks. “We are not trying to get rid of them,” said Gina Mayberry, manager of Disneyland’s Circle D ranch, where the park’s animals are housed. “They keep the rodent population down.”

Says one Disney blogger:

Yes, it’s true: Disneyland is home to many cats, and has been since the 1960s or so. Years ago, when building the now-defunct Sleeping Beauty Castle walk through, over 100 of them were discovered hiding in the castle. Instead of letting them go elsewhere, Disneyland decided to keep the animals and allow them to stay in the park. After all, they controlled the rodent problem (just don’t tell Mickey)!

Bob Kerridge, New Zealand’s best known champion of the animals has this month been chosen as the National President of the Royal New Zealand SPCA. The article below shows just how he’s helped make compassion for pets, a community concern…

Cause of the cat people
New Zealand Herald, March 2009

Bob Kerridge called and the cat ladies came.

On a day of lashing rain and wild wind, women from around Auckland grabbed their brollies and, some clutching cages of kittens, made their way to the Auckland SPCA, drawn there by the region’s best-known animal welfare whisperer.

A few men who turned out too, but women make up most of the small army of people who quietly care for the legions of cats living in our school grounds, in vacant lots and in carparks, under bridges and in churchyards.

These cat-carers slip out at night under the radar to provide what SPCA chief executive Kerridge says is a vital public service.

They feed, trap and desex colonies of stray cats, mostly paying out of their own pockets. They often stump up for the vet bills to treat mange and fleas, or the eye disease which gums the eyes of kittens tight shut.

Some spend thousands on stray cats and many have half a dozen at home – some a whole lot more.

It’s also true a few of them fit the elderly white female profile of the cat-obsessed.

But not all. Many are ordinary folk with families who care about cats and who have similar stories of how they got involved; that first hungry, ratty cat foraging in a bin which tugged at the heartstrings.

They’ll talk of how one cat led to another… and another.

So call them fanatical, they say, just don’t call them nuts because caring for stray cats is a serious business.

The problem of stray cats is so serious, in fact, it’s why Kerridge called the cat-carers together for a summit at the SPCA’s education centre in Mangere.

At the end of the day, a new co-ordinated “Cat Coalition” had been born.

As the day wore on and a few different philosophies emerged, with only the tiniest of cat fights towards the end, the one thing everyone in the room had in common was this message: desexing is paramount.

The aim of even the most cat-heavy cat lady, or man, is to reduce the stray cat population.

If this small army of people did not exist to desex stray cats, the already high population would fast explode in numbers hard to imagine and cruel means would likely be employed to get rid of them.

To these people, prevention is better than culling.

Mark Farnworth is a Unitec animal scientist who came along to get some tips for future research. He has already studied New Zealand attitudes towards stray cats and has found that while New Zealand likes to think itself a nation of animal lovers, when it comes to the cat we are below countries such as Italy and America where trap, neuter and release (TNR) schemes are accepted as ethically sound.

The SPCA wants to educate the public about the soundness of TNR because Farnworth’s studies show the public would rather see strays destroyed.

One of the problems here is a blurring in the public’s mind on the difference between stray and feral cats.

Stray cats are the ones which originate from pets whereas feral cats are born in the wild and have no reliance on humans and are designated pests under the Biosecurity Act.

Even with feral cats, though, the jury is out on how bad they are for native wildlife.

Kerridge refers to a study in the bush of the Orongorongo Valley in Wellington which analysed cat scat (faecal remains) and found rats and rabbits were their stable foods, though they also ate some birds, lizards, fish and invertebrates.

The study concluded: “Our results suggest that cats are having little effect on most forest birds, especially those who do not feed on the ground, but that they are important predators of rodents and rabbits.”

Cats are demonised beyond what is fair, Kerridge tells the horrified audience, and explains how through history cats have played their role.

It’s a well-known historical fact, he says, that London’s great plague was caused as a result of the cats being eliminated. During the papal period cats were seen as devils and were killed but the rat population exploded.

