Steve

I think you had better check your info - the police wont get involved in collecting a $500 civil claim for part payment for a dog no matter what the court judgement is but you need to cover yourself in writing and decide whether it's worth the grief - personally I think expecting someone to simply hand back a dog they have had as a family member because they are slower than expected in paying is asking for them to be belligerent and dig their heels in. Be nice - offer them alternatives - tell them you understand they are not able to be pay as they promised and expected to - suggest they pay by instalments etc If this were me Id say lesson learned and walk away. I have checked my info. Its all right here. Police have to enforce magistrates court orders. http://www.vcat.vic....etary_order.pdf I will be nice and I will give them time to pay but flat out ignoring my attempts to communicate leads me to believe its not a case of can't pay but won't pay. The guy basically implied that he wanted to meet up for a fight because I mentioned the police. I don't care if it costs another 500 in court fees because I will get that back. Sorry where does it say the police will get involved in collecting the debt? Its a civil claim not criminal I must have missed something and things must have changed a LOT in the last year or so.

I think you had better check your info - the police wont get involved in collecting a $500 civil claim for part payment for a dog no matter what the court judgement is but you need to cover yourself in writing and decide whether it's worth the grief - personally I think expecting someone to simply hand back a dog they have had as a family member because they are slower than expected in paying is asking for them to be belligerent and dig their heels in. Be nice - offer them alternatives - tell them you understand they are not able to be pay as they promised and expected to - suggest they pay by instalments etc If this were me Id say lesson learned and walk away.

I dont have a flea or tick problem but everyone I know who has used this stuff is raving over it . As long as you get the food grade one its safe.

When someone owes you money you have to put the account into writing and tell them they have 14 days to pay .If they dont pay within that time frame or come to a mutually agreeable arrangement to pay you have to inform them in writing that unless payment is made within 7 days that you will be forced to seek legal action. If they dont pay then you can either go to see a solicitor or you can go to the court house and issue a demand for payment.they can then pay in full including your costs to collect or request an arrangement via the court to pay what they owe plus interest and expenses. You cant just go and repossess the dog. Forget all ideas of getting the dog back because even if the court orders a sheriff to collect your money through the court process I promise you they wont make them surrender the dog to sell it to repay you. The dog is no longer yours.

http://www.standard.net.au/story/2141050/rspca-in-25m-civil-court-case-over-cattle-removed-from-framlingham-in-2003/ A CIVIL court case seeking about $2.5 million against the RSPCA, alleging cattle were put down and removed at Framlingham more than 10 years ago, is under way. Westmere’s James Holdsworth and Heather Ellison, of Bairnsdale, are seeking compensation, claiming the actions of an RSPCA officer led to 311 head of cattle being put down, seized or going missing and the loss of their stud Murray grey bloodlines. See your ad here The trial before Judge Bowman in Melbourne County Court has been going for a couple of weeks, with Mr Holdsworth in the stand for days before former ATSIC chairman Geoff Clark and Koori Court elder Lenny Clarke gave evidence. The civil case in Melbourne is expected to continue for at least this week and possibly longer. The case dates back to 2003, when almost 500 head of cattle owned by the business partners were herded from Corowa during a devastating drought and went to the Framlingham forest on agistment. But the action started when the RSPCA was alerted and claimed to have found about 30 cattle dead at Framlingham towards the end of May that year. In an amended statement of claim lodged with the County Court, the business partners claim the value of the slaughtered, seized and missing cattle was $588,500. The future income loss is claimed as $557,600 and the loss of future income through artificial insemination purposes $1.32 million. The writ claims that the herd consisted of 271 cows, 222 calves and four bulls. It also claims an RSPCA officer and other “raiders” unlawfully shot or otherwise destroyed 115 head and those cattle were taken to Tesbury Meats near Camperdown. Another 24 live cattle were allegedly transported to the same meatworks, where they were also processed. “The plaintiffs have demanded the return of the slaughtered cattle, the live cattle and the missing cattle or that the defendant account for the proceeds of the disposal of them, but the defendant has failed and/or refused to do so,” the writ claims. Melbourne solicitor John Maitland said the long-running case was listed for trial in the civil division of the Melbourne County Court before a judge and jury in December. Mr Maitland said it was alleged the RSPCA officer involved had overstepped the mark in relation to his powers under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. In part of the lengthy legal process, Ballarat Magistrates Court dismissed animal cruelty charges against Mr Holdsworth and Ms Ellison. In its 2005 annual report the RSPCA said the legal costs for the Ballarat court case would be tens of thousands of dollars. It said the case highlighted the “difficult task of inspectors in prosecuting cruelty cases, which need to attain the criminal law benchmark of proving a case beyond reasonable doubt”. RSPCA spokesmen have in the past declined to comment as the matter is before the courts.

