As seen on Twitter, a graphical representation of the problems at the LDH.

Is this the ‘animal welfare’ system we’re happy to have?

Image – The Newcastle Herald

The RSPCA Rutherford shelter has for several years managed pound services for the suburbs of Maitland, Lake Macquarie and Newcastle (NSW). The pound had long been criticised by animal advocates for refusing to release animals to community rescue, for working to overturn minimum impound periods making it easier to kill pets and for running overcapacity, especially during the busy holiday periods.

But in 2011, the RSPCA began negotiations with the Cessnock Council (Kurri Kurri Animal Shelter) to take over their pound, and in doing so expand the Rutherford shelter load by an expected 800 dogs and 300 cats per year.

The news was met with howls of protest from animal rescue groups in the area, with groups claiming they had been left out of discussions, that council had awarded the contract without calling for tenders and that more animals would die under the new management;

“Kurri Kurri pound has an extremely low rate of animals being put to sleep,” Hunter Animal Rescue president Jaimie Abbott said.

“This low euthanasia rate is because of the passionate and dedicated rangers and a large [number] of rescue groups releasing from the pound.

“This figure will not be maintained under the proposed new scheme and rescue groups will not be able to help save these animals.”

Despite these objections, council went ahead with the contract. So for the last few months, animals from Kurri Kurri with its “extremely low” kill rate are now being processed by the RSPCA NSW in Rutherford.

Fast forward to today, and how’s it working out for the pets?

Creatures swamp Rutherford RSPCA shelter

The number of animals dumped at the RSPCA’s Rutherford shelter since the start of the summer holiday season has jumped by almost 40% on last year’s figures with almost 1,300 pets passing through the doors over the past five weeks.

There has been a steady procession of animals since the beginning of December and staff are preparing for the numbers to continue to rise with three weeks of school holidays remaining.

Healthy kittens are being euthanised as staff struggle to cope with the unprecedented jump in the number of animals arriving at shelter.
….
(RSPCA spokeswoman Marianne Zander) said the majority of animals handed in at Rutherford had been dogs and kittens, many of the kittens having to be destroyed.
…
She said the shelter had also received many dogs and puppies, 175 of them surrenders.

She said as soon as the animals were behaviour- and health-assessed they stayed at the shelter for as long as it took to find them a new home but if it came to the shelter being too full, animals would be transferred to other shelters.

Now, this is where it gets interesting; the pound claims that should rehomable pets be in danger, they can simply be moved to other RSPCA locations. However those other locations aren’t likely a safe option either. The RSPCA NSW Annual Report 2010/11 contains no breakdown for individual shelters, but provides these overall number, state-wide for the year:

9,606 rehomed
5,509 returned
21,510 Killed (8,209 dogs & 13,301 cats)

Not very reassuring.

The Cessnock Council contract is worth more than $2 million to the RSPCA. Collecting multiple pound tenders, regardless of capacity seems to be a growing trend amongst major animal welfare organisations. And being able to explain away any surge in impounds by blaming ‘irresponsible owners’, ‘global warming‘, or the carbon tax has meant the public has largely remained ignorant the effects of pound management has on kill rates.

The RSPCA NSW is aware of the lack of capacity and had plans to expand its Tighes Hill vet clinic into an ‘animal care centre’ to cope with the pressure Cessnock city councils’ pound services are placing on the Rutherford shelter.

Unfortunately however, until other solutions are found, the lives of those pets who were once able to be saved by community rescue groups from the Kurri Kurri pound, will remain in the hands of an organisation who seems to be happy to use killing as the main tool to make its overcrowding problems go away.
- – - – - – - – -
If a member of the public was to acquire so many pets that it was ‘forced’ to kill some to make space to continue to acquire more, we would call that ‘irresponsible’. When shelters do it however, they blame the community for the killing…
- – - – - – - – -

Archive of news articles
1. Rescue groups want Rutherford pound animals
2. Lake Macquarie’s new policy on feral animals
3. Cessnock council puts Kurri pound decisions on a lead
4. Abandoned animals on death row
5. RSPCA planning to make room for more homeless
6. Fear for lives of pound animals
7. Animal welfare activists to protest pound closure

The Lost Dogs Home is circling the wagons to defend themselves from the public questioning of their high kill rates and multi-million dollar budget as presented in their annual report, deleting posts from Facebook and locking down their fan page. However I did receive the following response when I asked some questions:

“Hi Michelle, as a long term critic of mainstream animal welfare organisations you know as well as anyone know that we are always working on ways to improve animal welfare in Australia. You are also more than aware of the many proactive services the Home offers to increase the number of pets identified and our initiatives to adopt more unwanted pets into homes.”