He hopes the day will come when New Zealand has cat-friendlier laws, saying that in Rome in 1991 a law was passed which gives cats the right to live free.

They must be desexed but by law they are protected and must not be removed from their colony.

The result is well-managed colonies and happy cats.

Says Kerridge, “Perhaps we can do as Rome does – recognise and support those who care for cats, assist by funding their desexing to control their population, and provide sustenance for their continuing wellbeing. After all they too are valuable inhabitants of our city.”

Part 4 of series examining proposed changes to Victoria’s Domestic Animals Act.

Current Laws Restrict Owners Of Pit Bulls

Victoria has strict regulations for the ownership of Restricted Breed Dogs (aka. Pit Bulls). Owners are required to notify their council, build an enclosure, keep their dogs muzzled and on a lead when off their property and display prescribed warning signs at all entrances to the premises where the dog is kept. Restricted breed dogs born after 2005 are not allowed to be registered and it’s illegal to purchase a restricted breed dog.

Can you identify the Pit Bull?

Click on the pictures below to find the Pit Bull.

Neither Can The “Experts”

“The determination of whether a dog is of a particular breed can be quite difficult. There is, on the evidence before me, no satisfactory scientific method such as DNA analysis which provides a reliable answer. The word “breed” itself has to be applied carefully. To determine whether a dog is of a particular breed is, of course, a question of fact.”

- Judge Martin J, Supreme Court of Queensland, March 2010

Breed Specific or Looks Specific?

To avoid costly court challenges over the validity of visual breed identifications, the Bill deems the actual breed of the dog irrelevant.

“The Bill provides for a standard to be prescribed to assist with the identification of a dog as one of the restricted breed dogs.  If a dog fits within the standard it will be included in the definition of a restricted breed dog whether or not the dog is a cross breed.”

- Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010 : Second Reading Speech

A dog of any breed, even a pedigree, could potentially fall within the prescribed standard for Pit Bulls. A Department of Primary Industries spokesperson confirmed that the prescribed standard for Pit Bulls does not exist. He stated that the DPI would create one after the Bill is enacted. It’s been reported that the DPI have used variations of Debra Pomeroy’s discredited ‘22 Point Checklist‘ in the past.

Rethinking Dangerous Dogs

Breed Specific Legislation has been tried around the world and has failed to reduce the incidence of dog bites. Experts are calling for a rethink on dangerous dogs with a focus on “deed not breed”.

“We know that a dog’s tendency to bite is the product of at least five factors: the dog’s genetic predisposition to aggression; early socialisation to humans; its training or mistraining; the quality of its care and supervision; and the behaviour of the victim. Genetics is only one of these factors. In the wrong circumstances, any dog, regardless of size, breed or mixture of breeds can be dangerous. The RSPCA believes that deeming a dog as “dangerous” should therefore be done on the basis of its behaviour, not its breed.”

- Lynne Bradshaw, National President, RSPCA Australia

The Scottish Parliament recently passed a Bill that shifted the emphasis from ‘breed’ to ‘deed’.

“It is clear that a dog’s breed is only one factor which may affect its behaviour. Attempting to define the law purely in relation to breed has failed to protect the public. This view is supported by several leading organisations concerned with the welfare of dogs, including the Kennel Club, Advocates for Animals, the Dogs Trust and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty Problems with existing legislation to Animals.  The widely accepted view is that the way a dog is trained and treated is far more important in determining its behaviour than its breed is.”

- Proposed Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill

What Makes More Sense

The definition of Restricted Breed should not be extended to include dogs of any breed who happen to look like someone’s idea of a Pit Bull. Responsible owners of well behaved dogs should not have to worry that their dog might be declared a restricted dog simply because of the way it looks.

Perhaps it’s time to stop pandering to media generated hysteria over Pit Bulls and accept that BSL is an overly simplistic response to the problem of dog bites and that our efforts would be better spent on other approaches.


About the Author: Mike Bailey is the founder of Goodfordogs.org and creator of the Australian Animal Shelter Map which provides much needed exposure for dogs and cats waiting in shelters for a new home.