fantastic!

One form of mites, Cheyetiella, looks like dandruff,and dogs from large breeding establishments are a prime target for them - these are easy to see with a magnifying glass,normally infect the area you have described and will jump onto humans too and cause skin issues.Take a magnifying glass and have a good look to eliminate this as the cause first though if the dog isnt itchy its a fair chance its not this but If this is the problem come back as there are lots of natural alternatives to treat it and get rid of it other than strong chemicals.Thyroid disorders and food allergies, may cause this as well as more serious things such as diabetes and cushings.You really do need a vet diagnosis then you know what you are working with and how to treat it. Omega fatty acids are great but sometimes the problem is that the dog cant make the enzymes needed to use these properly and nothing ,not ever, nothing will work indefinitely as a stand alone supplement if you don't have the things in the diet the dog needs to assimilate and produce enzymes. Fatty acids need to be balanced ratios as they need each other and they need vitamins and minerals to work the way they need to.So take a really long look at what you are feeding too.If she has been neglected with her diet for the first part of her life some processes may have shut down and be preventing her from being able to assimilate certain nutrients too. So Im advising you to get a vet check and a diagnosis first and / or send her fur away for a check. Then look at what you can see happening with her skin holistically as a symptom not the cause and that's where we can help. While you're waiting to find out the cause -and if you eliminate the mites. Bathe your dog only when necessary, since bathing dries out the skin and removes necessary body oils. Most dogs that receive routine brushing and grooming need baths only if they get something on their coats that brushing or wiping can't remove.Much as Id like to sell you bucket fulls of our shampoo this is a much better way of treating it unless the dog is really dirty. Skip the shampoo and go right to rinsing with the Calendula tea when ever you can. Or - You can massage coconut oil into the skin and let it sit for about an 2 hours. Shampoo normally then use the Calendula tea. You can also look for a shampoo that already contains coconut oil. Our vital skin shampoo and leave in conditioner has coconut oil [and Calendula oil] if its mites - you'll love what works the quickest for that.

Queensland main are maroon and white.

Ill empty my inbox a bit but [email protected] or 0269276707. Ill also go and put the contact details on the website. Meant to do it weeks ago.

Lucky you dont live in Victoria ! No bowls

double post

All raw food fed here.

If I want to wash my dog's feet only, I brew the tea and put it in a used but empty (washed out) butter container (my dog is a large breed, so a smaller container for the smaller dogs would be better - less tea needed) and have him stand in it for a few moments or so, one foot at a time. A quick pat to take the excess wet (especially between the toes) away and voila!! Glad everything else went well. And I like the "neutral" smell. Something fresh and unmasked about it. :) Excellent idea about the feet - will try that next time. And we had no licking and scratching last night from Tempeh. They all feel lovely and soft too! I posted about my experience on my FB page and a couple of friends are keen to try it too. I think lots of people are keen to use more natural products on their animals as well as themselves. Thank you for a fantastic thread! U beauty!!!! If you want to have any sales for referrals from your face book page paid to your rescue group from my website say so and Il allocate a discount code for you as I have done for Seniors and Silky rescue. Julie

If I want to wash my dog's feet only, I brew the tea and put it in a used but empty (washed out) butter container (my dog is a large breed, so a smaller container for the smaller dogs would be better - less tea needed) and have him stand in it for a few moments or so, one foot at a time. A quick pat to take the excess wet (especially between the toes) away and voila!! Glad everything else went well. And I like the "neutral" smell. Something fresh and unmasked about it. :) Excellent idea about the feet - will try that next time. And we had no licking and scratching last night from Tempeh. They all feel lovely and soft too! I posted about my experience on my FB page and a couple of friends are keen to try it too. I think lots of people are keen to use more natural products on their animals as well as themselves. Thank you for a fantastic thread! U beauty!!!!

