Wagging the dog
Date: 25/02/2012
Sydney Morning Herald – Good Weekend

Unpredictably vicious and a potential killer, or man’s misunderstood best friend? Whatever the case, it’s not the best time to be a pit bull in Australia – or to own one. By Joel Meares.

Harnessed at the end of her hot-pink leash, Princess Dahlia Dogwollop Linke is dragging me down Canberra’s Bunda Street. She skims the hot pavement with her chocolate-coloured nose as we plough through the pre-Christmas foot traffic, pausing to sniff the feet of shoppers refuelling at a crowded streetside cafe. When a beefy Harley-Davidson crackles past, she jerks hard towards the road, but I hold tight. Pushing on, I notice a young couple cross to the opposite side of the footpath. It’s a quick reminder that this princess is a pit bull.

A stroll through the city with two-year-old Dahlia is a Saturday routine for owners Michael and Mardi Linke. For me, it’s more social experiment. Dahlia is an American pit bull terrier (APBT) at a time when it’s tough to be an American pit bull terrier. Long feared as the most vicious of dangerous dogs – Time magazine dubbed them “time bombs on legs” – a pit bull-mastiff cross last year killed four-year-old Ayen Chol in north-west Melbourne, sparking fresh hatred of the breed. The government clamped down, newspapers recycled “killer breed” headlines, and these “sharks on leashes”, as comedian Billy Connolly once called them, were back in the firing line.

There isn’t much that’s shark-like about Dahlia, though. Solid at 20 kilograms, with a short tan coat and yellow-green eyes, she might be scary if not for a jutting underbite that sets her expression to clownishly proud. On the street, she lights up kids’ eyes – one little girl tells another, “Look at the puppy, it’s so cute!” – but adults are less sure. In a car park elevator, a shopper presses her back to the wall, casting a cautious eye over Dahlia as we ascend. Rounding the corner from a side street, one young woman gasps and jumps out of our way.

Dahlia noses forward, oblivious. I, however, can’t help but feel I’ve done something wrong.

For the past three decades, APBTs have built a reputation as the canine world’s worst breed. According to legend, they are crazed and trap-mouthed beasts, bred for vicious combat, owned by thugs and set loose upon the suburbs of the Western world. The law has responded accordingly. Only in the ACT and the Northern Territory can Dahlia walk a street like Bunda unmuzzled. In other states, where pit bulls are “restricted”, they must be muzzled and leashed in public, neutered and, in some cases, cannot be bought, sold or rehomed. The goal? As former NSW premier Bob Carr once put it, “To breed these dogs out of existence.”

Public sympathy for the disappearing dog has never been easy to find, and the death of Ayen Chol made it near impossible. Following the August attack, Victoria’s Baillieu government increased penalties for owners whose dogs killed, expanded breed restrictions to all “pit bulls”, not just pure-bred APBTs, and cut short an amnesty period for owners to register their restricted-breed dogs. Unregistered pit bulls and crosses found thereafter would be destroyed.

But some people are asking whether the pit bull deserves its fierce reputation. Proud owners like Michael Linke, also head of the ACT RSPCA, say their pets have become scapegoats for a problem that is about all dogs, not just those that look like theirs. “It’s about being a responsible owner,” he says. “You recognise that pit bulls are strong, and Dahlia’s a strong dog. But there are a dozen breeds that are strong, and if they do bite you, they’re going to do some damage. All dogs have teeth.”

An afternoon with Dahlia shows it isn’t just the dogs facing scrutiny. Eyes that lock onto her with alarm seem to move their way up her leash. It’s a bad time to be pit bull in Australia and a bad time to own one.

The City of Campbelltown has a population of 150,000 and a council run animal shelter which takes in about 3,600 pets a year. They were the focus of some understandably negative publicity, when council revealed in it’s 2009/10 annual report that it killed 2,269 of the 2,728 unclaimed pets at its pound. But it took a leaked email from a neighbouring council the City of Sydney, criticising the council’s appalling performance to get the attention of Campbelltown Councillors;

Councillor Paul Lake raised the issue last week and was angry an employee of Sydney City Council would “stick their nose in Campbelltown’s business”.

The council general manager Paul Tosi said he would pursue the matter further.

