Did your rescue group appear at today’s Million Paws Walk? 

A lot of groups did, for many reasons; a large audience of pet lovers, the chance to be seen as legitimate alongside a well-known brand like the RSPCA, and many, because the RSPCA release pets to them so they feel like they have a ‘good working relationship’ so why would you not take the opportunity?

Meanwhile the RSPCA is gifted the opportunity to stand up in the public space and say – See, we’re the good guys. No one WANTS to kill pets. And we have a great relationship with the community, so any killing MUST be the public’s fault. Look! We’re all on the same team, and having rescue groups here proves it.

Rescuers love the exposure and feeling like they’re making friends in high places. The RSPCA get to keep on Walking.

But how’s it working out for the pets?

The figures for last year (2011/12), RSPCA national was as follows;

Pets adopted directly from the RSPCA – 38,464
Pets killed by the RSPCA – 38,862

Meaning slightly more pets were killed than rehomed by the RSPCA nationally. Their adopt vs kill ratio is basically 1 for 1.

And during that same period, how many pets did the RSPCA release a pet to be rehomed via a rescue group – nationally, from every branch and shelter, including those who claim to have an excellent working relationship with rescue?

3,461*

(*‘Transferred: animals transferred to non-RSPCA shelter or pound’)

More than 10 times as many pets were killed, as were passed on to rescue groups last financial year. And yet many rescue groups were happy to walk today, flying the flag of an RSPCA supporter.

This is how our broken sheltering system, the one that kills 39,000 pets and puts just 3,400 into rescue, is maintained.

Having rescues onside – those groups who are often the most knowledgeable and potentially dangerous to the status quo when advocating on behalf of pets - allows the RSPCA to maintains the status quo of ‘save a few, kill the rest’.

The RSPCA as an organisation can continue to collect pound tenders, and close local facilities, and block access to pets by rescuers as they so desire. They can even go into the public arena, and join government advisory panels, assert that rescuers are ‘hoarders’ and work to develop laws which make it harder and harder for groups to operate… and guess what? While they’re doing all they can to keep all the power in their own hands, you’re attending their events and helping them keep their brand sparkling and bright.

Don’t worry though; they’ll throw you a few pets here and there to keep you sweet.

If you walked in the Walk today, or joined as a rescue group partner, you just rubber stamped this as the animal sheltering system our pets should be being provided with. You gave away your power to stand up for the fair treatment of our pets, and instead granted the RSPCA permission for another twelve months of community sponsored killing.

There will always be a place for rescue groups willing to turn a blind eye and play ball, at the Million Paws Walk. 

 

By the numbers; which RSPCA releases the most pets to rescue?

ACT 245/3,014 unclaimed pets (8%)
SA – 428/6,057 unclaimed pets (7%)
NSW 1,340/27,259 unclaimed pets (5%)
QLD – 976/25,916 unclaimed pets (4%)
VIC – 372/18,140 unclaimed pets (2%)
TAS – 100/3,944 unclaimed pets (3%)
WA – 0 (0%)
NT – 0 (0%)

One of the most vital programs of successful animal shelters, is effective community engagement. Breaking down any ‘us vs them’ attitudes, inspiring and leading the community to be better pet owners, and recognising that any animal issues in the community can only be solved if you have your public working with you, not against you – are all vital to safe, happy communities.

Unfortunately Port Augusta (SA) didn’t get the memo;

Port Augusta City Council general inspector Kylie McKerlie said not registering dogs was irresponsible pet ownership.

“If you can’t afford $50 to register your dog – or $25 if you’re on a pension – you shouldn’t have one,” she said.
….
After a spike in dogs and puppies being surrendered to the pound, Ms McKerlie said the council needed to put more focus into safe and responsible dog ownership, and fining people was just the beginning.

“People would want to watch out, they’re going to get done,” she said.

“We will shoot any dog that is vicious.”

Certainly shooting dogs would help with any pound overcrowding problems. *Dusts hands*

To be fair, the pound claims to offer a rehoming program, but that…

…the most commonly surrendered dog breed is a staffy.