Yes I know but its still an RSPCA vet word against any other evidence - they win. And even if they are proven to be wrong - virtually impossible - what then? It was their right to make the decisions on what came next for any of the dogs - bad PR but still nothing they can be held accountable for or answerable to. Their system allows a vet employed by them to be able to do as they please without any consultation with anyone including the owners or an independent vet. They can determine they dont like you ,take your dogs get together with their mate who works with them a vet - and put your dogs down and literally say anything they want ,collude all the way and charge you with all manner of cruelty etc and everything is based on what they say without any way what ever for an owner or anyone else to have a hope of proving they are innocent. Not that Im saying that this is what has happened here or in any other case but the system could enables corruption and collusion without an umpire. No tribunal or court can discount what the expert vet has said especially when he is backed up by other staff and the owner has no ability to access to the body of the dog or even if the dog lives no ability to have their own vet examine the dog and agree or disagree with what that one vet employed by them says. The system has to change where those accused have the right to have the dogs examined by their own experts before treatments or any action is taken - because the unlevel playing field leaves them open to this kind of discussion and people feeling they have no power .

Yes, that's what I thought. Which is why the other matter of condition/behaviour of puppies observed by fostercarers not matching up with what they believed the later RSPCA decisions to be, should be reported to the WA State Administrative Tribunal. It's a separate issue. The Qld equivalent of that Tribunal, covers animal management decisions by government bodies.... & their agents. Seems the WA one does, too. Because the original owner's going thro' it, for her case. It'd be good if the matter were able to be heard by an independent Tribunal. And Im not sure it is a separate issue because the terrible health of the puppies this breeder was breeding will be used against her - however, I believe this bitch was pregnant long after the breeder could have had anything to do with it while the dogs were in care - is that right. ? Or do I have the time line confused? The pups were whelped at a foster carer's house for the RSPCA after the mother was removed from a puppy mill. Once they were returned to the RSCPA for a check up at around 4-6 weeks old the foster carer was told that the RSPCA vet had diagnosed problems with the pups behaviour as well as the mother and she wouldn't be able to have them back. The hips and knees are a new development after the story was aired around the net on savingpets and that's why they are saying the pups were put down they then went and changed the story slightly again and stated that the mother Izzy and one of the pups have been adopted. It is easy to see how people are concerned about what is going on. --Lhok Yep its all pretty emotional as well. One might ask how a vet can diagnose behaviour or health problems of this type especially in this breed at this age especially when the foster carer and their vet qualified hubby didn't pick them up and without transparency the speculation and mistrust continues. There is no where to go to be heard and have it all exposed and there is nothing to be done to prove they did something shonky and so the people involved will always feel that this is a terrible thing. Without knowing all of the inside factors no one can really say what happened or why but the lack of accountability and transparency make discussions like this common place and one would think over all it would be in their best interests to re consider their policies and procedures. .

Yes, that's what I thought. Which is why the other matter of condition/behaviour of puppies observed by fostercarers not matching up with what they believed the later RSPCA decisions to be, should be reported to the WA State Administrative Tribunal. It's a separate issue. The Qld equivalent of that Tribunal, covers animal management decisions by government bodies.... & their agents. Seems the WA one does, too. Because the original owner's going thro' it, for her case. It'd be good if the matter were able to be heard by an independent Tribunal. And Im not sure it is a separate issue because the terrible health of the puppies this breeder was breeding will be used against her - however, I believe this bitch was pregnant long after the breeder could have had anything to do with it while the dogs were in care - is that right. ? Or do I have the time line confused? The pups were whelped at a foster carer's house for the RSPCA after the mother was removed from a puppy mill. Once they were returned to the RSCPA for a check up at around 4-6 weeks old the foster carer was told that the RSPCA vet had diagnosed problems with the pups behaviour as well as the mother and she wouldn't be able to have them back. The hips and knees are a new development after the story was aired around the net on savingpets and that's why they are saying the pups were put down they then went and changed the story slightly again and stated that the mother Izzy and one of the pups have been adopted. It is easy to see how people are concerned about what is going on. --Lhok Yep its all pretty emotional as well. One might ask how a vet can diagnose behaviour or health problems of this type especially in this breed at this age especially when the foster carer and their vet qualified hubby didn't pick them up and without transparency the speculation and mistrust continues. There is no where to go to be heard and have it all exposed and there is nothing to be done to prove they did something shonky and so the people involved will always feel that this is a terrible thing. Without knowing all of the inside factors no one can really say what happened or why but the lack of accountability and transparency make discussions like this common place and one would think over all it would be in their best interests to re consider their policies and procedures. .