“We have a very good animal care facility and I’ve never heard it’s bad,” Mr Tosi said.

“I intend to take it up with the general manager of Sydney City Council.”

A citizens action group (Pound CC – on Facebook) was formed and quickly grew from a few dozen concern community members, to a group of several hundred pet lovers lobbying for change at the pound. Of the changes they suggested might help pets leave the pound alive;

- releasing pets to rescue groups, rather than killing them
- advertising pets online and in newspapers, rather than killing them
- using volunteers to help exercise and keep pets healthy, rather than killing them
and
- desexing pets before adoption, rather than releasing entire pets back into the community.

Campbelltown Council’s Animal Care Facility is normally open only half a day one weekend day (Saturday), which contributes to their abysmal live release rate since weekends are their greatest chance for increased traffic and adoptions. They’re currently charging $160 for a cat, who is adopted undesexed with a desexing voucher. When you can get a cat for free out of every newspaper, this is not even close to competitive. Dogs cost $270 dollars and they’re sold entire.

It’s also worth noting that the council has a 14 day holding time for microchipped pets and a 7 day holding time for unidentified animals (some of the longest in the country), so in many instances there is a full two weeks to secure other options for a pet, other than death. These pets are dying simply because Campbelltown pound chooses death over the alternatives.

No remorse

There would be the expectation that once the community, the media and other councils had taken the lead in speaking out about the enormous failings of this pound’s management, the Council would be scrambling to remedy the situation. Unfortunately, no;

(Campbelltown Mayor Anoulack Chanthivong) said there were issues to be addressed at the facility but he defended its reputation against recent criticism.

“All councillors have received correspondence from people raising concerns about the facility,” he said.

“We are addressing each of those issues and I understand our practices are above and beyond the minimum requirement.”

Translation; the ‘issue’ of dead pets is simply not our priority, and since we’re doing the bare minimum required, if you could all just push off our lives would be much easier.

He then busted out this gem;

“As a pet owner, any number of euthanised animals disturbs me and I’ll look for ways to reduce that, but everyone in the community has a role to play in this issue.”

‘Everyone in the community has a role to play in this issue’; except that you don’t release pets to the rescue groups begging to be allowed to take them. You don’t encourage people to visit and adopt your pets, and you are charging way more than you can reasonably expect to get for them. You’re releasing undesexed animals out into the community, sending a completely contradictory message about responsible pet ownership. Then, you kill the majority of pets entering your care, then complain that the community don’t ‘value’ their animals. Everyone in the community has a role to play, except YOU are the major obstacle to them being able to play it.

By December Campbelltown Council were really beginning to feel the heat. Their 2010/11 statistics were out and showed that a whole year of complacency by management had ensured the slaughter continued.

The pound killed a staggering 2,366 of their 2,593 unclaimed pets – meaning just 227 unclaimed pets left the facility alive, or less than 1 in 10.

Did this finally bring about the emergency changes needed to make the pound a safe place for animals? Nope. Council voted to introduce “a six-month trial period in which all male dogs sold from the pound are desexed”. Wow.

Even more disturbing Mayor Chanthivong was quoted as saying;

“As a council and an organisation we take animal welfare very seriously”

Holy hell, I’d hate to see what it look like if you didn’t take it seriously!

Delay – the deadliest form of denial

Fast forward to today and the ‘trial of male only desexing’ is yet to begin.

Council is looking at working with local rescue groups.

And a completely unnecessary tragedy continues.


…..
Please – help the pets of Campbelltown

‘Pets Family’ Cavoodles

How much money should a reputable animal welfare organisation take from a live-puppy-sales pet shop?

I’m sure you’ll agree that the answer is none. Any reputable animal welfare organisation would recognise that a pet store which sold puppies – likely the offspring of puppy farm mothers – is the antithesis of their mission to improve welfare outcomes for pets.

A couple of years ago, when animal advocates saw that one of Australia’s largest pet shops had encouraged customers buy an extra $50,000 worth of product to donate to the Lost Dogs Home, and were planning on driving for twice the donation the following year, they were understandably outraged. The Lost Dogs Home was forced to reject the second donation, and in 2011 partnered with the Oscar’s Law campaign, rallying as one of the ‘good guys’ on the steps of Melbourne’s Parliament House.