From Nathan Winograd’s blog:

Saving 100% of Baby Kittens

For the last few years, Michael Linke, the head of the RSPCA in the Australian Capital Territory, an open admission animal control shelter, has been implementing the No Kill Equation and has saved 93% of all dogs.

Last October, he attended a workshop I did at the national conference in Australia on lifesaving programs for cats, including setting up a foster care program for motherless neonatals kittens. This week, I got an e-mail from Linke which included what may be the understatement of the year: “I did what you said regarding infantile kittens, i.e., saving them.  100% saved this year.” 100% saved!

Let me say it for him: “wooooooooooooooooooooooo-hooooooooooooooooo.”

We’re told constantly that we have an “overwhelming cat problem that needs to be addressed”:

Animal welfare shelters need your help to stop the appalling destruction of tens thousands of healthy cats and kittens every year. Cat overpopulation is a serious problem and we all need to take action to do something about it.

But in Yass, there is a different problem – they’re not summarily killing hundreds of cats…

Local resident Gaby Browarczyk happened upon a stray cat recently and was surprised that council could not take it. She then rang Yass Veterinary Hospital. Staff members there were sympathetic but said there was little they could do. They had been instructed by council to allow cats to roam.

Because the pound doesn’t accept cats:

“We don’t have capacity to take cats at the pound. It’s a dog pound,” said Director of Planning & Environment Services Paul De Szell.

But don’t panic; they’re working to create themselves a ‘cat problem’, by arming the public with traps;

“In the next couple of months we’ll be reviewing our policy in relation to cats,” he added.

“Under the current policy, we hire out cat traps, and then people are advised to take the cats to Yass Valley Veterinary Hospital.”

but….

Gail Battye at Yass Valley Vet Hospital was surprised to hear that was the policy, as she said they had been advised by council that they weren’t to take in strays.

“We’ve been told that cats are allowed to stray,” Ms Battye said. “And they should just be returned to where they were found.”

Now would be a great time for a council funded, outreach desexing scheme, free to anyone caring for one of these cats to have it desexed; you know, reduce the problem before it begins?

Not likely:

Greens councillor Chris McHarg-McKenzie raised the issue at the last council meeting.

“The council couldn’t really respond. They said they hire out cat traps, but then there’s no real plan of what to do with them after that,” councillor McHarg-McKenzie said.

What’s the bet, the answer they come up with, is to build a cat-pound, keep them for a bit and then kill them? And then cat ‘lovers’ group will form, encourage people to get busy trapping even more cats from the street that have no hope of ever being tame enough to find a home (for their own good), and we’ll have a ‘real’ cat problem in Yass.

Stay tuned.

Part 3 examining proposed changes to Victoria’s Domestic Animals Act

The proposed maximum fines for a dog escaping from its owners property ($1195) or owner failing to renew the registration for a dog or cat ($2389) are over the top.

“It is in the nature of dogs to stray if they are not responsibly confined. To provide greater incentive for responsible dog ownership, the penalties for an owner allowing a dog to be at large will be doubled from three to six penalty units for a dog at large during the day and from five to ten penalty units for a dog at large during the evening.”
Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010 : Second Reading Speech

95% of dogs will NOT be impounded this year

Studies have found that on the whole, owners do a pretty good job of keeping their dogs responsibly confined. The incentive is keeping their dogs, who most see as a member of the family, safe from harm.

Accidents happen and fining responsible owners up to $1195 for their dog escaping is unfair. Dogs with no history of escaping break out of yards in terror during thunderstorms. Tradespeople, babysitters, and visitors let dogs out by mistake.

For the 5% of dogs who are impounded each year only around 50% are reclaimed. What effect will increasing the fines to as much as $1195 have on reclaim rates? Many Victorians simply don’t have that sort of money available to them.

