The Guardian Campaign

A group has set up "The Guardian Campaign," to raise awareness for the idea that changing calling people who have pets "guardians" instead of "owners" could have a significant effect on our treatment of animals through psychological conditioning. An interesting idea, no? 

Read about it here.

Washington rounds up Pit Bulls

"Monday couldn't have gotten off to a more controversial start in the town of Washington Monday where enforcement began of a controversial ordinance involving Pit Bulls. One that requires Pit Bull owners living inside the city limits to comply with or risk losing their animals forever.

Police and those in animal control say they're only doing their job. But as you might expect that's not a satisfactory response for those who have dogs that are being seized, and under the ordinance and have just days to comply with the new regulations before their animals may be put down.

Washington Police Chief Ronelle Broussard says letters went out 30 days ago to Pit Bull owners who were still not in compliance with the town's new ordinance, warning them their time was running out.

"None of them have complied so we are picking them up" says Chief Broussard.

One of those Pit Bull owners is Charline Rubin who told Eyewitness news she's been doing all she can to meet the deadline.

"It's not like buying car insurance it takes time to get this done.  In the meantime I have met all the other requirements.  I have the right size kennel, the collar, the leash, the micro chip, the lock.  They had to cut the lock to get my dog and they still took it."

Two other Pitt Bulls taken Monday morning belong to an alderwoman at large who voted against the original measure because she thought singling out just one breed of dog for such strict regulations wasn't fair.

Fair or not, as of Monday afternoon, officials with animal control in Opelousas have picked 15 Pitt Bulls.

Director Patrica Guillory told Eyewitness news her shelter puts down unclaimed animals after five days.

But Guillory says she is attempting to get the dogs transferred to rescue shelters. Guillory also told Eyewitness News Chief Broussard has instructed her to take no action as long as the dog's owner contacts her and makes a good faith effort to obtain insurance.

Some owners are even trying to pick up their dog by promising to turn it over to friends or relatives who live outside the Washington city limits.

But Guillory says the town officials have yet to decide if that's an acceptable option or not. So for now the Pit Bulls will not be released until their owners provide proof they have obtained the necessary insurance.  "

Read more here.

Official Statement on Microchipping

This is the official statement from DEFRA on the proposed microchipping laws. 

Note how they do not intend to end breed specific legislation, but instead pass this law. 

However also note the mentioned change that dogs will no longer be seized under BSL but remain in their homes.

Personally, I feel this is another lazy law. When you consider how much money this law will generate into the pockets of the police, government, and powerful microchipping companies and databases, in relation to the cost of much needed awareness and education, the motive becomes very simple to assess.

I am incredibly dubious about this new law. I feel every avenue should be taken before a new law is passed, which will endanger the lives of more dogs, for many reasons.

It has been stated that the rise of cases of dangerous dogs has only risen because a new operation to seek it out was implemented in the last year or so. If you connect that to the BBC documentations on the problem, the focus on staffies and the witch hunt for Pit Bulls, it all makes sense. It's lazy and draconian. Microchip to your hearts content, but to make it illegal pushes more dogs underground and puts more in danger of ending up unwanted in kennels, under the guise of being able to track your dog... I think more consideration is needed. 

Never mind the cancer scares and the support for a company that tests on animals, which all this has present.

____________________________________________________________

WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

TACKLING IRRESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERSHIP

Date:  23 April 2012 ____________________________________________________________

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)     My Right Hon Friend the Minister for Food and Farming has today made the following statement.

I am pleased to announce a package of measures to tackle irresponsible dog ownership.  I apologise to the House that this announcement is four weeks later than intended.

In the past few years there has been a sharp rise in the problems associated with irresponsible dog ownership.  The number of adults sentenced for offences relating to dangerous dogs has increased by 39 per cent from 855 in 2009 to 1,192 in 2010.  The number of dog-related admissions to hospital has also risen significantly, from 2,915 in 1997 to 6,118 in 2010.  In 2009 alone, dog attacks cost the NHS £3.3 million in treating the most serious cases where victims had to be admitted for treatment.  Every year there are numerous reported attacks on Royal Mail, Parcelforce and British Telecom staff.  Most of these attacks take place on private property.  Between 2007 and 2010, five people were killed following a dog attack in the home; four of the victims were children under the age of four years.  Concerns have also been raised with Defra about dog attacks on health visitors and social workers during home visits.

