shel

Another pic

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland...00217-odsz.html http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-...x-1225831516247 RSPCA find dog with cable around scrotum THE RSPCA say the case of a dog found with a cable tie bound tightly around its testicles is one of the worst acts of cruelty it has seen. The cable was tied so tightly that the American Staffordshire terrier's scrotum had turned septic. "This is the first time I've seen a case like this. It sickens me to think someone could do such a thing," Inspector Travis Cooper said. Mr Cooper said he suspected that the cable tie had been attached to the dog, which was found at Ningi near Bribie Island north of Brisbane, for up to a week. "The cable tie had been pulled so tight that it restricted blood flow," Mr Cooper said. "When I picked him up he was very weak and disorientated. We're not completely sure why someone would have done this. "I can only speculate that it may have been an attempt at DIY castration." The dog was initially found on the corner of Fauna Way and Peel Road by the Moreton Bay Regional Council. "We believe he's been dumped. He has no identification and no microchip and is currently undergoing surgery to remove the gangrenous scrotum," Mr Travis said. RSPCA Queensland is seeking information that may help identify the dog's owner or lead to the perpetrator.

Probably not. Because, even though we love to hate unethical breeders, if you look at the figures, overwhelmingly, even their pups stay in their homes. Testament to the robustness of the dog species. For instance 79% of owners have never had their pet go missing for long enough to cause concern and Less than 5% of dogs and cats ever need the services of a pound or shelter. ...or.... There are 3,692,000 dogs in Australia. An estimated what? 500,000 impounded nationally? AFAIK there aren't any real, national figures. So, even that means, if I get my calculations right (bear with me, it's late)... just 14% of dogs are being handled by shelters. Could we get that number down? Sure. Do we have dog overpopulation? Doubtful. Coz if there are 3.6 million dogs in Australia, if each die every 10 years; 10% will need replacing annually. That's 360,000 dog homes being becoming available each year, with people who lived with their dog safely until the age of ten. Not new people looking for their first dog, but established, proven pet homes. I think I read somewhere that registered breeders, breed about 60,000? So we need 300,000 dogs from somewhere each year. (Edited to add links)

Hi Andrew, Thanks for stopping by; a councillor who takes the time to address the concerns of the community is a rare gem, so we appreciate you taking time out to chat with us. Can I first congratulate you on your council pounds' opening hours (Monday to Friday from 8.00 am - 5.30 pm, with a weekends, a/h's number) as it's certainly longer than many councils in Australia. The fact you are working with rescue groups in your area to adopt out rehomable pets is also fantastic. I think people questioning when the system fails is vital to continuing to improve outcomes for shelter pets. The story of this family's heartbreak should serve to re-enforce the notion that impounded pets are usually lost family members and every avenue must be exhausted to try and reunite them with their families. We look forward to updates as they come to light, :)shel

I find it amusing that when what I consider a very moderate position is presented; that all animals should have their lives valued regardless of species, that there's always someone who takes the extreme aggressive end of the spectrum as the counter: "gargh, you must be living barefoot in the bush saving worms - what would you know". If you'd read either of the links you'd have seen the objection to biological xenophobia is the illogical species hatred that goes with it. "I hate X animal" reveals more about the person saying it, than the animal itself. Certainly animals will sometimes, for their own good, or human health, will need to be controlled. What is unhelpful is the associated celebration of their death. "They deserve to die"... no they don't. They're innocents just trying to survive in a world and an environment in which everything eats, displaces, bullies or succumbs to something else. This is nature. So when humans choose to meddle in nature we should be doing so because all other management avenues have been exhausted, and with the upmost respect and compassion for those we choose to kill. Because bee is to bird is to dog is to… everything else. While we can dislike the effect of an animal in proximity, we can dislike the effect of it entering an ecosystem, we should never hate an animal because of its breed or species.