By the end of the year, The Lost Dogs Home was the self proclaimed leader of anti-puppy farming sentiment in Melbourne, inviting no less than the Premier down to show just how committed they were to stamping out puppy farms;

“We greatly welcome these changes, and I think the days of puppy farms are numbered,” he said. “It’s fantastic to see the new government following through on their election promises.”

So with all this fanfare, have the Lost Dogs Home been completely unfront with their supporters?

Making money on misery

The Passion for Pets stores in Bulleen and Thornbury feature “enclosures for pups and kittens big enough to let you have a good look at them”, while new puppies “come in each Thursday”. They advertise their available pets on Trading Post.

Beagle

Maltese x Shihtzu

Pug x Shihtzu

Maltese x Jack Russell

In Northlands Shopping Centre Preston, Pets Family is “near Target”. They specialise in ‘Schnoodles’ and ‘Cavachons’ and advertise their available pets on Aussie Traders.

Maltese

Jack Russell

Both these stores, like hundreds of others across the state, are required to microchip their puppies before sale. Since 2005 all Domestic Animal Businesses (pet shops, pounds, shelters and commercial breeders) must microchip cats and dogs, while veterinarians are responsible for microchipping the puppies and kittens of backyard breeders to comply with new microchipping laws enacted early this year.

Both Pets Family and Passion for Pets use National Pet Register microchips and registration. The Lost Dogs Home is making money from the sale of each one of the puppies above and many, many more like them.

The National Pet Register began as a non-profit program to provide free ID tags to Australian pets, however with the rollout of the various compulsory microchipping laws in Victoria, the Register expanded – their database today swelling to over 1 million contacts, and the organisation adding over 80,000 microchips to the database in the 2010/11 year alone (with around 13,000 of the free tags distributed)

The National Pet Register accepts microchip registrations from animal businesses; animal shelters, council pounds, veterinary clinics, breeders and pet shops. They charge about $10 for a microchip & registration package.

With the majority of pets needing chipping being new puppies and kittens, of the 80,000 microchips being added annually, how many are coming from commercial breeders, backyard breeders and pet stores? Just how much money is being pumped into the organisations’ coffers, directly from the bulk production of pets?

Should an animal welfare organisation develop an income stream from farmed puppies?

In 2008, the Victorian government had a problem. The Bureau of Animal Welfare (BAW) Restricted Breed Panel was overturning two out of every three council decisions to seize (and seek approval to destroy) dogs. Of the 34 cases the panel had heard since its inception in 2005, 23 decisions to classify a dog restricted breed had been overturned after the owner contested with the panel the declaration that their dog was a ‘pit bull’. Dogs Victoria president Peter Frost said at the time;

“It’s hard for council officers to make a decision on the spur of the moment because (identifying breeds) is a difficult thing.”

While the BAW Panel and councils couldn’t agree on what a ‘pit bull’ was, dog attacks in the state kept right on happening. After the horrific, fatal mauling of four year old Ayen Chol by a cross breed dog on August 17th, 2011, the government rushed through sweeping changes to the domestic animals act, aimed to expand the net & ensure pit bull crosses and ‘pit bull type’ dogs would be included in restricted breed classifications and improve the Panel’s strike rate at dog identification.

After a highly publicised pit bull registration amnesty (ending 29th September) with announcements that all dogs remaining unregistered after this time would be seized and killed, the government released more than 800 words and 41 images to define the breed standard for the restricted American pit bull, or the Approved Standard for Restricted Breed Dogs in Victoria. Dogs began to be assessed by local government authorities using these new guidelines and any deemed to be ‘pit bulls’, pit bull mix, or are of ‘pit bull type’ were to be classified as a restricted breed dog. Any dog which met the general appearance and characteristics of the standard would be declared a restricted breed dog and councils, could classify ANY dog as a restricted breed, based on its appearance.

The implications to owners and dogs were formidable. Dogs identified as restricted breed would need to be listed on the Victorian Declared Dog Registry. It was already illegal to import, sell or transfer ownership of restricted breed dogs (including adoption from shelters) in Victoria, but now these guidelines also applied to dogs of mixed heritage. Dogs deemed to be of a restricted breed must be kept behind 1.8 metre high fencing, with locked gates. Entrances would need to be identified by signs identifying that a restricted breed dog was on the premises and when out the dog must be muzzled and leashed & wearing a prescribed warning collar.