I’d like to think rather than being a long term critic of ‘mainstream organisations’, I’m actually a long term critic of the unnecessary killing of pets. I’d also like to think I’ve been an avid supporter of rescue as a whole, but when an organisation simply refuses to reflect the community’s belief that shelters should offer ’shelter’ to homeless animals, ignores the experience of more progressive organisations which have eliminated shelter killing, and squanders millions of dollars killing, rather than saving pets… then I feel being ‘critical’ is the only appropriate response.

Question to the LDH number 1.

Cat impounds at the Lost Dogs Home have increased only slightly in a decade (from 8,213 in 1999, to 10,995 in 2011); however your cat adoptions dropped this year to less than 1,000. Given intakes seem to be remaining steady, and with the enormous discrepancy between adoptions and intakes, can you please tell us what programs you have planned in the future to reduce the number of cats entering your organisation?

Answer from the LDH:

“We will have to agree to disagree on the solution to the cat overpopulation crisis. That being said we are dedicated to raising awareness for what it means to be a responsible owner and to reducing the number of unwanted, undesexed and feral cats. You can find lots of information about our new cat facility, satellite kitten adoption programs and how well it’s working on our website.”

I think it is fantastic that the Lost Dogs Home is promoting “responsible pet ownership” – I really do. But when did this become an acceptable substitute for saving the lives of those pets who are already born, in their care and who are needing protection?

This organisation killed nearly 9,000 of the 11,000 cats they impounded for the year. Just think for one moment, how many cats that is. Look at the cat at the start of this article and then try and imagine thousands more like him. Killed by an organisation who claims to be a champion for cat welfare.

“Raising awareness” didn’t help these cats. Sure, maybe one day in the future “raising awareness” will lead to less cats somehow… whatever. But how does running an awareness campaign which might work tomorrow, make it OK for an animal welfare organisation, to seek out and kill today the very same animals it claims to be protecting? To each year accept several million dollars worth of donations from pet lovers to save the lives of cats… while simultaneously accepting several million dollars worth of local council contracts to trap and kill them?

We absolutely do have to “agree to disagree” on the solution to cat overpopulation in shelters – namely that I do not believe in shelters artificially inflating numbers by running cat trapping & killing programs on behalf of local councils is a solution. I do not believe killing cats en-mass is a solution. I do not believe that continuing to ignore the experience of shelters who have reduced and even eliminated cats being killed offering their communities bulk, targeting, free and discount desexing is a solution. I do not believe using the donations of pet lovers to kill cats is a solution. I do not believe an ‘awareness campaign’, rather than active and proven programs to reduce cat impounds is a solution.

And the truth is, neither do the Lost Dogs Home. They have no five year plan to eliminate the killing of cats in their shelter. They have no ten year plan to eliminate the killing of cats in their shelter. They plan to kill cats every year for the forseeable future. Because their leadership believes there is no other way. How’s that plan working out as a ’solution to cat overpopulation’ so far?

Question to the LDH number 2.

This year you adopted 2,168 dogs, but killed 2,879. Is it your belief that more than half of unclaimed dogs are truly unsavable?

Answer from the LDH:

“The Lost Dogs’ Home operates on a totally open-door policy. We do not turn any pets away and accept everything. We have a committed team who do everything we can to reunite lost pets with their owners and rehouse as many abandoned dogs and cats as possible.”

So there you have it folks – the reason the Home kills more than half of unclaimed dogs is because the organisation takes them in. If the dogs weren’t taken in, the Home wouldn’t kill them – simple! Meanwhile, there is no hope of less killing whatsoever, as they are doing “everything” they can.

