The following primer gives a good overview of No Kill. To learn more, order a copy of Redemption and  visit the No Kill Advocacy Center.

Help Spread The Message on Facebook

Australian No Kill advocates are spreading the message down under. Your help is needed in spreading the word!

Early 2009 was when I first learned that the majority of killing in Australian pounds and shelters was unnecessary. It started with a book which set me off on a quest to learn more and work out how we can change things. I needed to find out why some of those we trust to care for our companion animals are killing so many of them.

The Importance of Being Independent

Along the way I’ve met many wonderful people who have helped in various ways. Many of them feel that any public criticism could put their jobs in jeopardy. I realised early on that in order to get their messages out I could not draw an income from the ‘animal welfare industry’. So I continued my IT consulting and resolved to spend 1 day a week working on Good For Dogs. It ended up being more like 3 days a week!

Love Doesn’t Pay The Rent

Unpaid advocacy work has a number of drawbacks:

• It eats into your rest and recreation time
• As a consultant/freelancer it can reduce your billable hours
• Urgent matters (media, meetings) can interrupt paid work
• It can compete with ‘having a life’

Mind if I Take A Break?

For the past couple of years I’ve allocated a large percentage of my time to helping our community improve outcomes for animals in pounds and shelters. We’ve had some great wins. I feel it’s time for me to take a break, take stock and clear my head for a while. Good for Dogs will be on hold till I get back.

The media and politicians, dog catchers and pound contractors all have a vested interest in making us fear a kind of evil super dog they call the ‘Pit Bull’. They tell us they’re not like other dogs – that they are far stronger, more aggressive, more unpredictable – than regular dogs. Selective reporting and misreporting of dog attacks claimed to involve Pit Bulls reinforce the myths.

The Australian newspaper depicts the 'Pit Bull' using the most terrifying stock image they could find.

The Side We’re Seldom Shown

A search for ‘pit bull’ on YouTube brings up plenty of videos of family pets playing happily with their owners, families and other dogs. These images would weaken the folk devil that’s been created and great efforts are made to make these dogs look mean.

Meet George

The following photos are being given to Victorian Council staff as part of the govt’s ‘Approved Standard‘ to help them identify whether your dog has some “Pit Bull” in it. We don’t know anything about this dog so we’ll call him George.

George was chosen by the Victorian Govt to feature in their 'approved standard' for identifying American Pit Bull Terriers.

It’s most likely George was killed after the taking of this photo. Given he was chosen as an example of an ‘American Pit Bull Terrier” it’s quite likely that his only offence was his appearance.

Dressing Up Dogs on Death Row

If you look carefully you’l see a big black studded collar was placed over his head after his slip lead was put on. It looks like a purely cosmetic addition to make him look mean. Who would do such a thing? (Our only clues are bricks and maple leaves.)

Photo from Victorian Govt's "Breed Standard" for "Pit Bulls"

Graeme Smith Can’t Stop Talking About Pit Bulls

The Lost Dogs Home’s CEO campaigns tirelessly against what he calls ‘Pit Bull Terrier Types’. They impound seized ‘Pit Bulls’. Could they be responsible for the pictures above? (bricks?)

Graeme Smith calls for dog owners to surrender.

Want Extra Collars With That?

In this piece we’re shown several ‘Pit Bulls’ in pens at The Lost Dogs Home with one collar on and then a dog being paraded with no less than three collars, including a studded one. Why do they dress them up like Mr T?

Lost Dogs Home parade 'Pit Bull' with 3 collars on

“They Dressed Me Up Like This”

Once an industry of dog seizers and killers have been assembled, so in Nils Christie’s terms, an industry is formed which has a vested in creating the preconditions for its own employment.

“Then they came for the dogs” Professor Simon Hallsworth, Director of the Centre for Social and Evaluation Research at London Metropolitan University

With just under two weeks till the opening of  ’dog season’ in Victoria, Councils are preparing to start knocking on doors and seizing family pets.

The State Government is encouraging the public to dob in their neighbours pets via a dedicated ‘Dob in a Dangerous Dog’ hotline.

Q. My neighbour has a pit bull terrier that does not appear to be
registered or kept according to the law. What can I do?

A. Call the Local Council or the Government hotline (1300 101 080). An
Authorised Officer will inspect the premises and review the breed of the dog.
If it is of a restricted breed then an official declaration process and
restriction of the dog will be initiated.