Yes, that's what I thought. Which is why the other matter of condition/behaviour of puppies observed by fostercarers not matching up with what they believed the later RSPCA decisions to be, should be reported to the WA State Administrative Tribunal. It's a separate issue. The Qld equivalent of that Tribunal, covers animal management decisions by government bodies.... & their agents. Seems the WA one does, too. Because the original owner's going thro' it, for her case. It'd be good if the matter were able to be heard by an independent Tribunal. And Im not sure it is a separate issue because the terrible health of the puppies this breeder was breeding will be used against her - however, I believe this bitch was pregnant long after the breeder could have had anything to do with it while the dogs were in care - is that right. ? Or do I have the time line confused? The pups were whelped at a foster carer's house for the RSPCA after the mother was removed from a puppy mill. Once they were returned to the RSCPA for a check up at around 4-6 weeks old the foster carer was told that the RSPCA vet had diagnosed problems with the pups behaviour as well as the mother and she wouldn't be able to have them back. The hips and knees are a new development after the story was aired around the net on savingpets and that's why they are saying the pups were put down they then went and changed the story slightly again and stated that the mother Izzy and one of the pups have been adopted. It is easy to see how people are concerned about what is going on. --Lhok Yep its all pretty emotional as well. One might ask how a vet can diagnose behaviour or health problems of this type especially in this breed at this age especially when the foster carer and their vet qualified hubby didn't pick them up and without transparency the speculation and mistrust continues. There is no where to go to be heard and have it all exposed and there is nothing to be done to prove they did something shonky and so the people involved will always feel that this is a terrible thing. Without knowing all of the inside factors no one can really say what happened or why but the lack of accountability and transparency make discussions like this common place and one would think over all it would be in their best interests to re consider their policies and procedures. .

Yes, that's what I thought. Which is why the other matter of condition/behaviour of puppies observed by fostercarers not matching up with what they believed the later RSPCA decisions to be, should be reported to the WA State Administrative Tribunal. It's a separate issue. The Qld equivalent of that Tribunal, covers animal management decisions by government bodies.... & their agents. Seems the WA one does, too. Because the original owner's going thro' it, for her case. It'd be good if the matter were able to be heard by an independent Tribunal. And Im not sure it is a separate issue because the terrible health of the puppies this breeder was breeding will be used against her - however, I believe this bitch was pregnant long after the breeder could have had anything to do with it while the dogs were in care - is that right. ? Or do I have the time line confused?

Yes, that's what I thought. Which is why the other matter of condition/behaviour of puppies observed by fostercarers not matching up with what they believed the later RSPCA decisions to be, should be reported to the WA State Administrative Tribunal. It's a separate issue. The Qld equivalent of that Tribunal, covers animal management decisions by government bodies.... & their agents. Seems the WA one does, too. Because the original owner's going thro' it, for her case. It'd be good if the matter were able to be heard by an independent Tribunal. Except that a vet has diagnosed a problem with the puppies without a second opinion and the bodies of the puppies are not available for post mortem - what chance do you think the family who raised these puppies have of trying to prove anything was done that shouldn't have been done - and whats more they owned the puppies anyway had every right to do exactly what they did. If a vet tells them the puppies are affected in this way can they make a decision to go against their vet's advice anyway? The system sets up a situation where collusion and corruption are easily imagined and will continue to have people having these type of discussions and bring them bad PR even if all is on the up and up. The system has to allow the owner to be able to have an independent second opinion from someone who isnt employed by the RSPCA .No amount of being able to complain to a tribunal or agenency will help if the internal system is set up to be so one sided . If a vet is diagnosing these type of issues in brand new baby puppies before they joints and bones have even become mature and still capable of huge changes this is very concerning and I wouldn't want him to be my vet - certainly shudder at the thought of any of my puppy buyers using him for their family vet when they take a puppy home.