So y’know *shrugs* – we gotta kill em. They’re a popular breed in this town – but not so popular that anyone might like to adopt them.

Animal sheltering – it’s a one way process.

The Dog and Cat Management Board of South Australia currently offer a ‘Good Dog’ and a ‘Good Cat’ responsible pet ownership programs – what seems to be desperately missing from their campaign is a ‘Good Pound’ initiative which helps pounds with the basics and details such gems as; threatening to shoot people’s pets is not good community engagement. Try not being a jerk.

In a new study that was just released, researcher Victoria Voith once again exposes the challenges of identifying dominant breeds of mixed breed dogs, even by “experts” in the field.

… the world of DNA genetics testing continues to challenge what we think we know about canine genetics, and rapidly adding knowledge to the field.

- Pounds & shelters NEED to be photographing lost pets and listing them online. Relying on a probably inaccurate breed ID at the shelter cross referenced with an almost certainly incorrect breed ‘guess’ by a member of the public is an illogical method for helping pets get home.

- In Australia, where cross-bred dogs are more popular that purebred, continuing to use ‘breed’ as the primary indicator for temperament (ie. ‘breed specific’ laws) continues to be unscientific and ineffective.

Read the full KC Dog Blog post here.

An abandoned dog has been put down by Logan City Council despite desperate pleas by a local resident to adopt it.

Cherie Fisher said she first saw the abandoned animal on April 13 and contacted council wanting to help it.

Ms Fisher said she had no agenda other than to save the dog’s life and give it a chance.

“It was left malnourished, covered in a skin condition and who knows what else. Her photo just made my heart bleed,” she said.

Ms Fisher said she visited the pound twice and after three working days understood the dog to be the pound’s property.

She said she offered to buy the animal or foster it at her own expense.

“We are bewildered to understand why will they not take up the offer of help,” she said.

“Is the Logan City Council so flush with cash and kennels they don’t need assistance?”

Logan City responded saying the decision to euthanase the dog would have been made by a vet (from The Combined Vets of Logan City Pty Ltd (CVLC)) and that

Logan City Council Animal Management Centre operated a sales and rehoming service for all suitable, unclaimed animals.

“In situations where cats and dogs are lost and become impounded by council, our primary goal is to reunite these animals with their owners,” she said.

“If a dog is not reclaimed by its owner, it is assessed by Logan City Council to see whether it is suitable for inclusion in our sales and rehoming program. which involves a veterinary health check and behavioural assessment.

Which is code for don’t question our authoritah.

So I wanted to take a look at whether Logan is walking their talk in both reuniting pets with their owners and offering a sales and rehoming program.

The first place to find their impound information, was in their Animal Management Strategy 2011-2015*. It showed their pet intakes as the following;

A 13% kill rate for dogs! On the face of it, that seems pretty enviable.

And this report also sings the praises of their relationships with rescue:

Through its daily operations the Animal and Pest Services Branch has established productive working relationships with key stakeholders such as the state government, local government authorities, the University of Queensland and industry groups including the RSPCA, Animal Welfare League, Best Friends Rescue, Working Dog Rescue, Little Paws Kitten Rescue, Dogs Queensland and the Queensland Feline Association.

Based on the fantastic job Logan is doing, the mangy dog was probably too sick to be saved. Case closed.

Except.

Until 2011, Logan City was sending dogs to the University of Queensland for ‘terminal surgery’ – that is, surgery by trainee vets which ends in the death of the pet. In fact, according to Council meeting minutes from that time**, 798 dogs and cats were sent to the university in 2007/08. Just 2.2% of pets left the University alive via their ‘rehoming program’.

These animals show in these figures, not as ‘euthanasias’, but as ‘percentage other organisations’. With that in mind, suddenly their kill rate shoots up from 8% in 2008 – to a much less comendable 36%.

It came at a great financial saving to Council;

During the financial year ended 30 June 2008… the University of Queensland collected 798 animals (561 dogs and 237 cats). The table below shows that Council saved $26,573.00 in vet and disposal costs by supplying unclaimed, impounded animals to the University.