Irresponsible dog ownership is a complex problem and there is no single solution. The primary responsibility for ensuring that dogs are kept under proper control must rest with individual owners who should only acquire a dog if they are prepared to look after it properly and make sure that it does not become a nuisance or a danger to others.

Given growing concern about the number of dog attacks, the previous Government consulted the public in 2010 to find out whether the law needed to be changed and, if so, what changes might help.  The consultation found that most people thought that powers contained in the existing dangerous dogs legislation were inadequate.  The police and the dog welfare charities said that the criminal law in relation to dogs being dangerously out of control should be extended to cover private property (the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 only applies on public land or private land where the dog is trespassing) and there was also widespread support for compulsory microchipping. 

The responses showed that there was no support for adding other breeds or types to the list of prohibited dogs.  However the police specifically made the point that removing the ban on the four specific prohibited types, Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro, would significantly increase the risk of dog attacks because these four prohibited types were originally specifically bred for fighting, are renowned for their aggressive behaviour and are known to be disproportionately dangerous when in the hands of an irresponsible individual or when dangerously out of control. 

Having considered the replies to the consultation and further consulted the police, local authorities and other organisations who are in the frontline in dealing with irresponsible dog ownership, Government has decided that it would be appropriate to extend existing dangerous dogs law in England to cover all private property. Extending the current law would make it enforceable in homes, private gardens and private land where people and dogs are entitled to be, better protecting the thousands of service workers such as medical staff and postmen whose jobs take them onto private property.  However, the proposed extension to the criminal law will not extend to protect trespassers who have entered the private property with unlawful intentions.

In addition, to ensure the welfare of dogs that have become the subject of court proceedings and to ease the costs to the police service, Government has also decided that it should no longer be necessary for the police to seize and kennel dogs pending the outcome of court proceedings where the police do not consider the dog presents a risk to the public. The requirement to seize the dog will not be waived unless the police are satisfied that it is in the care of a responsible owner.  In addition interim conditions can be placed on the owner e.g. requiring the dog to be muzzled and on lead when in public (this would apply in England). 

We consider that allowing dogs to be exempted from seizure in these circumstances strikes the right balance between protecting the public from dangerous dogs and ensuring that safe and properly looked after dogs are not unnecessarily removed from their homes.  We propose to raise the fee of £24 (first set in 1991) payable by the owner for placing prohibited dogs on the Index of Exempted Dogs to better reflect the costs involved in administering these dogs for their lifetime and thereby reduce the burden on the taxpayer (this would apply throughout Great Britain).  Further funding is also being given to the Association of Chief Police Officers to support the training that they provide for Dog Legislation Officers in order to ensure that there is a hub of dog law expertise in every police force.

It is also our intention to introduce regulations under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 on microchipping to promote animal welfare by making it easier for local authorities and rescue centres to quickly re-unite stray dogs with their owners.  It would also help the police and local authorities to enforce dog and animal welfare legislation.  Our preferred approach is to make breeders responsible for microchipping the puppy before sale.

Therefore a further consultation is being held to give the public an opportunity to give their views on these proposed legislative changes.  In relation to microchipping the options are: (i) requiring all dogs to be microchipped on transfer of ownership, (ii) requiring all dogs to be microchipped from a certain date, (iii) implementing a phased-in process, such as starting with compulsory microchipping on transfer of ownership and after five years moving to mandatory microchipping of all dogs, or (iv) making breeders responsible for microchipping newly-born dogs before (first) sale.  This is the responsibility of the breeder or seller and not the purchaser.  The preferred option is the fourth one.

We consider that education also has a significant role to play in reducing the problems associated with irresponsible dog ownership.  Government is providing funding of £50,000 to be shared between the RSPCA, Battersea Cats and Dogs Home and the Dogs Trust to foster innovative local community projects to encourage responsible dog ownership in areas where there are high instances of dog-related problems.  The funding is being provided on the basis that the interventions will be carefully evaluated and the learning disseminated to help others engaged in working with local communities.

In drawing up these measures, Defra has worked with the Home Office to ensure the new anti-social behaviour measures they are preparing reflect the needs of enforcement agencies and enhance their ability to prevent irresponsible dog owners presenting a risk to the general public.