Any dog found lost or stray, could be immediately destroyed if the Council Officer believed the dog is (or was) behaving in a manner deemed to be a danger to people or other animals. The fine for allowing a restricted breed to be found stray was raised to $4,885. If a restricted breed dog was to kill someone the owner could be jailed for up to 10 years (registered or non-registered), or for up to 5 years if the dog endangers someone’s life.

Since the deadline for registrations has passed, Councils cannot register any new ‘pit bull’ dogs. Councils can refuse to transfer registration of a dog deemed to be a restricted breed to a new premises. Councils can destroy an unidentified dog deemed to be a restricted breed any time after its seizure. Councils have been given authority enter the premises of any person they suspect of having an unregistered dog and, if deemed to be a restricted breed, seize and destroy it. They also have begun to investigate those dogs that may be misidentified restricted breed dog (ie. a staffy which looks like a pit bull), or those dogs ‘dobbed in’ on the new dangerous dog hotline.

So what does Victoria look like 4 months on?

When pushing these laws through parliament the government began echoing the Lost Dogs Home chief executive Graeme Smith by saying there were as many as 5,000 pit bulls across the state. By the time the laws were passed, they claimed there was up to 10,000 unregistered dangerous dogs in Victoria.

The government has split $135,000 across eight councils experiencing a spike in work dealing with the laws, to help offset the costs of hiring additional staff and for putting down dangerous dogs. Hume and Casey received $30,000 each, grants of $15,000 were allocated to Melton, Whittlesea and Wyndham. Brimbank, Cardinia and Banyule councils received $10,000 grants. The Government is now in talks with the Municipal Association of Victoria about hiring dedicated animal officers to enforce the new restrictions. $100,000 was put towards the ‘dob in a dangerous dog’ hotline.

With all this money being pumped into identifying the ‘thousands and thousands’ of unidentified ‘pit bulls’, how many have they found?

The hotline had received 565 reports of suspected dangerous or restricted breed dogs, as of November (around 4 a day). There are now 495 dogs registered as restricted breeds in Victoria, compared with 368 in July last year, according to the Department of Primary Industries (an increase of just 127).

The City of Casey (one of the major grant recipients of $30,000 and identified as one of two councils in the state to be “most affected”) now has 19 American Pit Bull Terrier and 6 Pit Bull Terriers registered. In the legislation’s first month, the council received 56 reports of suspected restricted-breed dogs (47 of them from the state government’s Dangerous Dog Hotline). Of the resulting 32 inspections, just four dogs were identified as restricted breeds. These four dogs were destroyed.

Hume City Council (the other major grant recipient of $30,000) has 13 American Pit Bull Terriers, 27 Pit Bull Terriers, 13 Pit Bull Terrier crosses, 6 Pit Bull x English Staffordshire crosses, 1 American Pit Bull x English Staffordshire and 2 American Pit Bull = or 62 ‘restricted breed’ dogs registered.

Hundreds of people are waiting to have their dogs breed-assessed and according to Municipal Association of Victoria chief executive officer Ron Spence, Hume “need six additional staff to manage what they are doing”. Council officers have visited 1,867 residences in Hume to identify dogs that could be deemed as restricted breeds, with the process of identifying restricted breeds posing a risk to council employees. “Due to the risk involved, four staff members are required to attend to inspections, once or twice a week for a full day, with three police officers,” he said.

Melton Council ($15,000) says 11 pit bulls were registered before the amnesty ended. No new dangerous or restricted-breed dogs has been identified since the legislation was introduced.

Whittlesea City Council ($15,000) has investigated 53 reports of dogs suspected of being American Pit Bull Terriers since the registration amnesty ended. Officers have not identified a single dog as being a ‘pit bull’. Only five dogs were registered as restricted breeds with Whittlesea council before the amnesty, while one dog had been surrendered to the council and put down because complying with the new containment laws was too expensive. Council officers are now inspecting properties and assessing dogs registered as American staffordshire terriers. Four suspected pit bull terriers or pit bull cross dogs have also been dumped at the Whittlesea pound.