*dusts hands*

Backlash about university transfers

Fast forward to 2011, and Logan City came under great fire from their community for these terminal programs. In response, their agreeement from 2008-2013 was reviewed early, and the following changes were made to procedures;

Revised Agreement Proposal (Friday 1 April 2011)**

Any animal signed over by Logan City Council to the SVS which would have been previously euthanased immediately upon its arrival at SVS (as per the previous protocol 2008-2013) will instead be euthanased at Logan City Council’s Animal Management Centre. The cadaver will be bagged, labelled and transported in an University Animal Ethics Committee (UAEC) approved vehicle. This proposal complies with AWAC recommendations.

Animals previously euthanased and in a frozen state will be bagged and labelled and made available to the SVS.

So what this basically means is that while the ‘terminal surgeries’ may have stopped, the killing didn’t. Logan’s 2011/12 figures*** are below:

Despite claiming an excellent relationship with rescue groups and a comprehensive rehoming program, just 725 dogs and 349 cats made it out alive via these channels last year. Compared to 1,504 dogs and 2,101 cats who were killed.

Remember people – don’t question. No one WANTS to kill pets.




References

* Logan Animal Management Strategy 2011-2015

** Animals & City Standards Committee Tuesday 12th April 2011

***Logan City and Logan City Council statistics and factual information (page 6)

With the introduction of the Cat By-law, Mitcham Council is now becoming widely recognised as a leader in cat management controls and other Councils are considering following Mitcham Council’s example given the successful outcomes being achieved.

… Mitcham Council is being seen by many as a leader in this area.
**By-law No. 6 – Cats; Report (to Council) on Activities, April 2013

‘By-law No. 6 – Cats’, which require all cats to be registered and microchipped, caps the number of cats per household at two and stipulates cats be confined to their owner’s property, was enacted by Council in August 2010. That’s about 2.5 years (or 31 months) ago. So the law is pretty bedded down. In that time, according to the council’s report;

- 70 people have been ‘warned’ (or about 2 a month), and 2 have been fined (about 1 a year).

- Some brochures went out to householders. And a school program “reenforced the need for a cat to be confined to the cat owner’s residence to prevent the cat becoming a nuisance to neighbours” (translation; continued to demonise the free-roaming cat).

- Council offered discount microchipping days, resulting in 500 pets being microchipped (no breakdown for cats v dogs available).

- Also during that time, a push on cat registration (really, the whole point of the new laws) saw 1,016 extra cats registered – 1,172* in 2010/11 to 2,188** today (or about 1 a day).

- And the expected income at the end of the financial year is $33,500** – with the program running at a $10,000pa loss.

Are you jumping about with excitement at this amazing program yet?

But the largest ‘success’ of the program? Increasing complaints about cats.

Prior to the introduction of the cat By-Law there were very few complaints as Council did not have the resources nor legislation to directly assist them. Since the introduction of the Cat By-Law residents have become aware (mainly through word of mouth and publicity) of the assistance Council is able to provide and consequently there has been a dramatic increase in the number of cat complaints.

294 complaints received so far, detail below;

Cat complaints*
1st year (10/11) – 95
2nd year (11/12) – 126

And how is it working out for the actual cats?

In most cases where the cat is not claimed by the rightful owner, then every endeavour is made to find a new home for the cat. Only in extreme circumstances will a cat be euthanized (usually due to health reasons)**.

This is an interesting claim. But it is false.

For a start, the number of dead cats is not even a metric being measured by Council.

When I asked the current Cat Management Officer of the Mitcham Council about the numbers of impounded cats, this was his response;

“The Council (unlike dogs) does not impound cats. We provide advice to residents on what they can do to capture a cat and convey it to the RSPCA (at Lonsdale SA).

Statistical data relating to surrendered cats can be found in the RSPCA Annual Report… I would suggest you contact the RSPCA at Lonsdale who maintain statistics and should be able to provide you with information you require. You could also contact the Dog and Cat Management Board (www.dogandcatboard.com) in Adelaide who also keep statistical records.”

