Danois

Why freeze it??

Isn't there something in the Vet's Code of Ethics (or governing rules) that they don't perform cosmetic surgery on animals?

Inner West Sydney is the same DeeLee - frenchies and daxxies.

I bought it from them directly at a stand at last year's Sydney Royal. But I have also dealt with d-fa around one of their great jackets and they are really nice and easy to deal with.

Majority of food is complete and balanced. Just check the label as it is required under the Australian Standard to label whether it is complete and balanced or complementary.

I like these ones - https://www.d-fa.com/products-leads-and-collars.html I have one and its great.

Yes - foods are either a balanced or complete diet or designed to be a complementary food. This comes from the AAFCO standards.

I feed ProPlan Sensitive Skin and Stomach to my Dane. It is fish based.

Because that is more profitable. You surely don't believe they bought dog food manufacturers coz they love liddle doggies? Or they wanted to make a bit more profit on another line? Well, they did, but they make a lot more with the current regs. Of course it is about running a profitable business but that does not equate to sticking mars bars in dog food!

That is actually really incorrect for the pet market in AU. The main players in this market all follow the Australian Standard and AAFCO standards. And all are audited annually by independent auditors - so lots of checks. Never mind the whole PR piece - why would a company risk it's entire business reputationally for the sake of what it puts into dog food. And food companies don't have old spoiled or out of date food lying around...why would they??

Market power tests aren't likely to be a problem with the acquisition leaving Mars a distant #2 to Nestles. Different story in Australia to the US. Mars at the market dominant here.

Nothing has been announced yet that it is also in this market and is subject to regulatory approvals if it is ie market power tests. It's by no means a done deal.

I agree with one of your points. I don't believe the woman has got off 'scott free'... especially in relation to financial cost. Where I differ is that there's enough reason for the dogs to be declared 'dangerous dogs' ... in respect to their demonstrated behaviour if circumstances lead to their getting out again. You say that NSW law would then require her to build secure runs that she clearly cannot afford. Which appears to be a fact. However, that leaves these dogs at risk for doing damage in the future. Because their situation remains exactly the same as what allowed this horrible incident to happen. Members of the public who live in the area.... & who walk their dogs past that house... remain at the same level of risk that HW and her dogs innocently faced. The owner cannot guarantee there'd never be a 'slip' again. I believe that those passing dog walkers need to be made aware of that. The simple signage. 'Dangerous Dogs' on the gate would alert people. I'd avoid like poison walking my dogs past a house with that Council-required sign. You say that the Gosford Council can exercise discretion. And so not require her to build containment runs that she can't afford. OK, why can't they exercise discretion by requiring a Caution: Dangerous Dogs sign be placed on her gate? To meet the Council's obligation towards the general community. To fit the NSW law, could the sign use the terminology, 'Danger: Menacing Dogs'? Quite true.... because the situation remains dangerous. I'd be furious if I lived in the area & found out that it was being 'air-brushed' by the Council as if it didn't exist. The dogs have to be secured adequately, there is no doubt about that. But the owners may have already secured them adequately with a standard dog run which is more than adequate for 99% of dogs. The enclosure required for a Dangerous Dog declaration is absolutely ridiculous and complete overkill for most dogs, plus it's a permanent structure that requires a sealed concrete slab with drainage to be laid, so renters can't construct it even if they do have the money. Bear in mind this cannot be modified in any way shape or form, if the dog is declared it MUST be kept as per these regs or euthanased: No other state requires anything so specific and detailed as this when a dog is declared dangerous. From what I've read most other states just essentially say the backyard has to be secure, and it's up to the Council to ensure that on a property-by-property basis. I can understand why, if the owners have already taken different precautions that are suitable to ensure the dog can't escape (like getting a standard dog run for them and giving a signed undertaking that the dogs will be kept in it unless inside the house or being exercised on leash), the Council would be reluctant to declare them knowing that they would just have to seize and euthanase them in three months. Personally, I'd be going for a menacing order on the dogs, which would still have the requirements like the dangerous dog signage and muzzles but would allow a standard dog run to be used instead. But the Council may feel the injury is too serious for Menacing. I'm not saying the Council are right or wrong in their decision. There is no way that I can know if they are or they aren't, as I am not privy to all the information they would be. But I do understand wanting to avoid killing two dogs if there are other alternatives that still ensure the safety of the community. ETA: Actually what I would probably go for would be a control order on the dogs so that I could specify exactly what I wanted the owners to do. This incurs costs for the Council though if the owners don't agree to pay them though so they may be reluctant. I hope your dogs are feeling better tonight HazyWal. Terrifying experience. Like I said please feel free to ask me any legislation based questions if you have them. You should clarify that you are only providing legal information and not legal advice unless you're the holder of a current NSW practising certificate.