The killing certainly has nothing to do with the fact scared and lost pets aren’t having their pictures posted online to make it easier for owners to find them. It certainly isn’t that the Home refuses to allow anymore than <1% of dogs to be released to rescue groups. It certainly isn't that the Home's "temperament testers" fail more than 50% of the unclaimed dogs and they wind up at the kill room. And it certainly isn't that the Home holds more than 20 council contracts, growing every year, ensuring that their facilities are often at capacity, and overcapacity during holidays and new years.

The idea that more than half of all unclaimed dogs processed by this organisation - be they stray or surrender - have a poor prognosis for rehoming or rehabilitation is inconceivable. The fact the Home defend this level of killing in 2011, with what we know about shelter dynamics and while other much less fortunate pounds and shelters save nearly every pet is revolting and unjustifiable.

Shelters across the country are saving lives by working with the community. Shelters across the world have eliminated shelter killing in its entirety. Continuing to peddle the notion of ‘doing the public’s dirty work’ while squandering the community’s resources should no longer be accepted.

Question to the LDH number 3.

Do you believe the Home slogan; “100% Commitment to Re-Homing Savable Pets” is accurate and not misleading to the public, given that your organisation killed 11,872 pets in a single year?

Answer from the LDH:

Yes, we are most definitely 100% commitment to rehoming saveable pets.

Well I’m totes reassured; how about you?

Image: The Lost Dogs Home – The Herald Sun

How many pets would you expect to see saved in a year with a budget of over $12 million dollars?

$12 million dollars is a veritable fortune in animal welfare circles. From the tiniest rescue group working on a shoestring, through to the grandest private shelter; $12 million dollars should be able to save the lives of tens of thousands of pets, with some left over to put towards impoundment prevention and relationship building with the community. So news that the The Lost Dogs Home have released their annual report, showing that they this year, like previous years, recorded “revenue from continuing operations” of $12,375,271, should be a cause for celebration from pet lovers and homeless animals.

But unfortunately despite its enormous resources, the Lost Dogs Home continues to be a disaster for pets.

This week the Home is imploring the community to keep their ‘best friend safe’ over the holiday period, listing five things pet owners can do to ensure their pets aren’t spooked and lost during new years eve celebrations, and that…

… the best hope for lost, frightened animals is to be picked up by The Lost Dogs’ Home’s after-hours ambulances or a local council’s animal control officer… Sadly there is no guarantee that every pet can be reached in time, before the worst happens.

The ‘worst’ is obviously the pet being injured or killed on the street. But what are the ‘best’ outcomes for pets once they enter the Lost Dogs Home’s ‘care’?

The report shows over the 2010/11 year the outcomes for pets were as follows;

3,525 – adopted
7,407 – returned to owner
11,872 – killed (2,879 dogs, 8,993 cats)

This means for every single one of the pets the organisation processes, they make a whopping $536, regardless of the outcome for the pet. By these calculations, they make a staggering $6.3 million dollars for pets who are simply killed and their bodies incinerated.

But how can this be happening?

Local councils pay this organisation for pets collected during holiday celebrations. ‘Pet ambulances’ aren’t an altruistic effort to protect pets, but a money generating investment. Rather than pets being returned to owners as a public service, these ‘ambulances’ are simply glorified ranger vans impounding on behalf of councils, taking pets to the North Melbourne pound. It’s also worth noting they aren’t paid to per-pet returned to owner, but can hold and kill the pet and still be paid for their services.

Cats fare even worse than dogs in this purely profit-driven arrangement. Each year, local councils pay the Lost Dogs Home to actively trap unowned cats and bring them to the Home. Despite being perpetually at capacity with lost pet cats and friendly rehomable strays, the organisation chooses to take on the extra role of ‘cat slaughterhouse’, offering untame cats no option other than death. Untame cats, or those acting feral cat be killed immediately. Each cat-trapping council tender earns the organisation a yearly salary and keeps their intake numbers high, but the organisation does little to actually combat cat-overpopulation, offering just 100 discount desexing surgeries per year under the ‘Who’s for Cats’ program – while they kill close to 10,000 cats annually.