You read that right. Council have implemented these laws, then are not only not impounding cats themselves, but are simply referring community members to places where they can get a cat trap, and sending all cats to a local charity. Voila! Cat management sorted.

Contrary to belief the Council Officers are not responsible for the capture and removal of stray cats. Any problem relating to stray cats is the responsibility of the residents.**

No wonder other Councils are thinking this might be a good deal.

There are three places Council recommend to get your traps (Hollard and Sons, RSPCA Lonsdale and the AWL) and according to the new laws, a cat can be dropped at “an animal welfare agency, the RSPCA or a veterinarian”, so basically any dead cats killed privately by vets or animal welfare are simply not counted.

Again voila! Makes it very hard to for those pesky cat lovers to protest your high kill rates, if the numbers simply don’t exist.

While council and local agencies proclaiming these laws are a boon to cats:

RSPCA spokeswoman Kerriann Campbell said the number of stray and surrendered cats at the Lonsdale animal shelter from the Mitcham Council area had dropped 30 per cent in the past 12 months.

That sounds great, huh? Especially after those pesky cat welfare advocates predicted a surge in killing. Seems they were wrong.

Or were they?

Cat bylaws are working (Feb 2011)

Mitcham’s cat bylaws have seen a sharp rise in feral cats being trapped by residents and sent to the RSPCA Lonsdale shelter.

Cat intakes (taken to the RSPCA*)
1st year (2010/11) – unavailable
2nd year (2011/12) – 219 (Killed – 109, or 50%)

So while the RSPCA a claiming this current year has seen a decrease in intakes, that decrease is simply on the increase caused by the laws being introduced.

The numbers that are available, don’t support the notion that only in ‘extreme’ circumstances cats are being killed.

Council are also claiming**;

The RPCA are in full support of the Mitcham Council’s Cat Management Program and Cat By-Law and have reported that since the introduction of compulsory micro-chipping there has been a 50% increase in the number of cats in the Mitcham Council area that have been able to be identified and returned to their owner.

Again, this is a pretty tragic stat as, the original reclaim rate was a measly 8 cats.

Cat reclaims (from the RSPCA*)
1st year (2010/11) – unavailable
2nd year (2011/12) – 8

Now claiming a decrease, when it is a decrease on an increase seems non-genuine. But to claim the laws are good for cats because 50%!! increase in reclaims when you’re lifting your reclaim rate up from 8 to, say 16 – when the laws themselves drove up impounds by several times that – seems like outright misdirection.

But what about TNR?

Don’t be silly**.

There has been some public support for the proposition that stray cats should be captured, de-sexed and returned to their location as a means of reducing the number of stray cats. Importantly such action is in breach of legislation (Section 179 Natural Resources Management Act 2004) and research has found that this will not resolve cat problems. These cats can continue to spread diseases and cause a nuisance.

Seems according to Council, the only good cat is a dead cat.

How has all this ‘success’ been received by the industry

A surge in impoundment and killing, a huge increase in complaints about cats, only small increases in registrations and reclaims. Surely the animal welfare industry has seen through the spin to the core failure of this program? ‘fraid not**.

The RPCA are in full support of the Mitcham Council’s Cat Management Program and Cat By-Law… With the introduction of the Cat By-law, Mitcham Council is now becoming widely recognised as a leader in cat management controls and other Councils are considering following Mitcham Council’s example given the successful outcomes being achieved.

This is supported by comments made by the Chairperson at the recent Parliamentary Select Committee Hearing where favourable comments were made in regards to the performance of Mitcham Council’s cat By-Law (March 2013);

favourable comments by the Dog and Cat Management Board’s Chair person at the launch of the “Living safely with Pets” School Educational Program (March 2013)

and comments by the Hon. Bob Such in the Messenger Press (March 2013) stating other Councils should follow Mitcham
Council’s example regarding cat management…

Mitcham Council’s By-Law is being examined by other Councils. Other Councils (Burnside; Marion; Holdfast; Salisbury; Gawler) have had discussions with Mitcham Council regarding the introduction of a cat By-Law.