Wyndham Council ($15,000) have assessed 26 dogs and found 23 dogs to be restricted breeds. Council still have 160 to evaluate.

Brimbank Council ($10,000) has 82 ‘pit bulls’ and pit bull cross dogs and 50 dangerous dogs registered, making it one of the highest concentrations of registered restricted breeds. It is looking to assess 350 of its registered dogs against the new standards, and estimates the cost to be around $100,000.

Cardinia Council ($10,000) has 6 American Pit Bull Terrier and 2 Pit Bull Terriers registered. Since the introduction of the Dangerous Dog Hotline there have been four reports to Council and all have been false. Council continues to receive enquiries on a daily basis from the community.

Banyule Council ($10,000) saw fifteen restricted-breed dogs registered with Council before the amnesty ended.

Where are all the ‘pit bulls’?

Rather than “thousands” of dogs being identified under this legislation, a couple of hundred dogs have fallen foul of the new laws. Millions of dollars are being pumped into councils, pounds and shelters to have them identify a handful of animals and judge them on how they look. This enormously expensive and administration heavy effort does little to make the community safer and dog behaviour experts, the veterinary and scientific comunity condemned this legislation and unfair and ineffective, yet it still received the support of the major pound in the state, the Lost Dogs Home… why could this be?

It’s no coincidence that the LDH provide pound or animal management services to Casey, Hume, Wyndham, Brimbank and Cardinia – five of the eight councils given grants by government to implement this legislation (and more than 20 Victorian councils all total). If not the recipient of one of these grants directly, each time a council seizes a dog suspected of being a restricted breed, it mean extra administration charges and accommodation fees for the organisation, as the impounded dogs waits for an appeal by their owners – which can take up to three months. If the dog is found to be not of ‘pit bull type’ – the pound is paid. If the dog is found to be of ‘pit bull type’ – the pound is paid, AND is paid an extra amount for disposal. It’s win/win for the pound; lose/lose for the community.

Anyone in the council animal impoundment business is set to profit handsomely from this bloated, inefficient use of resources – it’s no wonder the biggest killer of ‘pit bulls’ in the state, the Lost Dogs Home, has thrown its weight behind the legislation – it’s laughing all the way to the bank.

Anyone who’s followed this blog knows the enormous disaster the ‘Who’s for Cats’ program has been for cats in the state of Victoria. Not only seeing a 50% increase in complaints about cats, and encouraging violence against them, but surging cat impoundments to record levels requiring millions of dollars worth of new infrastructure to ‘process’ (and mostly that means kill) cats.

However, with pounds and shelters not only entrenched in killing, but wedded to killing through valuable, multiple pound contracts, the Who’s For Cats Program has not been held up as a failure, but as a model other councils can adapt and use to be seen to be doing ’something’ about homeless cats. Introducing the The Dog and Cat Management Board’s ‘Good Cat’ program;

In an effort to reduce homeless numbers, the board will launch a web-based campaign with the Local Government Association next month called Good Cat SA. It will inform people about the implications of feeding cats they do not own.

People who feed cats but do not consider themselves owners will be asked to take full ownership responsibility or offer the cat to a shelter for rehoming.
…
“Both owned and homeless cats can create nuisance within a community if allowed to roam,” (Dog and Cat Management Board executive officer Ben Luxton) said.

“Unconfined cats cause nuisance by spraying, fighting, yowling, defecating in gardens and can vector disease to responsibly owned and confined cats.”

Using exactly the same process as the Who’s for Cats campaign (paint cats as a nusiance, paint feeders as ‘the problem’, encourage neighbourhood vigilantism in asking people to trap free-roaming cats, blame [the community/the economy/global warming] for the resulting increase in impoundments, build bigger shelters/take on bigger pound contracts), this also uses Dr Carole Webb’s (the brains behind WFC) data to condemn semi-owners and feeders.

South Australia are looking to follow up their web-based ‘Good Cat’ campaign with mandatory desexing and microchipping (ignoring the fact the majority of these cats don’t have owners to microchip or desex them). Of course shelters are overwhelmingly supportive, knowing that they are the direct beneficiaries of any resulting surge in impoundments through increased need, increasing council contracts, or as we’ve seen in NSW and QLD, direct goverment gifts of multi-million dollars to build new facilities.