Restricted Breed Dogs FAQ - Bureau of Animal Welfare - Department of Primary Industries, Victoria

DPI Advice to Councils is Incorrect

Council staff are not qualified to identify the breed components of dogs from unknown parentage. The identification “standard” issued by the State Government comes without explanation of how it is to be used. It will lead to mistakes and declarations of dogs who do not have any Pit Bull in them because there is no scientific basis behind it. New laws grant Councils power to kill dogs based on their appearance under certain (but not all) circumstances.

The DPI’s own website states:

Current owners may keep their restricted breed dogs as long as the dogs were:

1. in Victoria prior to 1 September 2010, AND
2. registered (as any breed) with the local council prior to 30 September 2011.

Things You Should Know About Restricted Breed Dogs – Victoria DPI Website

The DPI have provided advice to Councils on the process for declaring a Restricted Breed Dog. It wrongly gives the impression that unless the owner makes an application to VCAT to appeal the declaration their dog will be killed. As we saw above, that is not always the case. Owners who meet the conditions can accept the declaration and may be allowed to keep their dog subject to restrictions.

Restricted Breed Process Flow Chart distributed to Councils by Victorian DPI

We’re talking about the seizure and destruction of family pets. Dog owners will have their lives turned upside down by what’s about to occur. It’s crucial that Council staff and dog owners are given clear and accurate information.

"There is no scientific methodology or process for determining the
genetic history of a dog from its physical appearance."

Linda Watson, Researcher

"If it looks like a Pit Bull, it's a Pit Bull"

Graeme Smith, CEO at Lost Dogs Home

Owners Fear Their Dogs Will Be Wrongly Identified

An increasing number of Victorians are currently terrified that their family pets will be seized and killed by Council Officers. The Victorian Government wants to rid the state of ‘Pit Bulls’ and has enacted new laws to enable a cull. These laws enable Council officers to seize and kill dogs they believe look like American Pit Bull Terriers.

Breed Standards Not Valid For Identifying Breed

Key to this process is the release by the Minister of the ‘Standard For Restricted Breed Dogs in Victoria’. As we will see below, this is basically a rearrangement and rewording of the official breed standards for the breeds in question. The problem is, breed standards are intended for dog show judges to use when comparing dogs of a known pedigree.

Use of a breed standard as a basis for determining the breed of a dog, where that
breed is not known as a matter of fact and  is a question in dispute, is an entirely
misconceived use for the document, and is not a process which is capable of
producing any objectively valid determination as to whether a dog is of one particular
breed or not.

VALERIE HODGSON, DINO DA FRE Complainant AND LOGAN CITY COUNCIL

That Won’t Stop This Government

The Minister has released an identification standard (download here) created by three individuals who we believe wish to remain anonymous. The work they have produced has not been scientifically validated. No evidence has been provided to allay fears that it will produce false positives. Given its intention is to decide the fates of family pets this is unacceptable.

Thinly Veiled Copy of UKC Breed Standard

Did you ever do a school project by copying text from a single book and simply rearranging sentences and making cosmetic changes to avoid accusations of plagiarism?  The authors of our ‘approved standard’ appear to have done just this. The section on American Pit Bull Terriers reads like a thinly veiled reworking of the United Kennel Club’s breed standard for APBT’s.

Muzzle

Slightly shorter in length to the skull (i.e. 2:3 ratio for muzzle:skull). It is broad, deep and powerful with a slight taper to the nose and falls away slightly under the eyes (refer figure 4).

UKC: The muzzle is broad and deep with a very slight taper from the stop to the nose, and a slight falling away under the eyes. The length of muzzle is shorter than the length of skull, with a ratio of approximately 2:3.

Skull

Large, fairly flat, broad and deep, slightly tapering towards the stop. There is a deep median furrow reducing in depth from stop to occiput. Cheek muscles are prominent but free of wrinkles. When the dog is alerted wrinkles will form on the forehead.
UKC: The skull is large, flat or slightly rounded, deep, and broad between the ears. Viewed from the top, the skull tapers just slightly toward the stop. There is a deep median furrow that diminishes in depth from the stop to the occiput. Cheek muscles are prominent but free of wrinkles. When the dog is concentrating, wrinkles form on the forehead, which give the APBT his unique expression.

Nose

Large with wide open nostrils and may be of any colour.

UKC: The nose is large with wide, open nostrils. The nose may be any color.

Eyes

Medium in size, round in shape and set low in the head – not prominent. Eyes can be all colours except blue. The eye rims are the same colour as the skin colour.