Along with council income, they also receive around $6 million dollars in bequests and donations annually, ($7.5m in donations and legacies this year). Pet lovers hoping their contributions will see pets saved, ironically supporting one of the largest killer of companion animals in the country.

With all this money being generated from lost and homeless pets, what incentive does the Lost Dogs Home have to reduce intakes and killing? None. Even as the solutions to shelter killing have been available to the animal sheltering community since the 80’s and in the popular media since 2009 they still continue to choose to squander the enormous fortune given to them by the pet loving community every year… and kill rather than save the lives of pets.
………………………….

What can I do?

This section has been added to address the large public outcry & requests for people asking “what can I do?”

To lend the words of Lisa, an awesome animal advocate:
The rewards for killing are obscene. That this is accepted without screaming from the rooftops is also distressing, however most in the public domain have no idea. Yes people can stop making financial contributions to LDH but this will have minimal impact. In addition to the bequests, the bulk of their revenue comes from the very lucrative pound contracts. Losing these is what will hurt. Being front page news for their kill rates will hurt. Being held to account by those who support them will hurt. Complaining on facebook may relieve people’s frustration but it makes no difference to the animals. Invest your time wisely and write to all the councils who provide “kill” work to LDH and demand they get with the times and the No Kill movement. Contact the media and demand LDH becomes front page news. If you really want change, you need to work for it and demand change.

If you are in one of the following municipalities, then it is up to you as a ratepayer to demand change. If you are an animal lover it is up to you to let the media know this is important.

The Lost Dogs Home provide pound services for 10 councils (Melbourne, Moreland, Moonee Valley, Brimbank, Maribyrnong, Wyndham, Hobson’s Bay, Darebin, Hume and Port Phillip).

They provide animal management services for the City of Greater Bendigo. The Home owns a property at Cranbourne west to service the Cities of Bayside, Casey, Cardinia, Frankston, Greater Dandenong and Kingston.

They are a leading organisation in providing animal management and pound services for councils. The Home hold more than 20 council contracts. (ref)

This morning, across the nation, council pounds are killing the dogs and cats in their care.

Not because they’re sick.

Not because they have behavioural problems.

Not because the community doesn’t want to adopt them.

But because it’s Christmas.

Pounds who close from Sunday 25th December through to Tuesday 3rd January do not want to have to pay holiday rates for staff to manage the pound. So they empty their establishments. They kill the healthy, the adoptable, the young and the old. At a time when literally thousands of people are opening their hearts and homes to a new pet, they close their doors to adopters.

These are pounds who throughout the year, make little to no effort to rehome pets. These are pounds who keep pets in run down, noisy, unhealthy kennels which scare off potential families.These are pounds who refuse to allow access by volunteers to help care for the animals. These are pounds who fail to promote lost or available pets online. These are pounds who burn out overworked rescuers by threatening to kill pets unless they’re collected under impossible deadlines. These are pounds who shoot the pets in their ‘care’ with a shotgun.

One by one. People’s lost companion animals, held the required 72hr hours, are disposed of like garbage. Their furry bodies dumped in pits in landfill.

These pounds are using the community’s tax dollars to run pet slaughterhouses.

Is this your local council pound?

Animal lovers must demand to know; what is your pound doing this Christmas?

.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*

‘Pet City’ is open every day 7-days-a-week except for xmas day (9am – 5pm), and on the public holidays through the xmas/new year season (10am – 4pm) to allow people looking to get a pet to visit while they’re home off work and spending time with their families.

With that in mind, why aren’t more shelters running high-excitement-pound-emptying-promotions in the lead up to this weekend? If the Sydney fish market can promote its 24hr-fish-buying-marathon on major media, why don’t we see pounds and shelters throwing open their doors, extending their trading hours and BEGGING people to offer homes for the holidays, to the pets they would otherwise kill?

“The head is proportionate to the dog. Viewed from above, the general shape of the head is that of a blunt wedge, large and broad.”

“Viewed from the side, the skull and muzzle are on parallel plains separated by a moderately deep stop. Arches over the eyes are well defined but not pronounced.”