Animal Welfare League animal care manager Leanne Page said about 80 per cent of the 7600 cats at the shelter last year were strays.

Ms Page said the shelter wanted mandatory desexing and microchipping of all cats and dogs in SA, excluding registered breeders.
…

RSPCA SA chief executive Neale Sutton said his organisation took in more than 3000 strays in the past financial year, and urged owners to desex their cats.

The combined intakes of the two major shelters in SA, the RSPCA and AWL equal about 10,000 cats. To desex 10,000 cats at $100 a pop is $1 million dollars. If the situation was to stay exactly as it is, all of these cats could be desexed and released, or desexed and rehomed for $1 million per year. Chances are with a lot of the ’semi-owned’ being collected in the desexing programs, the number would go down each year, until very few cats were entering shelters. It would be a self-reducing program. Successful models like these, which see happy communities and happy cats (such as New Zealand and the UK) are already working across the world.

So why aren’t cat groups beating down the doors to have these kinds of programs implemented? Because there’s no council contracts, no big new buildings, no expansion, no multi-million dollar facilities build by the goverment… in keeping cats out of shelters and effectively solving the cat problem.

In 2009 Buckley, an 8 week old puppy, was the victim of a cruel attack. Someone cut off his ears and tail with a pair of scissors, then dumped him. Luckily, Buckley was rescued and taken to The Lost Dogs’ Home where nursed back to health. He was given an operation to mend his ear and tail. He went to puppy-preschool to help heal his emotional wounds and to learn how to be a lovely pet. More than 300 people applied to adopt Buckley and he was eventually adopted to a loving home.

At the same time the Buckley’s story made the headlines. The public outcry created a media storm across Victoria, Australia and then the world. Outraged pet lovers flooded the Lost Dogs Home with support for Buckley; donations and supplies to help him get a second chance at a happy life.

Without a shadow of a doubt, Buckley’s story has been the biggest story that The Lost Dogs’ Home has been involved in over the past 25 years. It was covered by all the TV stations, the Herald Sun, The Age and Leader press and shook hundreds of thousands of people around the world to the very core.

Our phones rang off the hook; we were receiving hundreds of emails a day and the number of visits to our web site, dogshome.com, crashed the server. People who had never had contact with us before were driving from the other side of Melbourne to donate money or blankets, coats or food for Buckley.

Graeme Smith: The Lost Dogs’ Home Spring Newsletter

The Home looked to cash in on Buckley’s obvious popularity; featuring the dog in newsletters and fundraising campaigns. They creating a line of toys in his likeness.

The stuffed toys are an almost perfect replica of the maimed pup, right down to his hacked ears and stumpy tail.

And a website to keep fans updated on his progress;

Throughout this all however, The Home kept one small piece of information close to its chest; ear cropping, as so crudely attempted by Buckley’s abusers, tells us a lot about what breed he is;

Cropping is the removal of part or all of the pinnae or auricles, the external visible flap of the ear, of an animal. Most commonly performed on dogs, it is an ancient practice that was once done for perceived health, practical or cosmetic reasons. In modern times, it is banned in many nations, but where legal, it is usually performed for cosmetic reasons, usually related to show grooming. It is seen only certain breeds of dog such as the Pit bull, Doberman Pinscher, Schnauzer, Great Dane and Boxer.

Only a mouth-breather looking for a ‘tough-guy’ dog breed would have any interest in a dog with cropped ears. Whomever abused Buckley that day probably knew one of his parents was a ‘pit bull’ or of ‘pit bull type’ and butchered him to order. Did they lose their nerve? Did they think he was going to die? We’ll never know. But what we do know is that this little dog needed a compassionate society to give him a second chance away from the brutality he had known; and they did.

Should Buckley’s breed matter?

Of course it shouldn’t. But it does. In Victoria, Dr Graeme Smith, the Managing Director who authorised for Buckley to be saved and rehabiltated, is also the single last standing major animal welfare voice championing ‘Breed Specific Legislation’. In fact, not even a month after Buckley was found, The Lost Dogs Home called for “pit bull type” dogs to be declared dangerous.