Ordinary oats are good - better if you put them in a processor to grind them down smaller so its more powdery. Before applying an oatmeal scrub clean your skin with lukewarm to warm water or a warm, damp wash cloth Even better is to take a hot shower or a steam bath to clean and open up your pores. Put some oatmeal in a bowl and add enough warm water to make a paste Gently rub and exfoliate in circular motions from top to toe, be careful around the eye area Let it stay on for about 10-15 minutes; then rinse it off with lukewarm water and end with a splash of cold. Pat your skin dry with a towel; tone with calendula tea and apply calendula cream. If you have skin problems all over or for a wash rather than a scrub just put a handful in a stocking or similar wet it up and rub it in. You can buy soap with calendula or oatmeal but problem is its still soap and thats something you want to try and stay away from We also do a goats milk lotion with Calendula oil too which has had some good results.

You can use oats as a non soap cleanser - then rinse with Calendula tea as an astringent and then use the calendula cream. My 17 year old raves over this for acne and several people show good results for eczema and psoriasis - and even nappy rash. The Calendula cream is a really light cream and has been formulated with an aqueous base so it wont clog up the skin.

Well Kindee ANKC registered breeder - busted as a puppy farm - had around 300 dogs certainly added to the gene pool. Lots and lots of people in the breed not only bought her dogs but also showed them with much success and bred them a lot. Her dogs are very well represented still in many pedigrees in the breeds she owned and bred the terrible poodle lady from Queensland also contributed A LOT to the breed both here and internationally. Hard to argue she didnt add to the gene pool when so many went on to championships and breeding. The person who may breed a litter or two from their main registered bitch without showing her and registers the puppies may not do wondrous things for a breed but they don't do much harm either especially if the person who sells them their main register bitch is careful about giving them a bitch which wont do any harm to the breed and is open to allowing them to use a good stud dog.

Perhaps it varies by breed, but I think this is a gross exaggeration. When I lived in WA I registered around 100 pups. I was entirely consistent. If people wanted main register, I agreed to switch after the dog or bitch was evaluated at 1 year. If hips and elbows were above breed average and eye tests ok, and the dog didn't look awful, I would grant main register. Only TWO of the pups I sold, one bitch and one dog, were switched to Main, and the dog was only used at stud twice. The bitch went on to establish a line that some would call BYB pups -- no showing, but not bad looking dogs and decent healthy pets -- I have no problem with that. When I bred my first litter, in 2005, pedigree Labrador pups were going for $600 in the Perth metro area. Now they are going for $1800. This would not be happening if a large number of people were trying to recoup the purchase price. If there's a choice between retaining genetic diversity, by breeding from stock who are not the type-of-the-year or whose owners are not interested in showing, or restricting breeding to the creme de la creme, I know where I'm going to cast my vote. p.s. I had more problems in the opposite direction. There were a few dogs I would have loved to see the owners keep entire so they might have been used at stud. But no, most puppy buyers want to desex. Yep agreed. If you have everyone in a breed breeding the same dogs the same way all breeding for the same thing an elite few have determined is what is best for the breed - it isn't what is best for the breed .It keeps the gene pool small, keeps new people out if they don't suit the core group criteria.

He still isn't 100% but getting there - I had him as passenger in the car for 60ks and I nagged and ranted all the way home -told him about the lessons he should have learned and what he already knew and had forgotten why its important for him to remember because one day he will have kids of his own. He gets to 20 almost 21 ,never had an alcoholic drink, never had a smoke or touched drugs but gets pumped full of crap he's advised to take from a doctor that has almost killed him twice when he didnt need it either time. Not happy here not at all and Im watching him sip Calendula tea without a complaint - or else.