“Muzzle: Slightly shorter in length to the skull. It is broad, deep and powerful with a slight taper to the nose and falls away slightly under the eyes.”

Skull: Large, fairly flat, broad and deep, slightly tapering towards the stop. There is a deep median furrow reducing in depth from stop to occiput. Cheek muscles are prominent but free of wrinkles.

“When the dog is alerted wrinkles will form on the forehead.”

“Lips: Clean and tight.”

“Teeth: Large and a complete scissor bite i.e. upper teeth closely overlapping the lower teeth and set square to the jaws.”

“Nose: Large with wide open nostrils and may be of any colour.”

“Eyes: Medium in size, round in shape and set low in the head – not prominent. Eyes can be all colours except blue. The eye rims are the same colour as the skin colour.”

“Ears: The shape and carriage of the ears will vary from dog to dog. Generally they are set fairly high on the skull, not large and may be half pricked or rose shaped (i.e. folding backwards and exposing the inner burr of the ear).”

“NECK: Moderate length and with great strength, tapering from the head into the shoulders. A slight arch over the crest. The neck must be free from loose skin or dewlap (loose, pendulous skin under the throat).”

“FOREQUARTERS: Strong forelegs, well boned and muscular with elbows fitting close to the body. Viewed from the front the forelegs are set moderately well apart and in a straight line to the ground. The pasterns are short and fairly straight but with flexibility. Viewed from the side, the legs are straight with some flexibility in the pasterns.”

“BODY: Powerfully built with a deep chest of moderate width. Forechest should not extend far beyond the point of shoulder or below the elbow. Well ribbed back with moderate tuck up (concave underline of the body curving upwards from end of the ribs to waist). Back: Broad, strong, firm and level and with a slight incline at the withers. Loin: Short and deep with a slight slope to the croup.”

For the full standard, click here.

The Australia media’s representation of a ‘pit bull’.

I was contacted behind the scenes and asked to remove the photo of a ‘pit bull cross’ from my post about the new Victorian legislation; the justification being, that if the ‘authorities’ saw the dog, they’d then they’d be more likely to target dogs who looked like the one in the picture. Much better, they feel, that we hide all references to pit bulls for fear of making the situation worse.

Firstly, let me say I *do* understand where this is coming from. I don’t have a bull breed, so I can only imagine the fear those who own a bully type dog are feeling right now, thinking that at any moment the authorities are going to visit, deem their dog ‘dangerous’ and demand that they begin living the limited lifestyle of the declared dog; or worse, pressure them into surrendering their pet to be killed.

But one of the biggest reasons we’ve seen the government head down this path in such a jolly fashion, is the cycle of fear and a lack of positive pit bull role models we have in Australia. Nice people who have great dogs who are a bit bullyesk, keep their heads down so as not to attract attention => few positive images of bullies are seen in the mainstream space, so people get to wrong thinking about the breed => bad laws get passed and friendly pibbles and their loving families are driven further underground.

I chose the image of a smiley, bright eyed, well-behaved dog, BECAUSE it was a smiley, bright eyed, well-behaved dog. We need to have more of these images to call upon, not less if we’re ever to overcome the ignorant, misguided aspersions generated by media hype and demonisation.

Groups in the US have recognised this. They are going out of their way to not only market pit bulls, but to bring them back into the home as family pets, as they were before they became the breed-dejour for those inclined to clutch at their pearls.

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

Tim Racer, who heads a rescue group called Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pit Bulls (or BAD RAP), has rescued hundreds of pit bulls and uses his spectacular art to show the love.

(images TimRacer.com)

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

The Stubby Dog Project’s mission is “to help people rediscover pit bulls as lifelong friends”, including resources on why breed bans fail and featuring positive stories about living with bull breeds.

The vet thought Juno might be closer to 12 years old, and so we know we may not have her for all that much time, but we’re enjoying every minute we have with her now. Plus she just looks so cute in her doggie sweaters! I think in a lot of ways, having the activity of a house with young children is helping her arthritis, as our daughters love throwing toys for her to fetch, and we can see the puppy come out as she scampers after them (but stay out of the way of the rope like tail!). In my opinion, senior dogs really can be the best of both possible worlds.