Local authorities already have powers to designate areas of public space as ‘dog free zones’ whilst Social Landlords are able to lay down rules for their tenants regarding the keeping of dogs or other animals. Many local initiatives build on these powers and today’s announcement compliments them to address the small minority of dog owners who cause such distress to these whom they attack or intimidate.

Shaka The Police Pit Bull

From Stubbydog;

"Have you ever wondered how dogs get jobs in law enforcement? An interview with K-9 handler and Oregon policeman Billy Wells reveals that sometimes it’s a series of lucky coincidences. Of course, people who see the potential in dogs like his partner, Shaka, are a big part of those lucky coincidences. Shaka has even made the news! Here, StubbyDog gets the scoop from officer Wells on how Shaka joined the force.

Q. Can you tell our readers about Shaka’s training? How did you become her handler?

A: She had been working with Washougal Police Department in Washington State as a Drug Detection K-9 for approximately four-years when I was fortunate enough to become her handler. Shaka was found at a city pound by a pit bull advocate in New York. When the new guardian realized her great drive, she contacted Washington State Patrol Academy (K-9 Drug Detection Training Unit). They were interested in Shaka’s skills, and after 18 weeks of training, she graduated and was adopted by Washougal PD. Her training continued with her new handler at that agency until staffing issues forced them to down size their K-9 unit.

Washougal posted Shaka on the OPCA (Oregon Police Canine Association) website. My department jumped at the chance. Fortunately for us, Milwaukie Police Department was the first agency to offer a new location for Shaka, and after an internal selection process, I became Shaka’s new handler. I had previous bomb detection experience as a K-9 handler and had a genuine interest in working with Shaka. Training is ongoing, with weekly real-life scenarios set up in four-hour blocks. This keeps both of us proficient in our work. Additionally, Shaka has to be certified twice a year through OPCA in order for us to be recognized as an OPCA Team.

Q: How would you describe your experiences with pit bull type dogs prior to working with Shaka?

A: Since I was raised around pit bulls, my experiences with them have been nothing but great! I can tell you that in my 20 years in law enforcement, I have never responded to a “pit bull attack” or a call related to aggression by a pit bull. I have been called to dog bites involving just about every other breed, but those calls don’t make the news or sell papers. Since I have had Shaka, I have been interviewed by the local news channels. I believe they are interested in the breeds being used by law enforcement. Although the interviews definitely put pit bulls in a good light, the quote that I like to throw out – “They get a bad wrap!” – never seems to show up on TV!

Q: We hear that Shaka is a real superstar at her job! Do you have a favorite story about working with her?

A: I have had Shaka for such a short time that every real-life deployment is my favorite story. Shaka stands out above the rest who do the same type of detection work. She is a people pleaser and a wonderful pet.

Q: What’s been the reaction to Shaka from your community?

A: Pit bulls are very common in our community and the surrounding Portland metropolitan area, so I have gotten nothing but positive feedback from citizens. A few folks have been reluctant to approach and pet her, but I always encourage it. The more people realize that pits are just like any other breed of dog, the better it will be for all.

Q: Some people believe that banning pit bull type dogs will make communities safer. In your experience, what creates a safe community for people and their pets?

A: I think that the notion of banning the breed is completely outrageous. If the public only knew how many Golden Retriever bites are reported nationwide, they might think the same about those. I can tell you for a fact that the only reason pits are in the news is that they are sometimes associated with criminal activity, such as dog fighting. Yes, their bites are powerful, which makes them an obvious choice for criminals. Society needs to look at pet owners good and bad, and hold them responsible for their pet’s issues. Ultimately pets’ behavior is often determined by the way they are treated. I believe knowledge of the breed will also make communities. I say that because when people realize that pits do make great pets and should not be banned due to exploitation by owners, then the news will focus on more informational, newsworthy stories!

Q: At the end of the day, where does Shaka go?

A: Shaka goes home with me every day. Shaka has a loving home and usually goes everywhere with me and my family. She has a kennel that resembles my home, and it has a bath station, heat and air conditioning. Some folks might think that it is a bit over the top, but with Shaka’s thin coat, she is very sensitive to temperature and becomes over-heated or chilled very easily."