Biological xenophobia, or the human preference for one species of animal over another, is a dangerous game of whimsy that is often followed up with inhumane acts of abuse in the name of ‘conservation’... http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=2699 http://www.savingpets.com.au/?p=7594

Vid here: http://today.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1007914

Wow. How great is that! Angry mob =1 Silly bint = 0

The major problem is that it's such an easy 'sell': We have a puppy farm problem in Australia - should we have a breeder licencing scheme? <public>Of course we should - it'll get rid of those nasty puppy farmers! But a person who treats dogs appallingly, neglects them, lets them live in covered in feces, overbreeds and finally kills them without vet assistance - is already breaking the law. Someone who has an clean, regularly inspected bulk kennels, with all the required permits, hundreds of breeding dogs and absolutely no regard for where their pups end up - can never be eliminated, unless we decide as a community that treating pets as livestock is unacceptable and stop buying. Like it or not, in Australia it's ok to use animals for human use. People who farm dogs, are able to claim the same rights as any other farmer. Licencing schemes can't and won't change that. But, imagine for one moment, everyone that kept household chickens were treated in the same manner as someone who had thousands and produced supermarket eggs for a living. Licencing, reporting, legislation, enforcement; what would that even cost? Unfortunately, the emotion of animal welfare groups out to get the 'greedy evil breeders' has meant we're now facing a future of absurd and emotive 'solutions'.

Whupsies!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01...?site=riverland RSPCA prosecuting role faces review The South Australian Environment and Conservation Minister, Jay Weatherill, has asked for a review of the RSPCA's role in prosecuting animal welfare cases. Five prominent south-east graziers had about 100 counts of animal cruelty against them dropped last week, after it was revealed the RSPCA was unable to tender any evidence to the courts because of an error made by a staff member. Mr Weatherill says he has ordered a report on the RSPCA's handling of the prosecution case. He says the RSPCA generally has a long history of successfully prosecuting cases of animal cruelty, but says a review is still needed. Some SA independent legislative councillors and the Greens have called for the RSPCA's powers to be handed over to the police.

To give you some idea how far away from genuine need this is, from the NDN presentation from Frankston Council; "It’s our Way or the Highway" There are 21,000 Dogs registered in Frankston In 2008, 1561 dogs were impounded. That means only 0.07% of the dog population are needing the services of their shelter each year. Of those pets that are impounded, 1,308 went home. They have a 73.5% reclaim rate (much higher than the Australian average of about 50%) So that means only 253 of the dogs weren't desired by, identified by or reclaimed by their owners. That's less than one dog a day for the council pound to have to rehome. It just doesn't sound like an overpopulation disaster worthy of such hardball legislation to me. This legislation was enacted on the 1st September 2008 Over 220 dogs have been desexed through their pound system and returned to their owners. Their attitude is clear. If you don't like it, f&ck you.

A UK dog mag journo mentioned to me in passing that Bruce is still "looking for a lifeline" So no good news I'm afraid...

Agree completely. There is no science or example where mandatory desexing has decreased shelter killing. When you start ignoring science and start giving weight to personal belief – then start allowing groups to mandate those personal beliefs into law, then you’re on a very slippery slope to giving a few people ultimate power without accountability or audit. “Because we say so” should never be the basis for legislation.

A co-worker and I had a discussion exactly like this. We were chatting about a shelter that has its 'temperament testing' turned up so high, that there was only one 'kind' of dog that was passing; and this bomb proof, driveless, universally dopey-friendly wasn't the kind of dog either of us were interested in having (and felt others would probably feel the same way). That said, neither of us are 'normal' dog owners. While this study argues that it's these 'undesireable' drives that are losing dogs their homes, its actually only a tiny percentage of the dogs living in Oz who ever need the help of a shelter. Most stick with their families, 'faults' and all. While identifying anything that puts a dogs at risk IMO is only a good thing (the more information and good science people have access to before they make a pet acquisition decision the better), I think there are many other reasons pets enter shelters; the dog's personality being just one of a host of factors leading to relinquishment. :)shel edited for spelling..

There's a paper here: http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_f...een-bennett.pdf and a media articles here: http://aaws08.blogspot.com/2008/08/finding...et-dog-can.html http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/46219 http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20080409-17913.html