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

Pin Ups for Pit Bulls produce an annual calendar and “works to reestablish the defamed reputation of Pit Bull type dogs as America’s premier companion animal, war hero, and therapy dog”.

They have a Facebook page with a whole lot of beautiful shots here.

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

Best Friends run the “Pit Bulls: Saving America’s Dog” campaign, working to “eliminate inaccurate stereotypes and help pit bulls get back their reputation as great family pets”.

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

Loveabulls is a coffee table book on life and love with rescued bullies – “Often misunderstood and misrepresented, pit bulls and bully breeds were actually once America’s favorite dogs”.

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

Petfinder promotes pit bull adoption:

And Adopt a pet promotes pit bull adoption:

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

While the ASPCA helps professional animal rescuers by highlighting pit bull adoption ideas.

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

We can’t find misinformation, with no information. We need new campaigns and representatives in Australia, highlighting the joy of pit bulls and their ilk. We need to bring well mannered bully breeds into the public domain and break down the stereotypes surrounding the breed. We can’t let the media be the only source of information about these dogs that the wider public see, and positive pit bull role models are going to be a vital part of rejuvenating the image of bully breeds. These kinds of promotions are needed now, or as we’ve seen in Victoria, all bull breeds and their crosses are at risk of losing their lives to ignorance.

It has been a week since four year old Ayen Chol was killed by a unregistered crossbreed dog, that had been roaming in her family’s street.

Since the attack, animal experts have come forward to advise the government on the problems with their proposed knee-jerk legislation targeting ‘pit bulls’, with the RSPCA leading the charge;

RSPCA Victoria animal shelters manager Allie Jalbert said owners were responsible for a dog’s actions no matter what the breed.

“Any dog regardless of its size or breed or mixture of breeds may bite and may be dangerous,” Ms Jalbert told AAP.

More RSPCA comment from the RSPCA ACT’s Michael Linke:

”There’s no place in our society for vicious dogs or dangerous dogs, irrespective of their breed.

…. But Mr Linke, who owns a two-year-old pit bull terrier named Dahlia, has warned against any irrational demonisation of the breed.

”Any dog is capable of any act, at any point in time,” he said. ”The information that I’m reading is that it was a cross pit bull with a mastiff. ”Why aren’t people talking about mastiffs? Straight away they’re talking about pit bulls, and again I think it’s the easy breed [to target].”

Mr Linke said there was no direct link between unpredictable aggressiveness and pit bulls.’

There has also been feedback from the dog training community:

Brad Griggs, from the National Dog Trainers Federation, warns against a ban. ”Because I am six foot two and a half, and have freckles, it’s like banning every six foot two-plus, freckled person because 10 of them did something wrong over a period of five years,” he says. ”It is the equivalent of racism.”

Griggs is concerned that a ban would push owners of pit bulls away.

”If these people are likely to have these dogs seized or be discriminated against, it’s hardly going to bring them into the dog training community fold, and encourage them to train their dogs and raise them properly,” he says.

Griggs says that, internationally, educated dog trainers don’t have a bias against the breed. Genetics are only part of the picture. ”Genetics are the potential a dog has to live into,” he says, arguing that nurture, as opposed to nature, is extremely important.

…. ”All dogs should be heavily socialised and habituated and that is the key point. The majority of dogs that have these issues to attack like this have had a poor critical socialisation period, up to about 16 or 20 weeks of age.”

Tasmanian veterinary behaviourist Dr Katrina Ward said the issue was not about a particular breed but the wider problem of responsible ownership of dogs.

“A breed doesn’t do these things, an individual dog does,” she said.

“Hysteria of banning breeds isn’t the answer.

“It’s hard to generalise about a breed of dog — the type of owner, the behaviour of the victim are also pertinent to the incident.”

….”Ultimately it is the responsibility of the owner to keep the dog safe from scary situations and keep people safe from a dog that might be reactive.”

And the veterinary community:

Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) spokeswoman Kersti Seksel says… “It’s understandable that people are now calling for the banning of some breeds, however all the good evidence available shows that this doesn’t work.”

