shel

Thanks for sharing TSD! Listening now :D

A hugely worthwhile documentary - makes you wonder how the creator ever got the access that they did. The bit in video 5 with all the adopted pit bulls and happy owners had me sobbing! And this from the HSUS rep on the ineffectiveness of breed bans was awesome: *edit spelling*

I'd be really careful picking a fight with a neighbour about something like this, whether he's wrong or not. Just say 'yeah, fine, whatever, sorry' and try and avoid it happening in future. Best case he could start making problems with barking complaints etc - worse case he could do something to your dog while your not at home It sucks, but it definitely happens (especially when the neighbour can be identified as 'quirky')

Some linkies: http://www.petnet.com.au/pet-friendly-living/renting-pets http://www.petnet.com.au/sites/default/fil...g_with_pets.pdf http://www.petnet.com.au/sites/default/fil...s_with_pets.pdf This is their new stuff http://www.petnet.com.au/pets-city-0 http://petnet.com.au/section-three-place-for-all http://www.youtube.com/user/PetNetTV#p/u/5/1xooG9kcWFA http://www.youtube.com/user/PetNetTV#p/u/4/wEIEX1wGS-c And this is the guide from the RSPCA ACT http://www.petfriendlyrentals.com.au/blog/...-the-rspca-act/ :)shel

'Dumpage' rates and euthanasia rates are two quite separate issues. There will always be a percentage of pets who for a myriad of reasons will not stay in their homes. Sometimes its because the person is genuinely 'irresponsible', but if that is the case it is our job to recieve and protect pets from them. To suggest 'animal management' could fix a problem that is a reality of society (people aren't perfect; some drive without a licence, beat their kids, take drugs) is unrealistic. But more often it is a good owner with a problem they see as insurmoutable. Their personal situation has changed (10-15 years is a long time - many marriages don't last that long!), or the pet was an incorrect choice, or the owner had problems they couldn't overcome. We need to focus on these factors; pet friendly housing, pet selection help and training and behavioural support... the more accessible these support systems are, the lower the surrender rate will be. Although we don't give them much credit, most people are trying to do the right thing. If they're given the right support and tools we could get better outcomes. Euthanasia rate is not tied to surrender rate. News today that twice as many people are adopting dogs as ten years ago DOUBLE! Smarter marketing, less blame culture, a more welcoming environment, a breakdown in the perception that rescue dogs are all 'abused', online tools and pounds who have moved shelters from being 'garbage disposal agents' to actually taking responsibility for finding new homes for the animals in their care. We only need about an extra 250,000 homes each year for the shelters to be empty. 'They' reckon 10% of pets come from pet shops (and that number is about half a million), so we have 90% (4.5million per year) being purchased elsewhere. Shelters only need to grab 5% of that to have the 'problem' licked. But the best thing? For both of these issues we don't have to speculate or guess. There are communities who have solved the problem. Calgary has a 90-95% dog licensing compliance rate (most Australian councils sit around 50-60%) and 94% of the dogs AND CATS who enter their system come out alive. They also saw in 2008, the lowest number of aggressive dog incidents they’ve had in over 25 years. They've done it without BSL, restricting ownership, pet number limits, ownership licences or mandatory desexing. Because their community see them as a resource, not someone 'out to get them', there is an enormous amount of trust. You just can't get that if people are hiding their pit bulls or their 'extra' pet. They come down hard on people who do the wrong thing, but all their staff are trained in mediation so they use it as a chance to bring about change in owner behaviour, not just deem the owner 'irresponsible' and wait for something bad to happen. They also take proactive action; if you register four large breeds for example, they'll come around for a chat to make sure you know how to care for them appropriately. This video is long, but it outlines their whole program and approach: ** edited for spelling **

Wow. I'd never thought about it like that.

It definitely sounds like a good idea. And targeting owners who are doing the wrong thing on purpose, or supporting those who are doing the wrong thing through ignorance is vital to improving dog ownership outcomes. It just isn't feasible in all reality. Car licencing, training and enforcement cost BILLIONS each year. A pet ownership licence couldn't provide anything close to that, so as to make the two systems incomparable. And for what outcome? To protect people from pets? Australia has a canine population of about 4 million and over 40% of homes have a dog. However, fatalities are rare (less than one a year nationally) and just 1,400 people have injuries that are serious enough to send them to hospital. I say ‘just’ because the number of people hospitalised each year from 'tripping over' – 18,970. While 1,439 people are hospitalised from ‘trampoline’ related incidents. (ref) What it DOES do is give authorities much more power to take short cuts (which they will, given the lack of funding truly available to animal control); dog breed profiling, owner profiling, the ability for authorities to deem some owners as unworthy of pet ownership... based not on their behaviour, or any problems they may be experiencing, but a set of undetermined arbitrary rules set by a government agency under advice by national animal welfare groups.

Rest of article: http://mt-druitt-standard.whereilive.com.a...te-dog-licence/

I've just cancelled my PetSecure policy after they put my premium up more than $200 for the year (3 x dogs). This was non-negotiable and it was only my second year with them. If you're with them, check your renewals! Edited to add Have just joined Pet Insurance Australia as they got a good review in the Choice magazine comparison last year.