*whistles*

You can also experience the ‘success’ of dead cats. Just simply follow animal welfare and government blindly, fail to apply any critical reasoning skills and sure enough they will roll out the Mitcham plan in your community too.

Shame about all the dead cats.

 
UPDATE:
I’ve been able to source the Mitcham cat intake statistics from the RSPCA.

2010/11 = 157 cat intakes
2011/12 = 185 cat intakes
2012/13 = 117 (until end April = 10 mths) – to end of year = 140 approx

References
* Mitcham 2012 – Animal Management Stats
** By-law No. 6 – Cats; Report (to Council) on Activities, April 2013

See also: Vilifying the victims: Mitcham’s cat laws pass

What are mandatory desexing advocates lobbying for really? #2

Then you see something like this – a pound who has for probably several decades maintained a 10% rehoming rate for dogs and a 90% kill rate for cats, suddenly getting out there and adopting some pets.

And all because their community stuck a foot firmly up their ass.

Pound Pets looking for a home

Today, The News kicks off our new Pound Pets campaign to help animals at the Greater Shepparton Animal Shelter find a home. Have a look at what animals are available this week.

There is an associated article in the newspaper, which is great – lovely picture, friendly smiling staff member – perfection.

Right up until the Council opens their mouths, obviously;

(Greater Shepparton City Council director of business Justin Finlayson) also stressed the importance of responsible pet ownership. He said it was key to reducing the number of animals that end up at the shelter in the first instance.

Of course he did. Because it’s the terrible, awful, irresponsible public’s fault that this pound has a history of killing the majority of pets who enter their care.

Since July last year, the animal shelter has found homes for 123 dogs and 64 cats.

By my calculations that’s one dog adopted every two days. And one cat a week. Gosh – I hope they didn’t break a sweat with such a cray cray workload; with an adopter happening to wander through the gates… every now and again.

Despite Council’s efforts, this ‘Save our Pets’ initiative has actually been really well executed by the newspaper. Could the terrible, awful, irresponsible public now please step up, promote the hell out of it, visit Shepparton and save these pets? The best share link is probably this one:

http://www.mmg.com.au/local-news/shepparton/pound-pets-looking-for-a-home-1.49070/pound-pets-looking-for-a-home-1.49070

See my other post on this topic ‘Resistance’.

But sometimes this resistance extends to actively trying to whitewash any perceived issues. An organsation knows there is a problem, but they are not interested in changing the policies and procedures which lead to high kill rates. So they have to put a new spin on it.

The RSPCA South Australia quite boldly took this approach in their 2009/10 Annual Report proclaiming;

… we still achieved a 99% adoption rate (for dogs), which is a magnificent achievement.

In the same year, the organsation killed 1,233 dogs. Or 35% of unclaimed intakes. Or another way – 1 in every 3 dogs who needed rescue were killed.

By simply labelling certain dogs ‘unadoptable’ and dropping them off the count – suddenly the shelter is achieving a 99% save rate. Much more palatable to the public and without any extra effort on behalf of staff.

Or as someone in PR may say – TAA DAAA!

The RSPCA NSW jumps on the spin wagon

RSPCA NSW spokesperson Lukas Picton was featured for a recent photo spread for DNA Magazine. When asked the question ‘Where do the dogs at the RSPCA come from?’ he responds in part;

One of the biggest misconceptions about the RSPCA is that there is a time limit on how long we keep animals before they’re put to sleep. This isn’t true. There is no death row at the RSPCA. All animals that are placed up for adoption stay with us until they find a new home.

That’s a 100% save rate! Wow we all said in unison!

Except obviously, this again isn’t true. If we talk about the RSPCA just in NSW, they killed 14,393 pets, or 53% of unclaimed dogs and cats.

There is no death row at the RSPCA. Except that there is.

Fighting the resistance

Precious

Precious was a senior boxer suffering from ‘recurrent ear infections’.

After being used for a fundraising drive and spending three months in RSPCA NSW care she was killed, even though rescue groups were standing by ready to offer her any additional treatment she may have needed.