ASPCA Rejects Facebook Puppy Mill Ads

From the ASPCA website:

"In response to concerns raised by the ASPCA and its national “No Pet Store Puppies” campaign, measures will be put in place to ensure that puppy mill dogs will no longer be sold via Marketplace on Facebook. The ASPCA is working with Facebook and Oodle, the online classifieds service that powers Marketplace on Facebook, to restrict listings of puppy mill dogs on the popular social media site. Through an ongoing removal process, ads placed by puppy mills have already started coming down. The process was designed to ensure that individuals may continue to post dogs available for a nominal adoption or rehoming fee.

The ASPCA believes that reducing Internet venues through which puppy mills can offer their dogs will help combat the inhumane puppy mill industry. Many puppies sold online come from puppy mills—these are large-scale, commercial facilities that commonly keep dogs in unsanitary, overcrowded and often cruel conditions without sufficient veterinary care, food, water or socialization.

"Removing an online platform for the cruel puppy mill industry sets a positive example of corporate citizenship and will help improve the lives of countless dogs," says ASPCA President and CEO Ed Sayres. "Most consumers are unaware they are perpetuating animal cruelty by purchasing a puppy online, and given the visibility of Marketplace on Facebook, this move has the potential to raise critical awareness about unscrupulous online breeders.”

Puppy mills that sell directly to consumers over the Internet are exempt from any federal oversight, allowing unregulated breeders to sell tens of thousands of puppies a year via online transactions. The Internet Crime Complaint Center notes that hundreds of complaints are filed every year from victims who are scammed when buying a dog online.

“Consumers who purchase a puppy from a website run the risk of acquiring an unhealthy animal and often end up with expensive vet bills and broken hearts,” said Cori Menkin, Senior Director of the ASPCA Puppy Mills Campaign. “We hope additional online retailers and classifieds listings will follow this example and stop providing a platform for puppy mill sales.”

To learn more about the ASPCA’s campaign to eradicate puppy mills and sign our pledge not to buy any items—including food, supplies or toys—from stores or websites that sell puppies, please visit www.NoPetStorePuppies.com."

"Time to tame our four-legged fiends"

The Independent has run an article on dangerous dogs:

"The Dangerous Dogs Act was supposed to put a stop to the proliferation of aggressive 'devil' breeds on British streets. Instead, the problem posed by four-legged fiends is worse than ever. Alan Selby and Kevin Rawlinson investigate

[...]

More than 6,000 people were treated in hospital in 2010-11 because of a dog attack with one in six of them involving children under 10.


The Kennel Club says the rise in attacks has been caused by the increased attractiveness of banned breeds, which it said are looked upon as "status dogs". 


Bill Lambert, a senior official with the Kennel Club, said the maligned Dangerous Dogs Act has "highlighted certain breeds as being particularly dangerous, which has attracted some people towards these dogs". A spate of high-profile cases has given added impetus to a campaign by families and animal-welfare groups to persuade the Government to rewrite the discredited Dangerous Dogs Act, which bans four breeds but has been criticised by dog owners, victims' families, police and breeders for being unworkable. The Metropolitan Police alone spends about £2m a year on kennelling dogs that have been seized under the Act.


[...]



Steve Goody, director of external affairs at Blue Cross, said: "The current Dangerous Dogs Act is totally inadequate. We need new legislation with tougher measures covering out-of-control dogs wherever they are and whatever the breed, allowing authorities to step in before attacks happen."


Animal-welfare groups claim that the increasing numbers of attacks are linked to the rise in aggressive dogs being bred and trained for hunting and dog-fighting. Some groups said that they were training more investigators and bringing in former police officers to try to stem the practice. "


Read the full article here.

Surrey Police Positive Change of Policy

In response to the case of Snoop, a dog seized under BSL last year, and the terrible state he was returned home in, Surrey Police have now changed their policy to allow dogs to remain at home whilst in custody. 

Snoop was returned to his owners very thin and with a bleeding tail. 

This change in policy is a great step forward in BSL as the trauma of staying away from home, in kennels, with strangers and under harsh observation, I believe can give critical changes in a dog's natural behaviour, and many dogs of any breed would feel threatened and heighten how "dangerous" they are. 

Snoop, before and after he was seized. This treatment of any animal is out of order.

In the recent case of Ralph and Louie, this has been used as evidence for them to be returned to their owners until trail, and I believe this has happened, with the side aspect that the owner has had to admit one its type, at least this is what I gather from the facebook page. 