“Unfortunately, we believe the banning and over-regulation of dogs in our communities could be part of the problem as this leads to poor socialisation and increased risk of attacks.”

The AVA is instead calling for the government to increase funding for education and socialisation programs for dogs, their owners and young children.

Its statistics show that the most likely victims of dog attacks are children aged under 10, usually by their own dogs at their homes.

“We’re never going to be able to prevent every incident, but a really good way to help prevent bites and attack is through socialisation of puppies with people and other dogs at a young age, and teaching our children how to be safe around animals.”

And the scientific community:

Linda Watson, who is doing a PhD degree on ”dog-bite injury and the effect of regulation”, said the term ”pit bull” had become a generic one, to include dogs such as Staffordshire terriers, English bull terriers, bulldogs, even boxers.

The term pit bull had come to mean ”any small- to middle-sized, short-haired, muscular dog”, she said, which was most misleading and most unfair. ”I don’t believe any breed is dangerous,” she said. ”It is how the dog is treated and the circumstances in which it finds itself in when it may happen to bite.”

….”Knee-jerk reactions by governments do not tend to create good public policy. We do not need any more laws or restrictions that are doomed to failure from the onset. We need a strategy based on the best research evidence that we have to hand.

Breed bans simply do not address other recurrent patterns associated with dog attacks such as irresponsible or uneducated dog ownership.

Measures taken need to address human ownership practices, as dogs of many breeds and crosses feature in dog attacks. No single, or even group of breeds, have been shown to account for the majority of dog attacks in Australia.”(ref)

Even if you’re not a fan of ‘pit bulls’ or bull breed dogs, the fact is the experts agree that breed specific laws do little to protect the community from dog attacks and we should be looking at programs that DO work to curb irresponsible pet ownership.

(for more information on programs which have shown to reduce dog bite injuries, check out solutions from Calgary, Canada)

But one organisation is still spreading the hate, in the face of the professional community - The Lost Dogs Home;

The Melbourne Lost Dogs Home has accused the RSPCA of selling pitbull terriers back into the community under the guise of staffordshire crossbreeds.

RSPCA Victoria rejects the allegation, maintaining that dogs should be judged on their deeds, not their breeds, and that it is operating within the law.

…The RSPCA agrees that identifying crossbreeds is contentious.

“It’s very difficult to assess an animal by its breed type, by its appearance,” shelter manager Allie Jalbert said.

“There’s specifications that the Victorian Government has put forward and they’re the specifications that we use.”

Overwhelming evidence and the scientific determination that the rate of misidentification of dogs by professional animal welfare workers estimated to be around 70% isn’t enough to sway Graeme Smith, who uttered the now infamous phrase;

“My view is that if it looks like a pitbull, it’s a pitbull.”

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.

But this attack on the RSPCA has revealed the untruths behind those who push the breed-specific approach. If it looks like a pitbull, it most definitely might NOT be a pitbull, and not only does this matter a lot to the owners of misidentified pets, but it is the exact reason these laws cause so many headaches in execution;

WA Rangers Association president Samantha Tarling said identification had emerged as a fundamental problem, with WA’s chief veterinarian refusing to ‘testify to the DNA’ of a dog.

“I once challenged some owners that their dog was a pit bull,” she said. “They showed me the parents with the paperwork. It was a cross between a boxer and a labrador. I could have sworn it was a pit bull.” ~ The West Australian

Furthermore, not only is Graeme Smith purporting that some dogs who have been deemed to be NOT pit bulls by the RSPCA assessors and vets, actually ARE pit bulls – highlighting an immediate problem with identification by animal welfare organisations who do this for a living (and just as importantly his breed identification qualifications) – he is also advocating that these dogs, who have passed the health, behaviour and temperament test of the RSPCA and have shown themselves to be friendly, pet-quality animals… be killed.

Healthy, friendly dogs who look kinda like pit bulls should be killed in Dr Smith’s world.

