Jaxx'sBuddy

Right or wrong, if some idiot got up in my face like that, he would've copped a smack to the head at the least.

Then you could add assault to the list of laws you had broken.

Should you have done that to me I would have the police called quicker than you could have hit me.

It is not acceptable to condone nor advocate the use of violence.

Unfortunately it's all the people in the past who have had their dog/s off lead that weren't under control in public gave dog owners a bad name, if these people hadn't ruined it for everyone, people like kels84 who have done the right thing and have their dogs under control on lead and off, could freely and responsibly walk their dogs off lead in public.

But the law is there so we have to stick with it.

How do people know that the dog is under kels84's effective control?

kels84 did not do the right thing they broke the law by having an unleashed dog in a leashed area.

This is what bothers me. If someone is already breaking the law, why on earth would I assume them to be responsible owners with sufficient control of their animals?

Unfortunately it's all the people in the past who have had their dog/s off lead that weren't under control in public gave dog owners a bad name,

You're assuming that every dog attack is the fault of a bad owner. Even good owners have been unpleasantly suprised by unexpected behaviour from their own dogs. A good owner (in my opinion) wouldn't place their dogs in a position where they might harm another dog, simple as that.

Edited to bold the bit I meant.

Yes this is my view as well. I immediately see them as irresponsible dog owners with unruly dogs.

Unfortunately it's all the people in the past who have had their dog/s off lead that weren't under control in public gave dog owners a bad name, if these people hadn't ruined it for everyone, people like kels84 who have done the right thing and have their dogs under control on lead and off, could freely and responsibly walk their dogs off lead in public.

But the law is there so we have to stick with it.

How do people know that the dog is under kels84's effective control?

kels84 did not do the right thing they broke the law by having an unleashed dog in a leashed area.

Frankly, I can understand his reaction.

My dogs have been mounted, nipped, scratched and had their coats torn or damaged by off lead dogs and my dogs are at least large dogs (so I've never had to worry too much about them being seriously hurt by something bigger than them).

The excuse "But my dog is so well-behaved and would never hurt another dog" just doesn't cut it. In my experience, it's the "Oh, he's just playing, he's very friendly" dogs who run at my dogs, tail up high, hackles up and looking for a fight (all while the oblivious owner stands around yapping on the phone or otherwise ignoring warning behaviours).

If the law states dogs must be on lead (and this is the law in most areas), there's just no excuse to break it. If you can't see signage to indicate whether the area allows dogs off lead, assume it is not allowed.

There have been so many threads on here about dogs (both small and large) being hurt by off lead dogs, I honestly can't believe anyone would try to defend something as irresponsible as breaking a very sensible law.

I totally agree. I have a small dog who could be very damaged by larger dogs and how do I know who has effective control over their dogs?

Off leash dogs are one of the reasons I don't like walking my dog.

If your walking your dog off lead and it's an on lead area, how is anyone to know you have control of your dog?

IMO it is irresponsible and I can understand why the guy got annoyed.

If you saw him screaming didn't you think it might be because he was worried and that you could have put your dog on the lead to make the guy less worried?

Dog owners who break the rules are one of the reasons the community want more laws which makes it more difficult for people who are responsible dog owners.

This thread looks like one of those vile DOL lynching threads where people post speculations and accusations that they will never be required to substantiate, and the subject of their accusations isnt around to refute any of the claims.

For the record, I once reported seeing a horse down and struggling in a paddock as I drove past, and the RSPCA was out there within a couple of hours. Turned out I was wrong and the horse was fine. Ill bet they get a lot of those.

Also, regarding their 'support of BSL'; While a previous national leader of RSPCA was vocal in support of BSL, he hasnt held that position for several years. RSPCA shelters are obliged to act in accordance with the laws of the state they are in - and most states have BSL. In the ACT the RSPCA shelter regularly has pitbulls available for adoption, because ACT has no BSL.

What is unsubstantiated? There have been posts to enquiries, reports and first hand knowledge.

If you don't personally want to believe what has been posted then that is your choice but you cannot say it is not happening to those of use who have opened our eyes to the problems we face with the RSPCA as it is currently structured.

On a non-dog related issue:

One thing I really don't like is their RSPCA endorsed eggs.

They say these are "barn laid" they are really just from battery farmed hens

Also when questioned they say that the reason they support "barn-laid" eggs and not free-range is because the hens are at risk of getting hurt/eaten by foxes and cats when they are free-range

this disgusts me. They have obviously been bought over by cage eggs companies.

They also should be supoorting the correct labelling of eggs so that consumers can by eggs labelled free-range and know for sure that they are actually free range.

Far out I didn't know that.

I will not support them until there is an appeals process and they are more transparent in their dealings. At the moment there is no process for appeal outside of the RSPCA..sort of like putting a fox in charge of the hen house when the RSPCA is investigator and prosecutor for cruelty cases.

I do not think it is a big ask for them to be accountable but they don't want this to happen, I wonder why? No other private agency has that amount of power but no accountability. In this day and age I am dumbfounded on why this is allowed to happen.