At the same time as the home was fundraising millions off Buckley’s plight, they were using those millions to advocate that dogs just like him be vilified and targeted for special restrictions including being seized if their owners were unable to comply with strict regulations, being automatically killed in shelters rather than adopted, and condemning shelters who took a more compassionate stance toward the breed. At the Lost Dogs Home appearance is enough to determine breed and a third of the dogs it catches fit the dangerous description and are destroyed. When challenged that looks might not be enough to determine breed, Dr Smith responded “My view is that if it looks like a pitbull, it’s a pitbull.”

An opportunity squandered

Buckley could have heralded a new era of lifesaving at the Home. He could have been the advocate for second chances, overcoming enormous obstacles and giving even the most damaged pets a chance to prove themselves worthy of a loving home. Around the world, dogs just like Buckley are getting a second chance. As they should be. They are being assessed for who they are, and who they could be – rather than written off because of breed or background.

Flower – Border Collie/American Pit Bull Terrier blend
The Wisconsin Humane Society

Mollie – Border Collie/American Pit Bull Terrier blend
The Humane Society of Missouri

Curly – Border Collie/American Pit Bull Terrier blend
The Humane Society of Missouri

Betsy - Border Collie/American Pit Bull Terrier blend
Humane Society of Indianapolis

Lucky- Border Collie/American Pit Bull Terrier blend
Lakewood Animal Clinic

Leila - Border Collie/American Pit Bull Terrier blend
Pit Bull Rescue San Diego

Scarlet - Border Collie/American Pit Bull Terrier blend
Burbank Animal Shelter

All of these dogs were all assessed by animal welfare groups as having ‘pit bull’ in their heritage. They have now all been adopted into loving homes.

Buckley shows us what is possible. His story should inspire us all to reject the injustice that is BSL.

Link to article: Feral cats on the march in Ingleburn

(they made a joke here, which has since been removed – I think they thought I was laughing with them)

………

…. I’ve still not heard anything.

Look, I realise I’m probably just busting the balls of some PR/marketing person who know jack all about stray cats, but it bothers me just how quickly the major groups are ready to jump on the ‘council has to kill the ferals for their own good‘ bandwagon. When you have a supermarket cat colony, with concerned citizens all around and a council who seems at a loss as to how to proceed, to suggest owners desexing their pets is the answer, frankly makes my *headsplode*. There also seems to be a certain amount of lip-service being paid – in one breath they can advocate removal, the next ‘colony stabilisation and care’; whichever suits the discussion – rather than them taking a serious position on cat welfare.

Twitter, frustration in 140 characters or less…

Individuals and community groups taking an interest in, and if required challenging, the action of local councils in regards to their companion animal management is vital in our drive to a No Kill Australia.

Today, the Society of Companion Animal Rescuers (SoCares) is in court, objecting to their council’s decision to award the low kill Kurri Kurri pound services contract to the high kill RSPCA (NSW) Rutherford shelter.

CESSNOCK City Council and an animal rescue group are in court today after a challenge to the handover of impounded animal services to the RSPCA.

The NSW Land and Environment Court has set aside two days for the Society of Companion Animal Rescuers (SoCares) group’s legal challenge to an agreement between the council and RSPCA in June last year.

In a summons lodged with the court in September, the rescue group alleged the decision was invalid and of no effect because the council did not put the matter out to tender.

The group, represented by the University of Newcastle Legal Centre, also alleges a council decision on the closure of Kurri Kurri pound was invalid and of no effect.

These kinds of campaigns are a huge amount of work behind the scenes, so I wish SoCares every success today – good luck guys!


See also: Rutherford overcrowding highlights problems with ‘multiple-tender’ pounds

It’s hard to imagine that just five months has passed, since the community of Geelong demanded the killing end at their local pound, the Geelong Animal Welfare Society (GAWS).

The organisation had been defending killing for decades, citing that they couldn’t stop killing animals because they were simply not savable, they were unsocialised puppies, there was too much irresponsible breeding, their ‘inbreeding’ made them dangerous, the weather was warming up, people kept treating their pets as ‘expendable’, the ‘28 Day Rule’ made it impossible, the rising cost of food and fuel, global warming and a mice epidemic… and all of these factors meant the organisation was ‘forced’ to kill pets.