Ralph and Louie's facebook

Free Snoop facebook

Dogs Don't Like Hugs

"One of our most important messages at Doggone Safe is that dogs don't like hugs and kisses. This is very controversial among dog owners and has caused many challenges for our Be a Tree presenters. Many people simply do not believe this and are sure that their dog loves to be hugged.

We got a comment on one of our previous posts from a reader who said that it is sad that kids can't hug their dogs and that her own dogs do like hugs and actually solicit this type of attention. This is a very good comment and many people have said this same thing to us over the years. We agree that there are dogs who do enjoy certain types of attention and will solicit this at times. The main thing to note in these cases is that the dog is asking for this on its own terms. Even these types of dogs will not enjoy a hug if they are busy watching a squirrel or chewing on a favorite toy. They are also unlikely to enjoy hugs the way kids do it (that is wrap their arms around the dog's neck and hang on). Adults tend to scratch the dog on the chest or engage in other petting the dog enjoys, while they are hugging. Thus the dog becomes conditioned to enjoy certain specific types of hugging from specific people."

Read more here.

Nathan Winograd's Assessment of Founder of PETA

Nathan Winograd, author of No Kill Revolution bible Redemption, has written on an encounter with the head of PETA and his beliefs for her shortcomings in ethical animal treatment. 

"I was in Los Angeles for a speaking engagement when three PETA employees approached me. One employee explained to me that animals don’t need to be suffering in order for him to be justified in killing them. He then explained that he has the right to round up and kill cats, even if they are not suffering, simply because he “believes” they might suffer. In fact, he said that no matter the circumstances, killing is not unethical—even convenience killing—because it is just like being put under anesthesia for spay/neuter, with the only difference being that the animal never wakes up."

"Not only does PETA’s registration with the State of Virginian as a “shelter” give [Ingrid Newkirk] the ability to acquire the controlled substance fatal-plus which she and her staff use to poison animals, but being registered as a “shelter” with the State of Virginia allows Newkirk and her staff to mislead people into believing that the killing that they do is consistent with that being done by shelters, a form of killing which, tragically, has long been tolerated even by people who claim to love animals. Were Newkirk to independently—without a staff and organization to back her—seek out thousands of animals a year by lying to people, answering free to good home ads, taking them from rescue groups and shelters, gathering animals through trapping, or acquiring those displaced by natural disasters, only to inject them with poison and kill them—it would be immediately obvious to everyone that she was a deeply disturbed woman inflicting cruelty and death upon animals in obedience to dark impulses."

This shocking report on PETA's founder and the justifications they tell themselves is the very thing No Kill fights to rid the world of. So long as people feel excused from killing, it will exasperate the problem.

Read the full article here.

Microchipping in NI

Microchipping has now become mandatory in Northern Ireland. This has support from some organisations but the risks are also being exposed.

From the BBC article: "All dogs in Northern Ireland will have to be microchipped when their licence is renewed.

"I think it'll make a big difference to dog wardens," said Nicola [dog warden].

"It's another method of trying to track dogs' owners and get them home. Dogs' collars and tags can be lost and can be removed. The microchip is permanent, so it can be pretty helpful." "

"Last year in Northern Ireland, 1,615 stray or abandoned dogs were destroyed.

That is about one in six of the dogs in pounds - a much higher proportion than the UK average.

The Executive hopes that making microchipping compulsory will reduce the number of strays on the streets and mean fewer healthy animals have to be put to sleep."

However rescue centre 7th Heaven has raised some worrying issues:

"Everybody is promoting it – the RSPCA, animal sanctuaries, councils, vets and the media. You would be forgiven for thinking it is the holy grail of animal welfare, the panacea to cure the problems of abandoned and stray animals. What all these bodies fail to tell you about is the risks involved to your beloved pet when you decide to microchip, risks that could very well prove fatal.

Various scientific studies have shown that between 1% and 10% of laboratory animals have developed cancers around the microchip implant. Outside the laboratory there have been documented cases of cats and dogs also developing carcinomas at the implant site. This should not be surprising, as foreign body tumor genesis (the growth of cancer cells due to a foreign object being lodged under the skin of an animal or human) is a well established medical problem.

[...]