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-...91021-h75n.html The owner, not the dog, is the issue LYNNE BRADSHAW October 21, 2009 - 1:45PM Comments 16 What has been largely missing from the pit bull debate of the past few days is that dogs that attack people have owners. To focus our attention on the breed of the dog is to abdicate our responsibility to be accountable for the behaviour of our pets. The recent case in Victoria occurred because a dog owner allowed a poorly trained and poorly socialised dog to roam freely in a public place. So let's bring this issue back to where it started, with the owner of the dog. Only then will we get close to addressing the root of the problem. We know that a dog's tendency to bite is the product of at least five factors: the dog's genetic predisposition to aggression; early socialisation to humans; its training or mistraining; the quality of its care and supervision; and the behaviour of the victim. Genetics is only one of these factors. In the wrong circumstances, any dog, regardless of size, breed or mixture of breeds can be dangerous. The RSPCA believes that deeming a dog as "dangerous" should therefore be done on the basis of its behaviour, not its breed. In fact, studies have found that dog breeds subject to breed bans are no more likely to attack or cause more serious injuries than any other similarly sized dog. While there is some evidence that certain breeds may be genetically predisposed to aggressive behaviour, most research concludes that breed-specific legislation is unlikely to have a significant impact on the frequency of dog bites. Recent experience both here and overseas has also shown us that it is virtually impossible to effectively enforce such legislation. It doesn't make a good headline, but at the heart of this issue is responsible pet ownership. The RSPCA firmly believes that dog-bite prevention strategies should focus on public education and training of both dogs and owners. That's why our approach centres on educating pet owners, educating the public, identifying problem behaviours early, encouraging the selection of dogs with appropriate behavioural characteristics, and pushing for better control and management programs for those dogs that are declared to be menacing or dangerous. None of these strategies works without the others: without proper management programs by local governments, they all fall over. It's time for local councils to crack down on the owners of unregistered dogs and dogs that are known to be a nuisance or danger in their community. Councils should be much more proactive in dog control for all dogs, be they mixed breeds, pure breeds or restricted breeds. You shouldn't be allowed to breed a dog without a licence and breeding standards should be properly regulated. Dogs are a treasured part of Australian, society but the reality is that as long as we share our lives with them, dog bites will be a risk. However, there is much we can do to reduce that risk. Firstly, never leave young children unattended with dogs, even a trusted family pet. Children are unpredictable and can often display what a dog perceives as threatening behaviour. Always ensure your dog is properly confined in your house or yard and under effective control when walking. Make sure your dog receives proper training and socialisation with other dogs and people from an early age, and if your dog does display aggressive or worrying behaviour, speak to your vet or your local RSPCA about a behavioural assessment. And lastly, if you're thinking of adopting a dog, make sure you research your options thoroughly to ensure you choose the best pet for your family situation and lifestyle. Ultimately, the responsibility of a dog will always rest with the owner. It's convenient to blame the dog when things go wrong, but to ignore the human factor is a paltry attempt to address the issue from the wrong end. Dog attacks are a people problem. We must do far more to promote responsible pet ownership if we are going to reduce the incidence of dog bites in the future. Lynne Bradshaw is national president of the RSPCA Australia.

Yup he got what he wanted.

Wow. This actually made me burst into tears.

Yup - so as you say, you need to be looking at the whole picture of what puts dog and owner 'at risk' and work on programs which address it. Which is exactly what BSL doesn't do. There are models have been shown to work in reducing dog bites, but in order the implement them we have to stop looking to quick fixes driven by spittle-spewing animal welfare groups trying to get pets out of the hands of the 'undeserving' and instead work to respect, support and educate all pet owners in the community. This includes acknowledging that a bite is often the last in a series of nuisance behaviours and that support (followed by penalties for non-compliance) is required when problems start. From KC Dog blog Feb 2009 But you see, that means more work for under resourced rangers (who are often not specialised in dog welfare or behaviour) and the need for the government to put serious consideration into the issue of animal management. Much easier to let the media hype up the latest dog attack and let councils ban breeds in response to ill-informed public outcry.

That's a bit like saying everyone who weighs over 95kg has the potential to be an efficent violent attacker, so we should lock them up in case they do something nasty. Or that people who have tattoos are more likely to be criminals, so we'd better kill them (I have a tattoo btw). I think rather being predisposed to aggression, these dogs are predisposed to being owned by people who many people find intimidating. Gangs of youths standing on corners with a big, scary dogs. Young men who we deem undeserving of owning a dog because they don't have a job, or simply because they're young. We must do something to protect the women and children! It's descrimination repackaged. Don't believe me? Think any of these dogs should be seized and killed? If not, then BSL is wrong. Kids get bitten by all kinds of dogs. Tough guys will get a big strong dog whether they should have them or not. Neither of these facts have anything to do with pitbulls. (Images from Pin Ups for Pitbulls)

The practical application From the Washington Post.... Read the whole article