Feather

It is a difficult question, though. People throw the phrase 'working to better the breed' around as though it's some kind of panacea, but is it? It seems to me as though it's more or less meaningless unless you can rationalise it - unless you've actually sat down, planned it out and are able to say to people 'this is what I'm breeding for, this is why it's necessary, and here's the evidence that it's working (or is very very likely to work)'. I'm not overly convinced by statements like 'I'm breeding for good temperaments' or 'I'm breeding for healthier dogs' (unless you can actually prove that your breeding stock is markedly healthier than the average, in which case I'm all for it) either - they're pretty wishy-washy. Unless a breeder can both elucidate and prove exactly how they're bettering the breed and why it needs to be done, I don't think the vague claim to altruistic motivations actually means anything. And I'll get off my soap-box now, that phrase is just a pet peeve of mine.

Seems fitting to post this here today: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033628/Surviving-9-11-rescue-dogs-scoured-Ground-Zero-bodies-commemorated-decade-difficult-mission.html

I don't know about that - they've changed the title of the article from 'Dog kills Melbourne toddler' to 'Pitbull kills girl in home'. The ABC is often guilty of sensationalism too, sadly.

That woman is very, very sick. Her therapist recommended she start volunteering at the animal shelter - where the hell is that therapist now? Surely anyone with the slightest grip on reality can see that dressing a kangaroo in clothes and thinking of it and treating it as her son is not the behaviour of any normal or rational human being. As for the poor roo, I can only hope animal welfare advocates manage to intervene for him. There are just so many things wrong with his living situation, it's hard to know where to start (beyond getting him off crazy lady).

Lol, okay. You're entitled to state your opinion and I'm really not all that invested in arguing with you about it - I just think there are more productive ways of going about changing things. But hey, free country!

Did you read my post? There's no need to 'get me to admit it', I said straight out that breed bias exists. I'm just not sure what good complaining about it here is going to do, as I doubt the people with the power to actually change it are reading this topic.

Does it really matter at all whether the dog was a Goldie, Lab or Goldie Lab cross? I think we can agree that neither breed are vicious monsters who deserve to be PTS wholesale - it's one individual animal who behaved unacceptably in what may have been an extremely stressful situation. It's unfortunate that it occurred, for the people who were bitten and for the dog, who will probably be PTS, but I doubt it will have wider ramifications for anyone. As for complaints of breed bias, yep, it's true, had it been a Pitty there would be a whole lot less sympathy for the dog. Unfortunately that's the way the world is, and it's only ever going to change through action, not complaint.

May they catch the person responsible, and may that person rot in jail.

Some people have the mentality that you owe THEM for actually giving the dog "a good home". Yep Some people have it in their head that rescue dogs should come at absolutely no cost to them, and that rescues and shelters ought to be grateful to them for even considering taking one in. Kind of like how in shops you get a discount on shop-soiled goods. Apparently no one told them a rescue dog isn't quite the same as jigsaw puzzle that's missing the corner piece. I agree, that's what it seems like to me; as if the journalist intended to support the RSPCA's position, but did a pretty poor job of it. Maybe she's new and being given the fluff pieces to teach her the ropes?

Again, I would advise you to go and look at the Annual Report for last year, or even just read my post. It clearly shows that the RSPCA are running at a loss of over a hundred thousand per year. The year before that, before they really got to work on fund-raising, they ran at a loss of over five hundred thousand. Sounds like a funding crisis to me.

Of the 1670 dogs who entered the ACT RSPCA shelter in the 2009-10 financial year, 98 were euthanised - that's a bit under 6%. Of that 6% it was a roughly half-half split between euthanasia on medical and behavioural grounds. Given the propensity for dogs with medical or behavioural issues to end up in shelters, I don't think that's too bad at all. In the same time period 45% of those 1670 dogs were reclaimed, which must at least in part be due to the efforts of RSPCA staff in chasing up microchips and monitoring lost reports. 28% were adopted out. Roughly 15% were transferred to DAS (and around 4% of the 1670 were transfers from DAS to the RSPCA). All of these figures are available in the 2009-10 Annual Report - I just thought I'd add them to the discussion for anyone who doesn't have time to look them up As for transferring animals to DAS because they don't have room, well, what's the alternative? Should they try to cram multiple strange dogs into the same kennel? Should they introduce dogs into the main kennels without quarantine? A lot of people complain about it, but so far no one seems to be proposing a workable alternative. Edit: I'd like to add to that that anyone interested in seeing the figures behind ACT RSPCA's financial position could take a look at the 2009 Annual Report. From the Profit and Loss Statement on p.42, it seems that the ACT RSPCA's income for 2009 was 2.86 million, less than a quarter of which came from grants, and that their total expenditure was 2.99 million. I'd also point them to the recent article in the Canberra Times detailing the RSPCA's running costs at around $10,000 per day. It's always nice to look at the facts.