The spurious reason why micro-chipping was rammed down the public throats was because it would help curtail dangerous dogs. Apart from the fact this would involve forcing a law on everyone to address a problem created by a minuscule amount of dog owners, it is patently disingenuous as the sort of people that own dangerous dogs will simply not get their dogs micro-chipped or get them from illegal breeders.

The next reason wheeled out was that it would help if your dog was lost, but a collar with an address and phone number does the same thing. (If your dog is stolen, under the Data Protection Act, the company who runs the microchip database cannot legally tell you who has stolen your dog, so that argument is also fallacious. Having a microchip is not proof of ownership)

The next reason given is that it would deter people from letting their dogs roam. Well the only way to do this would be to fine the owners and to make it substantial but if you do that the owners would just take the dog to pound for rehoming or just take it to the vets to get put down which would probably cost less than the fine. If an owner doesn’t care enough and lets his dog risk being run over on the road by letting it wander around without a lead, then he doesn’t really care about the dog at all, so he isn’t going to pay any fines.

The idea was partly sold to animal sanctuaries because they were told it would help them re-unite the animals with their owners. There is one major flaw in this argument. The vast majority of animals, particularly dogs that 7th Heaven take in, from whatever source (and presumably this will be the same for most charities) are animals that have been given up by their owners. You can microchip a dog up to its eyeballs but you can’t re-unite it with an owner that doesn’t want it."

You can read more via the links and decide for yourself. Personally, I am discouraged from microchipping not only because I believe laws don't solve problems, are just lazy, and education solves problems, but I also would not want to support a company that uses animal testing.

Josh Liddy's Audio Notes after Meeting with Carson Shelter April 11

Josh Liddy has released his audio notes on his meeting with the director of Carson Shelter in LA, back in April 2011. 

Notably, the director stated that No-Kill shelters don't exist, and that all Pit Bulls are aggressive.

"Why am I now putting out this video? These audio notes were recorded BEFORE this website was even created. I’ve since went through almost a year of witnessing wrongs that keep on coming at a rapid pace. Many on the staff at Carson have developed very negative opinions of me and my work. That’s now a given. But (back then) my opinion towards them was far more centric in approach, as I genuinely wanted to work “with” these individuals in order to help save these Pit Bulls lives. I had a track record of working “with” OC, working “with” East Valley. We certainly didn’t always agree on how things went down, but I was still speaking my mind and they weren’t necessarily scared of that. The dialogue was open. With Carson, not so much. I hope that this video displays the philosophy that has (imo) always been present there, the way of thinking, the way of operating. That’s why I now want people to hear my insights on that very day, as it preempts all that has since happened, and follows all that had already happened long before I was even doing this or aware of the problems…"

Hear the whole report here.

Manhattan Nest's DOGDOGDOGDOGDOGDOG part 2

A while back I posted about a blog entry by a Manhattan inhabitant who had adopted a Pit Bull, and written a charming piece on the adventure. (here)

There's a part two to the story, a Q&A from people commenting on the original post. Read the full post here, but here's some snippets:

" I was completely blown away by the outpouring of love and support I received after I posted about Mekko for the first time. And it didn’t just come from the wonderful crowd who already read my blog, but also from people who stumbled upon that post from so many places around the internet and took the time to leave a friendly comment or pen a kind e-mail. To be honest, I expected a really mixed reaction. People have enough opinions about dogs in general—who should own them, where they should live, how they should be cared for—leaving aside all the flack I anticipated receiving for adopting a Pit Bull. But, as with some other things that I’ve posted and readied myself for attack, the onslaught never came. All of this is my roundabout, awkward way of saying thank you. Thank you for making this a fun, kind place on an internet where fun, kind places are rare."

"Mekko loves to cuddle. She would cuddle all day, everyday. She is a fabulous little spoon and snores like a heavyset man, and it’s amazing. And she’s so warm. Aside from that, she is really social, and basically wants to be friends with every dog and every person she comes into contact with. It’s nice having a dog like that—this little social butterfly who makes me talk to people, too. I’ve met so many great dog owners and other dogs in the neighborhood, and it’s fun running into all our new friends all the time. And more than any other breed, Pit Bull owners really feel this strong allegiance with other Pit Bull owners. There are sidewalk love-fests several times a week."

Ed Pilolla's Accounts of Carson Shelter, LA

Carson Shelter is the Animal Control Centre for LA. It is currently being exposed for it's dreadful treatment of animals, in particular, Pit Bulls. It is the centre which Josh Liddy campaigns for the renovation of, and networks for the Pit Bulls inside. 