UKC: Eyes are medium size, round to almond-shaped, and set well apart and low on the skull. All colors are equally acceptable except blue, which is a serious fault. Haw should not be visible.

Neck

Moderate length and with great strength, tapering from the head into the shoulders. A slight arch over the crest. The neck must be free from loose skin or dewlap (loose, pendulous skin under the throat).

The neck is of moderate length and muscular. There is a slight arch at the crest. The neck widens gradually from where it joins the skull to where it blends into well laid-back shoulders. The skin on the neck is tight and without dewlap.

Mocking A Dog Before Killing It?

The breed standard contains photographs of a number of dogs. We’re seeking more information about these dogs but think there’s a reasonable chance they were taken at a Victorian pound and that these dogs were subsequently killed.

Both collars look super loose and the second “tough dog” collar was obviously dropped over the top of the slip lead. To make him look vicious? Was this his crown of thorns?

Are These Verified American Pit Bull Terriers?

Are they certified American Pit Bull Terriers or are they simply dogs someone thought looked like Pit Bulls? How was the breed of these dogs established? This document will be given to people with no training or qualification in breed identification. Surely it does not include images of dogs from unknown parentage?

Who Actually Wrote The Standard?

People do some things under the clover of anonymity that they would never dream of if they had to sign their work. It’s our understanding that the authors were assured their involvement would remain a secret.

Hon. P. R. HALL (Minister for Higher Education
and Skills) — In respect of consultation with other
groups, I can advise Mr Barber that the persons
involved in the consultation on the development of the
standard — I do not know the actual names of the
people — included an all-breeds judge, a veterinarian
and an authorised officer of council. They represented
their groups on the development of the standard.

Hansard

We Believe The Writing Group Consisted Of These People

We would welcome a response from the writers and would be happy to publish anything they send through.

Patricia Stewart, AVA Victorian Branch

Glenda Cook, All Breeds Judge and Corgi Breeder

An Authorised Officer

Melbourne City Council is asking for public feedback on it’s Domestic Animal Management Plan. Part of the requirement under the Act is for them to address how they will reduce high rates of euthanasia for pets.

Submissions can be sent to animalmanagement@melbourne.vic.gov.au

here’s our submission… feel free to borrow from it!

5.2 Impounding of dogs and cats

Melbourne City Council has a live release rate of 50% for impounded animals. For every animal that goes home, either to their family or to a loving new one, one dies by lethal injection.

Industry best practice is a greater than 90% live release rate for animals entering a pound facility. The reason it’s not 100% is that animals with life threatening illness or injury that cannot be treated should be euthanased. Unfortunately there will also be some dogs who are too aggressive to be rehomed.

The primary means of breed identification for non-pedigreed dogs and mixed-breed dogs is a visual glance and a guess. The dog may be compared with the breed standard for a breed; again, this is based on visual assessment. It is entirely subjective.

http://stopbsl.com/bsloverview/impossibleid/

Domestic Animals Amendment (Restricted Breeds) Bill 2011 Passed

I’ve just returned home from Victorian Parliament where a new Bill has been rushed through both Houses without being included in the Notice papers.

The Domestic Animals Amendment (Restricted Breeds) Bill empowers the Minister to approve “standards” by which an Authorised Officer can declare your dog a Restricted Breed Dog.

One year ago tomorrow the Domestic Animals Act was updated to enable “a standard prescribed by regulations” to be used. What’s changed now is that the definition of what constitutes a ‘Pit Bull Terrier’ is at the whim of the Executive with no ability for the Parliament to reject changes.

As Greens Minister Greg Barber put it, the Minister could draw a stick figure of a dog, approve it and therefore enable rangers to seize and kill and dog that fits that description that was not in Victoria prior to 1 Sep 2010.

The opposition, while not opposing the Bill, pointed out that the Governor in Council could have provided an exemption from the requirement to produce a regulatory impact statement. This could have epedited the process without removing Parliamentary oversight.

“an approved standard”

The Minister was asked how we could trust that such a ‘standard’ would not result in innocent dogs being wrongly identified as ‘pit bull crosses’. If the standard is too broad it would end up including dogs with no ‘pit bull’ in them that share similar physical characteristics. This would have serious consequences given Councils would be required to kill many of these dogs.

Parliament was told that the approved standard would be reliable because it was created by a working group that consisted of:

* one ‘all breeds’ judge
* one Authorised Officer
* one Australian Veterinary Association Official

The Minister went on to say that,

“Following the 2010 legislative amendment the working party consisted of a veterinarian who previously participated in the then minister’s restricted dog breed panel and was on the executive of the Australian Veterinary Association.”

spoken by Hon. P. R. HALL - Hansard

He seemed very proud to be able to claim that not only was there a dog catcher and someone out of ‘best in show’, they had someone with relevant qualifications.