What Makes More Sense

For the safety of the animals and the public, owners should not permit their dogs to roam the streets. The majority of dog owners are responsible in this regard and are very distressed if their dog escapes. Irresponsible dog owners who fail to confine their dogs to their property should be easy to identify as repeat offenders. Just as we have a points system for road users, it should be possible to target irresponsible owners without unfairly penalizing responsible owners. A sliding scale for penalties would be fairer (ie. first one’s free, 2nd = $100, 3rd = $200, 4th = $400, etc).


About the Author: Mike Bailey is the founder of Goodfordogs.org and creator of the Australian Animal Shelter Map which provides much needed exposure for dogs and cats waiting in shelters for a new home.

As the ‘Who’s for Cats?’ program winds up for another year in Victoria, there’s been an enormous trend toward the trapping and killing of cats;

In Geelong, they’re having the biggest year for cat impoundments ever:

More than 3000 cats and kittens have been handed to Geelong Animal Welfare Society over the past 10 months, making it one of the worst years on the pound’s books for unwanted, stray and feral moggies.

Climate change and a new City of Greater Geelong cat curfew have been blamed for the influx of the pets.
….
From July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009 the centre received 3141 cats and kittens.

By comparison, 3117 animals had been handed into GAWS for the 2009-10 financial year up to 4pm yesterday.

“We are having an influx of people who are relinquishing cats that have never been used to being confined and just won’t settle.

“A lot of people now know that they have the right to not have a cat or dog on their property and they have the right to do something about it and they are calling the council.

“The council are also picking up cats and bringing them into the centre.”

Most would not find homes, Ms Willers warned.

Which is code for, we’re gonna kill them. And ironic, given the curfew behind this surge in impounds was endorsed by GAWS, stating the laws…

… would help reduce the number of unwanted litters and dumped pets.

Instead, they’re looking at a 30% increase and killing over 4,000 cats this year.

But this astoundingly horrible result, isn’t enough to deter one of the most vocal cat law supporters, Nathan Miles, from contining to petition Melton and Brimbank Shires to follow suit;

A volunteer cat trapper has called for tougher council action on hoarders and irresponsible pet owners, who he says are fuelling the municipality’s growing stray cat population.

Nathan Miles of Caroline Springs devotes much of his spare time to trapping stray cats, collecting 182 in Brimbank in the past 10 months.

Nathan delivers these cats personally to the Melton Shire Council pound, who has a 97.2% kill rate for cats.

Catching and killing. Killing and blaming the public. Its the cycle that cat groups in Victoria are stuck in – calling for stricter and stricter laws on cat owners, that only see impoundment rates increase as free-roaming cats become the undeserving targets. And Councils and the ‘Nathans’ of Victoria are all too willing to help see these cats die.

It’s time that the cat owners of Victoria rejected the notion they are to blame for the current situation and start pressuring government and wealthy animal welfare groups, for services and outreach that protect cats and support semi-owned and feral cat carers. It’s no longer acceptable to still be championing killing.

Part II – Examining proposed changes to Victoria’s Domestic Animals Act

“Currently a dog seized while at large must be held in the pound for a minimum of eight days even if there is no way of identifying its owner. The Bill will give an authorised council officer power to destroy a dog forty-eight hours after seizure, if the dog was straying, is unidentifiable and is considered a danger to the community.”

- Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010 : Second Reading Speech

The Bill grants Councils and their contractors the power to kill unregistered dogs on the suspicion that they might commit an offence if they were to get loose again. This is unfair for a number of reasons.

Council Officers are Not Behaviourists

Pounds hold lost dogs for a minimum of eight days to give their owners a chance to reclaim them. A lost, scared dog is likely to growl at a stranger who tries to catch it. Lost dogs are at risk from cars and an injured dog is more likely to bite a stranger handling it. How do we protect against Council officers misreading the dogs? Will they be required to have a certificate in dog behaviour before making life and death decisions about peoples pets?