Ed Piololla has written some in depth accounts of being a volunteer at the shelter, and documents the works of Cathy Nguyen. You can read from part one here, but here's some snippets:

"Nguyen (rhymes with Schwinn) witnessed the inhumane conditions but even she didn’t know the extent of the slaughter that was taking place at the shelter. Still, she knew enough. She knew things had to change."

"Nguyen began transferring dogs out of Carson as fast as she could. She moved them to shelters near her home in Irvine that had more space and could house the dogs for longer than Carson could.

Nguyen wasn’t just rescuing dogs at Carson. She also walked the long aisles of dog kennels writing down ID numbers, watching.

And she started complaining. Nguyen phoned and emailed the department director who oversaw all six county animal shelters."

"Later, a source informed Nguyen that the county worker liked to brag to his co-workers at Carson about his favorite methods of euthanizing animals, including injecting air or detergent with a syringe into the dog’s bloodstream. He once broke a stick over a dog’s head, according to witnesses. He also injected bleach and euthanasia serum into birds and released them to see how long they could fly before dropping out of the sky dead, Nguyen was told."

"Over a period of 16 months back then, staff had killed 2,938 healthy dogs and cats less than four days after they arrived, according to court records. By California law, animals must be held for at least four days plus the day of impoundment, given food, water, shelter and veterinary care before they can be euthanized– unless they are suffering.

Of the animals marked “normal” by county staff at intake, 488 were euthanized the day they arrived at the shelter. Court records also showed that 550 animals went missing and the county could not account for their location or outcome, meaning the department lost an average of 39 animals a month."

This is a supporting video of Carson Shelter. I'm not sure who made it or what it's purpose is, but it seems to be the catalyst for Nyugen's exile from the shelter.

Statement on BSL from SaveLilla

Lilla is a Staff x Bulldog in Australia who has been seized under BSL. On their change.org petition, this is their statement: 

"In late 2011, Victorian government rushed through new legislation regarding dog ownership. 

This legislation is poorly written and ill executed leaving much room for conjecture and incriminating any dog that even partially resembles a pit bull terrier. This legislation is racial profiling and descrimination of dogs. Because of this legislation, many dogs have been destroyed solely because of the way they look. Innocent dogs and their owners are being seperated everday and this is doing nothing to reduce the number of dog attacks in Victoria.

Breed Specific Legislation is inherently flawed for multiple reasons, one of which is that it gives the public a false sense of security. Some people think that only certain breeds attack, this isn't true. Any dog can attack, regardless of size, strength, colour or breed.

Why should you care?

In late 2011 an assistance dog named Lilla was deemed to be of resricted breed(Pit Bull Cross). Lilla has been registered with the local council for years and is actually a Staffy X Bull dog. Lilla has never been at large and has never been involved in an incident with another animal or a human. Lilla is a gentle dog who is well cared for, well loved and very loving. 

Due to Council officers declaring Lilla a pitbull, Breanna (Lilla's owner) now has to make a decision, cage Lilla or kill her. Breanna, is chronically ill and has been for several years, she relies on Lilla to help her everyday. Lilla is trained to assist her when she collapses and ensures her very safety. Council officers are aware that they are putting Breanna's life in danger by removing Lilla from her side. Breanna is currently fighting this declaration through VCAT.

Why is Lilla being targeted? Why are they spending so much of the rate payers money persecuting an innocent animal because they believe she looks somewhat like a pit bull? Why did the Victorian government bring in such subjective and poorly written laws?

These are the questions we want answered.

So, what else do we want?

We want Breed Specific Legislation repealed. 

We want a fair system that focuses on responsible ownership of all dogs. 

We want to stop the mass murder of innocent dogs. 

We want to save Lilla from a lifetime behind bars."

To read more and sign the petition click here.

Memphis orders "Kill All Pitbulls"

At around the same time as Ohio pardoned Pit Bulls, Memphis didn't seem to hear. 

"ABC24 news released a secret recording on Wednesday that was made at the Memphis Animal Shelter in November. On the recording, a high-ranking female city official can clearly be heard to be ordering the mass euthanization of animals.