What does this really mean for the average pet owner and the dogs of Victoria? Given that staffies are some of the most common dogs in the state, and that along with ridgebacks and mastiffs are the most likely to be misidentified as a a pitbull, it means that many, many pets are at risk. Not the animals of dog fighters or thugs, but family pets who’ve done nothing wrong and who will simply be a victim of outdated hate and ignorance.

When a … tragedy or random event hits, people look for someone to blame. If there’s no one to blame, sometimes they look for someone to hate, even if it is ultimately self-destructive.
Seth Godin

Last night a four-year-old girl was fatally attacked by a neighbour’s dog in Melbourne.

According to the most detailed report, the dog identified as a ‘pit bull cross’ escaped a neighbour’s property, crossed the street and attacked a woman. As she rushed into the house, the animal followed her, attacking a five year old, four-year-old Ayen Chol and her mother Jaclin. The dog’s owner then arrived and removed the dog. Ambulance teams treated Ayen at the scene but could not revive her. The two other injured were taken to Sunshine Hospital in a stable condition.

In the short time since the news broke, this tragic incident has received extensive media exposure, including nearly 400 results on Google and hundreds of TV new, interviews and editorials.

Despite all the hysteria, few details on the circumstances surrounding the attack are available. Information on how the dog was kept by its thirty year old owner aren’t clear – was the dog a pet, or was it an undersocialised ‘backyard’ dog? Had the dog acted in an aggressive way previously or had it been encouraged to do so? Was it trained and exercised regularly? Was it registered with council? Was it chained? Was it desexed?

This lack of detail hasn’t stopped Graeme Smith adopting his usual position of throwing all pit bulls and their owners, even responsible owners of mixed breed dogs, under the bus;

Lost Dogs Home general manager Graeme Smith has called on the State Government to urgently conduct a review of dangerous dog legislation in the wake of the attack.
…
“Pit bull terriers and pit bull terrier crosses should be declared dangerous and then they would have to be desexed, vaccinated and microchipped and kept in enclosures on their property or inside the house,” he said.
…
“Pit bulls should be treated like swimming pools, they should be fenced off from the rest of the community. They are deadly.”

The truth is the breed and its crosses are already restricted in the state. 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.

But, as has been the experience in each instance where Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) has been enacted, the banning of pit bulls has failed to reduce the number of people injured by dogs. It has certainly failed to save this child.

In addition, thanks to breed bans, responsible pit bull breeders breeding for temperament and health, are now non-existent in Victoria. What is left is a hodgepodge of dogs bred by a catalog of backyard breeders with varying success. And therein lies the rub.

Rather than support the oft repeated ‘fighting dog heritage’ used to justify the culling of pit bulls by supporters of BSL, the spectrum of what a modern ‘pit bull’ actually is has become irreconcilably muddied. Rather than being the domain of ‘tough bad guys’ and an easily identifiable dog breed, literally thousands of families now own a dog which has ‘pit bull’ somewhere in it’s heritage. If we accept that the traits of the pit bull are incompatible with modern dog ownership (I personally don’t, but let’s play devil’s advocate), proponents of BSL need to ask themselves, at what saturation point does being ‘part pitbull’ become a problem for the community? Does a labrador pit bull cross need to be seized from its family and killed? What if that labrador is only 25% pit bull? What about 5%? What if the dog is actually a mastiff crossed labrador but looks like a pit bull?

Meanwhile, the ban does nothing to target dogs which aren’t pit bull types at all, but who are dangerously aggressive.

A pit bull boxer cross

Continuing down the path of restricting pit bulls will only affect those people with loving, trained, pit bull family members. Owners who seek to have a big, unsocialised, aggressive dog will just dump their pit bull and move onto another breed. Or keep them even more hidden from authorities, since having something ‘illegal’ is likely of no real concern to them, or may actually be more desirable.

We need to treat each dog as an individual, simply because they are. Blanket breed restrictions fail to help owners keep happy, healthy dogs. Killing family pets who’ve done nothing wrong, does not make the community safer. And until we look at the real circumstances that lead to dog attacks, we will continue to see horrific, yet preventable tragedies like the death of little Ayen.

See also: You mean you didn’t want dogs gunned down in the street?

The problem with BSL