Said the RSPCA NSW of working with rescues;

“We don’t usually release animals to rescue groups, but there is no law that says we have to.”

Reg

Reg (the bulldog in the image below)…

Max

Max(the black pointer in this video)…

His full story can be read here.

Precious, Reg and Max are all victims of the ‘no death row’ at the RSPCA NSW.

Hunter animal lovers will stage a protest against the number of animals being killed by RSPCA NSW – at the same time the RSPCA holds its annual fund-raiser at Morpeth.

More than 100 people are expected to attend the Justice4Max Vigil at Morpeth Common from 9.30am on May 19 – just metres away from where the RSPCA NSW will host its popular Million Paws Walk.

The protesters are concerned by the number of dogs and cats euthanised by RSPCA NSW – 50.6 per cent of the total it took into its shelters, according to the organisation’s own figures for 2011-2012.

Aberdare resident David Atwell, the vice president for the Society of Companion Animal Rescuers, said this was an unacceptable situation.

“Even though the RSPCA claim that they’re here for the animals, they end up killing more companion animals than they save.

“Last year alone they killed around 14,500 cats and dogs from about 28,000 in their care. This amounts to an overall kill ratio of 50.6 per cent.

“This is unacceptable given pounds such as Muswellbrook and Wyong, which co-operate with rescue groups, have kill rates of just 8 per cent and 12 per cent respectively.

“This event is about educating the public that there is a better way, that there are alternatives. You can’t claim you’re here for the animals when you destroy 15,000 of them.”

But RSPCA NSW chief executive officer Steve Coleman has defended the organisation’s actions: “We don’t take euthanasia lightly, and we don’t kill healthy animals unnecessarily.”

“The RSPCA’s annual euthanasia statistics may appear high, but at closer glance the figures are quite telling,” he said.

“Of the 4862 dogs euthanised by RSPCA NSW last financial year, 62 per cent were put down due to behavioural reasons; nearly 35 per cent were humanely euthanised due to disease and other medical conditions.

“It would be unethical and socially irresponsible to re-home many of the animals that come through our doors.

“Even still, the RSPCA continues to improve, invest and innovate in order to increase re-homing and reduce euthanasia statistics.”

One of those animals killed last financial year was the mascot of the Justice4Max group – a German short-haired pointer named Max.

He was impounded by the Rutherford shelter and euthanised after failing the RSPCA’s behavioural test – an act which was surrounded by controversy as Mr Atwell said he was a “typical normal family dog” whose owner had been trying to reclaim him at the time.

One of Max’s foster carers from Dog Rescue Newcastle will speak at the vigil, along with Mr Atwell and Anne Greenway from Lawyers for Companion Animals.

For more information, visit the Justice for Max facebook page.

I like Wyndham Council. When they discuss their cat laws, they don’t blather on about how it will be good for the cats’ self actualisation and personal esteem to be treated more like dogs. Nor do they try to peddle the notion that it is in the interest of cat kind that they are rounded up and killed. Basically none of that animal welfare malarkey – they just outline their big, fat cat cull plans…

The council’s draft Domestic Animal Management Plan 2013-2016, released last week, includes investigating if the re-establishment of a cat curfew order would assist with the management of cat nuisance.

About 93 per cent of the cats taken to the council’s pound each year are not registered.

So although 93% of the cats already entering the pound are unowned, only by implementing a curfew can they expand their sweeps and killing.

Mayor Heather Marcus said stray and unowned cats posed a potential disease risk to registered cats in people’s backyards.

Cat curfews allow rangers to trap and kill cats more effectively – if she’s out after dark, then she’s fair game.

Wyndham has tried having a cat curfew previously (2000 to 2009). The order prohibited cats being outside their owner’s property at night, and banned the presence of cats in any public place. And the impoundment of cats had been steadily increasing during the curfew.

Year – Impounded cats
05/06 – 728
06/07 – 765
07/08 – 1,186
08/09 – 1,111
09/10 – 1,355
10/11 – 1,250
11/12 – 1,235


… kind of running counter to the oft-repeated theory that you can impound and kill your way to no longer having to impound and kill.