That has to be just convenient f**king bullshit. The woman has committed a crime by not having her dogs properly contained; they have attacked other dogs; they have injured a civilian. How can they possible stand behind: it isn't in our remit. Because the Police don't administer and enforce the legislation which relates to companion animals.

Current dog simply had no interest in food for a long time as a puppy. He did not care that the bowl got taken away after 15 mins and he would not eat the next meal as if he was hungry and fast himself. We tried several different foods without any change in his approach. Add to this, he was not food motivated so even training was a challenge! He would eat eventually so I did not have to resort to hand feeding. Meal time got to the point it was stressful for me and I'd get frustrated with him. In the end (and this was after some weeks of persistence) I just elected to free feed and still do 5 years later. Turned out that he actually liked to eat in the middle of the night - still does. These days, I will frequently come home at night and he has not eaten his breakfast but will eat some (or all) his dinner. What he does not eat he finishes overnight.

Will be interesting to see how Black Hawk goes/ changes in the coming months - the person behind it and the company making it have parted company apparently.

Sorry but this is utter bollocks and needs to be corrected. Waivers can actually be legally valid and enforceable in court and this will be for the court to determine based on all the facts presented to it. And law firms certainly don't use them to drum up business. Sorry, that is a direct quote from a leading law firm in a letter I have here. Cannot correct what I have in black and white. It was a response we were given as we as a club were asking about waivers. Regardless of whether you think it is correct or not, it's food for thought. It is laughable as the Civil Liability Act for example expressly allows for waivers in relation to recreational activities and the Court has upheld these many a time. Personally I do not think it is food for thought - I think it is advice specific to your circumstances only and not general advice to be taken verbatim and applied to any situation other than your own. And without knowing all the circumstances and the context of the advice - I also question an interpretation that says "dogs must be on lead" as an admission of anything. It is merely an instruction which aligns to the Companion Animals Act and orderly management of the event. But again - it is advice specific to your facts and circumstances.

Sorry but this is utter bollocks and needs to be corrected. Waivers can actually be legally valid and enforceable in court and this will be for the court to determine based on all the facts presented to it. And law firms certainly don't use them to drum up business.

Thanks for setting it out - I was too short on time yesterday hence the wiki link!

I really don't get your point around cloak and dagger games. Rebanne was respecting the forum rules about not putting up personal information about other members. You can safely assume that I am familiar with the laws of negligence - and public liability insurance. And the wiki article is reliable otherwise I would have not chosen it - it was the more user friendly for a lay person than a scholarly article.

Actually neither are likely to have been negligent. Negligent is a legal term with a very specific meaning. Oxford dictionary definition states quote "Lack of proper care or attention (piece of) carelessness. No mention of it being a strictly legal term. Perhaps you could provide the very specific legal meaning for me. Always happy to learn something new. Here is a useful summary of the law of negligence - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence - including the elements that need to be established etc before a successful claim can be made. As I mentioned - negligence is a very specific legal concept. Of course that does not preclude people using the word generally but when talking about it in the context of these types of discussions it means more than what is written in a dictionary. It is sufficiently complex that you spend the best part of 6 months learning it at Law School as part of the Law of Torts.

It does not preclude you from commenting at all but your post drew lines between dots that did not exist and made assumptions on non existent facts. If it helps any I know the BOP well ;)

Actually neither are likely to have been negligent. Negligent is a legal term with a very specific meaning.

(Original post edited by poster) I agree with you about hoping for the best for the wee girl. I think you're using the wrong terminology - it's not without prejudice. What you're meaning is that you're purely speculating. I also think you're drawing some pretty big generalisations not supported by the news reports. (I too am from NZ and grew up rural with a father who spent many years as a government hunter in the NZ high country).

No. Sometimes accidents happen. To be able to claim she would have to establish that the owners were negligent. Even if she got over those hurdles (which I doubt she would as the legal tests are pretty high) then contributory negligence would be assessed I.e. Her wearing headphones. No doubt the council would also be used as the keeper of the park and enforcer of dog legislation. There would be massive public policy implications of a finding of negligence in these circumstances. Basically it would result in councils removing all off lead areas altogether for fear of being sued.