GAWS encouraged the trapping, impoundment and killing of feral cats, claimed the majority of the pets entering the shelter were untreatably aggressive, and killed pets for being non-english speaking. Video emerged showing dogs being drugged and left overnight to struggle and sometimes die unmonitored and cats being killed by heartstick while staff joked about the inhumane conditions.

In fact, so high on killing were they, that in 2009/10 they killed 852 dogs (~30%) and rehomed just 487 (they also ‘misplaced’ 217 dogs), and killed 2,426 cats (~80%), rehoming just 546. During that same period, the group refused to work with openly with volunteers, release to rescue groups or even advertise pets on the web, instead they called on the government to crack down on irresponsible owners and complained that they were being ‘harrassed’ and ‘vilified’ by animal advocates.

Then, when the community finally said enough is enough…. they walked.

Vice presidents DAVID CECIL and MARK OSBORNE have both resigned, just weeks after president IAN WALTER left the organisation.

The Society has been under siege since the release of hidden camera footage allegedly showing the mistreatment of animals at the society’s Moolap pound.

A new dawn

Under the new leadership of Mike Bailey, GAWS is now a very different place.

The shelter is using PetRescue to advertise available animals to the community. They have engaged volunteers and foster carers to help with the holiday influx. They are using the local media to get the word out out about available animals and pet safety. They are calling on the public to help out those pets who need extra treatment. But most importantly, they have committed to a mandate of life saving and are using the No Kill Equation to get there.

So what kind of a difference can just five months make?

Shelter deaths slashed

GEELONG’S animal shelter has recorded new lows of dog kill rates as it moves on from a controversial era.

The Geelong Animal Welfare Society’s latest figures show that just 2% of the 325 dogs admitted to the shelter in December 2011 were euthanased, with 148 finding new homes.
…
The shelter had to kill 25% of the 294 cats admitted to the shelter last December, finding 124 of them homes.
…
Mr Bailey said an initiative to place existing shelter animals into foster care before New Year’s Eve had allowed more space to host runaway dogs in the notoriously busy post-fireworks period.

The majority of the dogs were quickly returned to their owners, with the pets fostered out then returning to the Moolap shelter.

“Traditionally, shelters will put dogs down beforehand to make space (for the new arrivals),” Mr Bailey said.

Widespread promotion of the benefits of adoption and increased hours on Sundays had also helped improve the shelter, he said.

New blood. New ideas. And new hope for the shelter pets of Australia.

The time for change at your local pound or shelter is now. Join us.

Just after the new year, a little scrawny cat started appearing around our place. He took off like a shot whenever we went out the front door, but I noticed that unlike the other cats in the neighbourhood, Secret Cat was happy to have him around. I felt I needed to take some action on behalf of this poor bub; everything about his behaviour said ‘displaced untame puss’ rather than ‘cheeky neighbour’s pet’ – in fact the difference between him and Secret Cat (who has definitely been around people since she was young) couldn’t have been more textbook!

Secret Cat vs Other Cat

Since Secret Cat was cool with him, I started giving Other Cat a bit of food. In three weeks he went from a skitty feral, to a chubbabubba who would stay nearby as I filled his bowl… even though he gently hissed at me as I did so! It was sad to see the little guy so fearful.

But you know – just like in the Community Cats campaign – feeding on its own isn’t enough. Fast forward to yesterday when my humane cat trap arrived! Woo!

And as it turns out catching him was easy peasy! I put the trap out early yesterday evening (so he’d have all night to get in there before his appointment first thing today), I walk inside & hear ching! through the open window… success!

One very pissed off cat in a convenient, transportable package…

The vet has been able to confirm that he’s… a he! He’s about three years old and apart from a few fleas is in pretty good health. He’s now had his harblz removed and in a few hours he can come home and go back out into the garden.

Hopefully he’ll forgive me & stick around, but if not that’s fine too. I’m just happy to know he will no longer be the local Lothario.

Long live the Community Cat! <3






*** Update – Saturday ***

Lookit who’s sleeping on my steps – my big tough (ex)tom cat!