“I want you to euthanize every pit bull or dog that looks like a pit bull, whose time is up,” the female voice is heard saying, which is followed by the sound of another shelter worker saying ”Uh oh.”

In a shelter that takes in 350-500 animals a week, in a community where the greatest majority of them are pit bulls, that’s no small order. Records show that almost 270 pit bulls were killed at the shelter in November. Of them, 244 were listed as having been killed for space. This is not the first time that Memphis Animal Shelter has come under fire. This is just the latest chapter in a long and perilous story for the animals there."

Read more here, including their poor track record with animal care and services, and also articles on Ohio and about a blind dog given her sight back :)

RSPCA speak out on BSL

The RSPCA have issued this PDF on their thoughts for the new BSL clause. 

I have mixed feelings for the RSPCA, I think they're great for civil matters but don't let them get their hands on an animal! However this is looking good, thankyou RSPCA. They're certainly a force to be reckoned with. 

Read it here: http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232727946530&mode=prd

BSL in Discussion in House of Lords

"The Dog Control Bill is a tough new piece of legislation to replace the failed Dangerous Dogs Act and is supported by the DDASG. Specifically, the Bill would look to change the following:

Repeal all existing ‘dangerous dogs’ legislation including breed specific legislation

The police expend significant resources on enforcement of the Dangerous Dogs Act, with large amounts of money being spent on the seizure and kennelling of dogs simply because of their breed type - many of which are returned to their owners once proved to be of good temperament. Removing breed specific legislation would allow those resources to be used more effectively elsewhere, and preferably to concentrate on those dogs showing unprovoked aggression.

Introduce Dog Control Notices

The vast majority of dog attacks are as a result of the irresponsible actions of dog owners, who have either not taken the time and trouble to train their dog correctly, or have indeed trained them to behave aggressively. Dog Control Notices will apply to all types of dog that have acted dangerously without provocation, caused an injury to another protected animal (as defined by the Animal Welfare Act 2006), caused harm, or caused a person to reasonably believe it will cause harm, and works to prevent serious incidents of aggression occurring by allowing preventative action.

Apply to both public and private places

A large proportion of dog attacks occur in the home and involve a dog that is known to the victim. The Dog Control Bill will make attacks on private property a criminal offence. Greater responsibility is therefore placed on owners to ensure that their dogs are not out of control in any place. It is not acceptable for an owner to allow their dog to behave aggressively either in the home or in a public place. The Bill does however include exemptions to cover circumstances such as an attack or aggression as a result of an attack by another animal, or on a person whilst that person is committing an offence.

The Kennel Club is the largest organisation in the UK devoted to dog health, welfare and training. Its objective is to ensure that dogs live healthy, happy lives with responsible owners.

It runs the country’s largest registration database for both pedigree and crossbreed dogs and the Petlog database, which is the UK’s largest reunification service for microchipped animals. The Kennel Club Assured Breeder Scheme is the only scheme in the UK that monitors and sets standards for breeders, in order to protect the welfare of puppies and breeding bitches. It also runs the UK’s largest dog training programme, the Good Citizen Dog Training Scheme and licenses shows and clubs across a wide range of activities, which help dog owners to bond and enjoy life with their dogs. The Kennel Club runs the world’s greatest dog show, Crufts, and the Discover Dogs event at Earls Court, London, which is a fun family day out that educates people about how to buy responsibly and care for their dog.

The Kennel Club invests the money that it makes from registrations and its Petlog identification database into its dog training and education programmes, welfare campaigns and the Kennel Club Charitable Trust, which supports dog welfare charities and research into dog diseases. The Kennel Club jointly runs health screening schemes with the British Veterinary Association and funds the Kennel Club Genetics Centre at the Animal Health Trust, which is at the forefront of pioneering research into dog health."

Full article here.

Louie and Ralph, seized under BSL

Two dogs were seized in St Albans yesterday under the BSL act. 

Louie and Ralph, two household pets, were taken after a raid was implemented on a rescue advocate's home. 

The owner claims the police had been informed of illegal type dogs at that address. 

The dogs are being held in a compound until the trail. 

The family are using solicitors and BSL experts "Wheldon Law" to assist them in getting their dogs back. 

http://www.wheldonlaw.co.uk/

One of the dogs was due an ear operation which has had to be put on hold.

My thoughts go out to the owners and the dogs and I shall update as I find out more.