The new plan for the City’s cats includes confinement and…

… increasing public education in relation to feeding stray cats, increased cat trapping and providing discounted desexing of cats.

These three approaches – encouraging people to impound not feed, expanding trapping and restricting desexing programs to owned pets, is a sure-fire plan to increased impoundment and killing. And by implementing a cat curfew, ALL unowned cats will be fair game to join their 95% unowned brethren in the City’s pound.

Residents who would rather see the City’s resources spent on proactive, humane programs, rather than killing cats, can comment on the draft plan until May 24. Visit wyndham.vic.gov.au

According to the Herald Sun, the injured man had been in the street moving his car near his Drummond St flat, when the dogs set upon him, suggesting that they were not at any stage on leash when in the street. Passers by and a security guard helped drive the dogs off the man.

This is obviously a horrible incident for this man and his family. He required surgery and could lose feeling in his right arm. Just terrible.

The RSPCA took the opportunity to respond in the media – and as an organisation who prides itself of being measured and scientific, should have given the community reassurance that this kinds of dog incidents are thankfully incredibly rare, and that there was no need to become hysterical or worse – look to make Victoria’s terrible dog laws even worse for the dog owners in the state.

So that’s what they said, right?

Wrong.

“(American Stafford Terriers) Well, I’ve certainly always regarded them as being a euphemism for American Pit Bull Terriers.”
Hugh Wirth, President, RSPCA Victoria, 3AW May 2013

Way to throw some gasoline on that sucker! We’ll just start calling ALL BULLY BREEDS ‘pit bulls’ now and we can all scream! scream and run in terror!

Ho.lee.crap.

Super complete and total FAIL. To both good sense and everything we know about good policy making. Look forward to even more legislation, killing Victorias dogs courtesy of the RSPCA.

Four dogs were involved in an attack on Tuesday night in Carlton Victoria. The incident was caught on mobile cameras by bystanders.

Victoria Police spokeswoman Melissa Seach said two men, a 26-year-old North Melbourne man and a 22-year-old Carlton man, allegedly were in control of the dogs, when they mauled a man in Drummond Street.

The victim, aged in his 50s, is recovering at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in a stable condition, having suffered injuries to his arms, back and legs.

Reports seem to indicate that a security guard became involved, then the two men were able to regain control of the dogs.

Police arrested the two men over the incident. Both were released without charge pending further inquiries.

The dogs have not been found.

Outlet 3AW reported the dogs to be ‘pit bulls’, instigating a large debate about the breed and whether it should be banned (derp – they already are in the state of Victoria).

Meanwhile, other news source actually did a little digging on the attack (and I’ve yet to see a clarification issued by the 3AW station, suggesting they really do prefer a good story to the truth)

• Man mauled by pack of dogs in Carlton
• Burglary arrest after four dogs attack man

Turns out one of the three men was known to police, and was wanted over charges related to a burglary in Carlton.

So now we have three men, walking at 9.30pm at night, with four large breed dogs either on or off-leash and which they may, or may not have owned (given they’ve now vanished to an unknown location). And a known history of actively illegal and antisocial behaviour.

Still sound like a breed issue? Or is it more likely a larger societal problem playing out in public (drugs, debt or other crimes), which just happens in this instance to have dogs involved?

The fact this attack happened in Victoria – where they have some of the most regressive and draconian legislation surrounding dogs – only further confirms that by being so focused on what type of dog is involved, we are completely missing the causal factors that could potentially lead up to an attack.

There are dozens breeds that are large, strong, and capable of causing harm if they are poorly handled or raised – or even actively trained to act in a dangerous manner – that street thugs are going to be attracted to whether they’re legal or not. Seizing hundreds to thousands of healthy, friendly pets while enforcing breed specific laws does little to make the community safer from anti-social dog owners. Victoria continues to be an example of dog policy failing, by focusing on the look of the dog instead of on responsible pet ownership issues and the behavior of the individual dogs.

I’m sure we’ll hear more about the story in the coming days. I’ll update this thread if more information becomes available.