San Francisco Chronicle Blogger acknowledges breed bias in reporting from KC DOG BLOG by btoellner A couple of months ago, a writer from the Denver Post acknowledged that his newspaper was guilty -- as charged - of over-reporting dog bites attributed to 'pit bulls' vs other types of dogs. In Denver, the newspaper had covered individual dog bite incidents 20 times in the past 5 years -- and the breed or type of dog was mentioned on only 9 occassions -- in 8 of those, a 'pit bull' was the dog responsible. Now, a reporter/blogger in San Francisco took it upon herself to look at how the San Francisco Chronicle has faired in its reporting. According to her information, since 2005, the newspaper has covered 34 specific dog attacks. "Pit Bulls" were responsible for 22 of the attacks -- and in every single instance the 'breed' of dog was mentioned in the headline. However, in the 12 articles about incidents not involving 'pit bull' type dogs -- not a single article had the breed of dog involved in the attack in the headline. Even the writer acknowledges that her paper may be responsible for over-reporting as well. What the writer fails to note, is the headlines only tell a partial story. According to numbers that I obtained through an FOI request a couple of years ago, in the time period of July 1, 2004 - August 15, 2007, 'pit bulls' accounted for 17.7% of all of the dog bites recorded by San Francisco animal control. So while bites by 'pit bulls' accounted for 17.7% of all bites, they accounted for 65% of all dog bite stories - -and 100% of the stories where the breed type was mentioned in the headlines. This is a common theme when it comes to media reporting -- I noted this about a year ago about reporting in Mobile, AL also. As more newspapers begin to acknowledge their role in creating the hysteria, we can begin changing the narrative from being about breed-hysteria, and more about actual causes of bites and attacks which will make a real difference in dog bite safety. It also continues to slash away at any credibility dog bite "studies" based solely on media accounts may have ever had. In the Denver Post and the San Francisco Chronicle we have 2 of the 10 largest circulation newspapers in the country admitting that they are guilty...hopefully this will be a trend that will lead to the problem being fixed.

Seems not?

Are we on the right channel?

Hmm... I'm not so sure this is accurate. I can only speak for the UK, but shops weren't 'banned' from selling puppies & kittens, it was just that the public backlash was such that it was never fashionable to sell them: This place is in outer London... www.coulsdonpets.co.uk and Harrods is famous for its live animals sales... Because of this cultural difference, they don't have less puppy farms, they simply have a bigger 'direct-to-consumer' market. Google uk puppy farms, and I think you'll find references to huge problems with imported puppies coming from overseas, brokering and Internet sales. http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/the_p_wo...000/7500521.stm Why do they kill less? I'd suspect there's much fewer pets generally (I don't have the figures, but Australians keep a LOT of pets) and more people probably keep 'apartment friendly' pets, like cats. Also, if you've ever watched 'it's me or the dog' - dogs live inside, in terraced houses & flats with little or no backyard. Having to 'walk' the dog without fail, leads to better socialised dogs, who are more included in daily life, more acceptance of dogs in public places and a strengthened bond between pet and owner. Here's one I saw in a pub! http://yfrog.com/n872gzj Finally, the big orgs - Dogs Trust and the RSPCA have no kill policies. Some BSL and the like, but an overall commitment that healthy pets get homes.

Good luck! Is it 612 ABC Brisbane? I'll try and listen online http://www.abc.net.au/brisbane/

That's if you can afford to pick up your pet at all... .

I've watched the video. I suspect the girl will be international, from somewhere where animal welfare isn't taken as seriously here as it is in the west. Partly because they've posted the video (someone doing something they know is 'wrong' and that would be repugnant to most, probably wouldn't be so brazen as she was in showing her face), but also because of the premeditated bucket/river combo. It's like her parents told her 'go to the river and get rid of these' and being kids with a mobile phone, they've recorded it.

FTW? We don't support breed specific legislation, except that we do.

So let me get this straight; We have an animal services department in the ACT (RSPCA + DAS) promoting their amazing success, getting their kill rates to a very low rate for dogs of 8%. People are waiting up to three months to get their dogs into care, because contrary to the idea that they're uncaring irresponsible owners, they want their pets to be given a chance to find a new home, with a new family. People from Sydney are saving dogs from local pounds and bringing them to the ACT, to give them a chance to be saved. And rather than celebrate this achievement; rather than bottle this success and demand that every pound in NSW implement the programs that have brought about these changes - we've again gone after the "greedy, evil breeders"? The solution of having unwanted pets being brought to a place of safety, isn't to try and build walls to keep the people from knowing about where this place is, but to make more places safe. If pets are being shipped across the border, the solution isn't to regulate breeders in the ACT, but to make the pounds in NSW take on board the amazing techniques being used in the ACT and save more lives. It's only when we stop chasing the outdated mantras of sheltering: that we need to eliminate "irresponsible owners", eliminate puppy farms and create the perfect set of laws, before we can stop killing and instead fully implement those programs which genuinely make pounds a safe place for healthy, adoptable pets, that we will see kill rates come down. The ACT is successful because their pounds have decided to implement programs which save lives. There is no good reason for every single pound in NSW couldn't be doing absolutely the same thing.

According to this link it might be being debated today/now?

Oh noes! The crew were there from 6am - sorry, it was a morning thing....

Lols.... all tuckered out.... The rest of the piccies are here

Oh ma gawd! So beautifoool! See more piccies here.

He did seem to have a bit of a love thing going on!

Even more piccies up now! Including Myf! <3 And Tom And a host of other cuties! See them here!

Some more brissie ones up now!