What’s Motivating This Vet?

The Australian Veterinary Association (along with RSPCA Vic) opposes Breed Discrimination. Why would an AVA Official assist in creating this ‘standard’? Is it the same AVA Official who presided over the Restricted Breed Review Panel that led to Ouzie being killed by Manningham Council? How can the AVA allow this?

Patricia Stewart presided over the Review Panel that led to Ouzie being killed.

Despite the RSPCA making their position clear to the Minister, Peter Walsh prefers to remember what Hugh Wirth said in 2009. ”The president of the RSPCA is on the public record as well in believing that this type of dog has no right to exist as well,” he said. Let’s see what Hugh Wirth had to say about this in 2010.

Minister Peter Walsh was recently happy with current laws

“I think we’ve actually got it fairly right at the moment so I don’t anticipate there being any changes”. Tune in from 2m40s to hear a prophetic interview with the Minister recorded several weeks before the Herald Sun Ayen Chol died and the Herald Sun started their #banthebreed campaign.

The Australian Veterinary Association Opposed Breed Bans

Despite having some of the most restrictive rules for dog owners in the world, dog attacks still happen in Australia. Vets say overregulation is not the answer.

“Following the tragic dog attack in Melbourne this week it’s vital that we redouble our efforts to improve education and socialisation of dogs and people,” said Dr Kersti Seksel from the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA).

“It’s understandable that people are now calling for the banning of some breeds, however all the good evidence available shows that this doesn’t work,” she said

“Unfortunately we believe the banning and overregulation of dogs in our communities could be part of the problem as this leads to poor socialisation and increased risk of attacks.

http://www.ava.com.au/mediarelease/vets-say-ban-deed-not-breed

So Who Is Supporting Breed Bans?

This clown again.

In June 2011 I was contacted by the ABC to give comment for a story about the Cat Protection Society of Victoria. I agreed and they sent a reporter and camera operator out to to my place on the same day. About a month later I received an email to say the story would go to air on Friday 12 Aug.

Surprised to See RSPCA Vic Alongside LDH & CPS

I expected the story to be focused on claims the CPS had been misrepresenting its statistics to the public. The story ended up focusing largely on claims that the No Kill movement were “waging a cyber war” against the RSPCA, Lost Dogs Home and Cat Protection Society of Victoria. I was surprised to hear RSPCA Vic being lumped in with LDH and CPS when they are leagues apart.

Animal Advocates are Working With RSPCA Vic

The story incorrectly stated that animal advocates have been attacking RSPCA Victoria. The exact opposite is true for the simple reason that they are working steadily toward reducing their kill rates.

• Their annual reports (including statistics) have been available on their website for many years now
• Their foster care program saved over 600 lives in 2010
• They respond promptly to all (reasonable) questions on their Facebook page
• They emptied their catteries last year with an innovative ‘adoption fee waived’ promotion
• Their ‘Twilight Adoption’ extended hours make it easier for people to adopt
• They are open all day on weekends

"I see the No Kill activists as leading the way and that's the same with any social change."

Lost Dogs Home Are In The Doghouse

The Lost Dogs Home does not have many friends in animal welfare.

• They reported a live release rate of just 14.2% for cats in 2010 (compared to 40% at RSPCA)
• They won’t tell us how many animals were fostered in 2010
• Their annual reports (including statistics) were not made available to the public till 2010
• They remove reasonable questions from their Facebook page and ban people who ask them
• They close at lunchtime on Sundays and public holidays

"They are cyber bullies because they're on the Internet trying to create controversy."

My Comments Were Not Directed At RSPCA Vic

I was interviewed about CPS, not RSPCA Vic. I have assisted them over the last couple of years and just last week attended their annual Seminar. I have no idea who told the producer that “the No Kill movement” were attacking RSPCA. Could it have been one of the other two shelters mentioned? It wouldn’t be the first time they let a reporter say something incorrect.

"The problem with allowing these people to be the public face of animal welfare is that they're holding back change and they're keeping us stuck in a 20th century kill model."

Stay Tuned For More On Cat Protection Society

There’s a lot more to this story. Out of the 166,000 viewers on Friday night, many will know someone who has worked there and may be able to shed more light on what goes on there. Expect to hear more over coming months.