Dogs Behave Differently in Pounds

“Dogs arriving in a pound do so with no known history of behaviour or aggression. In addition, many such animals are normally frightened and disorientated and are likely to show different behaviour to that shown in a domestic situation.”
- Things You Should Know About Animal Shelters and Pounds – DPI.vic.gov.au

It makes sense that a dog who’s been grabbed off the street and caged in a pound along with dozens of other unfamiliar dogs might not be her usual self. By requiring Council Officers to decide their fate in this environment the Bill is setting them up to fail. In order for the Council to destroy a seized dog,

“an authorized officer of the Council, at or after the time of the seizure of the dog, reasonably believes that the behaviour of the dog has resulted, or is likely to result, if the dog were at large, in the commission of an offence under section 29.”

Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010 23(1)(c)

Why the Rush to Destroy?

“the council must decide whether to destroy the dog under subsection(1) within 48 hours after the record under subsection (3) is made.”
- Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010 23(4)

Research has shown that the highest levels of stress occur in the first 72 hours after being impounded. By requiring Council officers to decide their fate during this period the Bill is setting them up to fail.

What About the Family?

There is no provision in the Bill for details of destroyed dogs to be made public. This would result in devastated owners returning again and again to pounds, unaware that their family pet had already been destroyed.

What would make more sense

Lost dogs currently remain the property of their owners for eight days after being impounded. After that time they belong to the Council holding them to dispose of how they wish. Regardless of whether the dogs registration is current, it should continue to be given the chance to be reclaimed by their owners during this eight day period.


About the Author: Mike Bailey is the founder of Goodfordogs.org and creator of the Australian Animal Shelter Map which provides much needed exposure for dogs and cats waiting in shelters for a new home.

Bear with me guys – I’m working full time this week so have just enough time to pull some rescue news. Back to regular programming next week!

Dogs

I’m very pleased to welcome Mike Bailey to Saving Pets. He’s working hard following the changes in Victorian legislation and when he’s not blogging, he’s the creator of the rescue website Good for Dogs.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

The Fraser Coast Council says it is being “swamped” by stray dogs, with about 125 captured in Hervey Bay and Maryborough in the past three weeks.

Council has returned 46 of the dogs to their homes, but about 40 per cent will have to be euthanised because their owners cannot be found.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

The RSPCA in Tasmania has taken a strong stand against the proposed laws targeting pit bulls in their state:

The RSPCA has labelled the State Government’s new dangerous dog control laws discriminatory.

RSPCA state president Paul Swiatkowski said the animal was responsible for attacks on people and other animals, not the breed.

“Classifying dogs as dangerous should be done on an individual basis and not a breed basis,” he said.

Congratulations to the RSPCA Tasmania for taking a strong stand against this ineffective legislation.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Meanwhile in Victoria, councils have jumped at the chance at expanded powers to kill dogs.

The Moyne Shire has welcomed legislation introduced to State Parliament last week to control dangerous dogs.
……
Mayor James Purcell says tougher laws were badly needed.

“Better late than never – we’d be pleased to see that the restrictions are put into place rather than not have them at all,” he said.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

This Queensland family had enough time to get attacked by a roaming dog, contact the council, call the media, have a photoshoot and see the rest of their street interviewed and guess what… the dog is still causing problems;

The council has confirmed a statutory declaration regarding an alleged attack on another animal has been received and council officers are investigating the matter in accordance with normal procedures.

These are the kinds of situations that see people calling for ‘breed bans’ and stronger penalties because of problem owners; that are caused primarily by a lack of enforcement of existing laws. Dogs shouldn’t be getting third and forth chances to hurt someone.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Cats

The RSPCA in WA today started the process of saving 50 white cats:

There were over 50 white cats inside the house and the owner’s life had been completely taken over by caring for them.

And the cats weren’t in a bad condition, it was just that there were just too many of them.

The owner reported that it cost him over $350 a week to feed all the cats, which had exploded in numbers after a few un-spayed cats quickly multiplied and overran the house.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Puppy farms

The ‘Oscars Law’ website has now launched. Oscar was one of a number of dogs who were rescued from a puppy factory in central Victoria where they had been neglected to the point they required urgent veterinary care. Days later and recovering from surgery, Oscar was returned by authorities to the very people neglected him. This campaign hopes to change the governments stance on puppy farming in Victoria.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.