They are a private organisation but our tax dollars go to supporting them AND they ask for donations from the public AND they have money in the bank and assets AND they cry poor. Seriously how can they send out so many mixed messages and expect us to believe them all.

I want them to stop going after soft targets and start to do what is in their charter.

I want them to stop asking for more legislation and start using the current legislation to the full extent they can.

Why does the RSPCA want a film crew to go with them when investigating complaints...where is the natural justice in that tactic?

So until the RSPCA is no longer a law unto themselves, I will not ever support them.

Leelaa 77, you have asked the neverending question.

Why not just pull up some of the many zillions of threads where RSPCA is mentioned on this site?

Souff

I agree. This thread is starting to look like a fishing expedition

GavinM:

Pigeons for example have the potential to carry lots of nasty stuff - and they poop everywhere, especially in places where people gather like town squares, verandas and train stations. They are also introduced pests. But you don't see everyone get the nearest heavy object and bash them over the heads.

Pigeons are the subject of many urban destruction programs. Building design now may include deterrence devices.

If we get a bird flu outbreak here, we may be grateful that efforts have been made to reduce their numbers.

Gee for a newb, you're keen to mix it up. I wonder who you were last time you were here???

and here I was thinking it was only me that thought this

Agree many dont realise their dogs bark and when i got first complaint i took the action to monitor them hence sound and camera recording and have continued to do so for a year now...i was shocked how lazy they were to be honest. Yes it does indeed have to be proven, but actual complaints can be put in without evidence. In our case they complain but have never specified a time when dogs were barking...just brush over with 'all day and all night'. True complaint goes nowhere but its still a pain to deal with every few months, still you live with the threat someone is targetting your dogs and may take their own action. Surely there should be some means to prevent people like this harassing. Instead i am told by council amount of barking isnt the issue, its whether it affects their quality of life (e.g. will a doctor write a letter saying they are distressed by it).

Complainants don't need a doctors letter all they need to say is the dogs are causing them to lose their peaceful enjoyment of their property.

The reason Councils don't put a time limit on the barking is because everyone is different in how barking affects them.

What is unreasonable barking?

I ask as have had this issue the past year. Cameras and sound monitors show dogs bark around 4 times in a day, thats individual barks not sessions of barking, is that too much?

It not what is unreasonable barking but what is nuisance barking which is defined as barking that interferes with others peaceful enjoyment of their property.

I don't think many Councils put a time limit on the barking.

When I called my council they said that as a general guideline only that any more than 15 minutes of barking per hour could be seen as nuisance barking.

I think the issue is also too many people living too close and a general lack of tolerance. There is too much noise all around us. But there is little most people can do about most of these noises. So they pick on the most vulnerable targets. Yes, there are dogs who bark a lot. But there are also people who, when told after their council complaint that the barking is not excessive, go out and bait the dog!! Because they don't like any barking. Because they don't like their neighbours. Because they are unhappy and want to take it out on someone else.

I'm sure we have all seen comments by non-dog owners on various newspaper articles about dogs. The amount of viciousness directed at dogs surprises me. It seems way over the top. I wonder if part of it is not caused by heightened levels of stress and frustration in people which is then directed at whatever target is most vulnerable.

The kookaburra in the tree outside my bedroom makes such a noise in the mornings that it is bound to wake up the entire neighbourhood and is much louder and continues for longer than most barkings dogs. The cicadas in summer make such a racket (for hours and hours without stop) that one would need to keep all windows closed to avoid the sound. Then there is the noise of lawn mowers, parties, kids playing, kids crying, possums fighting. No one wants to go out and kill all kookaburras or the cicadas. People pick on dogs because they can.

I have 2 white fluffies near me who bark EVERY time their owners go out and they are very annoying...and I like dogs..there is no excuses for this to be happening.

You don't need to dislike dogs to find barking annoying.

What kind of world is it when the RSPCA and their cronies make debarking more difficult to achieve than putting a noisy dog to sleep?

That is a profound truth PF.

I hadn't thought of that.

When you write to the Council, throw that question at them, JB. Give them something to ponder on. If they will.

I found out that it hasn't gone anywhere yet. This is just a proposal from animal management officers.

So I need to find out if it has legs or if it is just wishful thinking on the officers behalf.

In any event it will not be put into council by-laws until the Dog and Cat Management Act is changed and I can't see that happening any time soon as any changes must go through the Parliamentary process then voted on to before it becomes law.

then I think we're talking about completely different places. The hospital that I took my dog to - and I assume is similar to the OP's case - is a proper hospital. It has a x-ray machines, on site pathology (so no need to wait overnight in an emergency), specialists, a few vet nurses and a vet physically present 24/7. Everything you could possibly need to treat a dog is there and many vets refer complex cases to them.

To run this kind of facility is very expensive and I think the costs are justified in light of this.

Does a dog need to go there for parvo? Once it is diagnosed maybe not, but where I am you either have a vet that closes at 6pm on weeknights and leaves your dog unattended at night or you go to a hospital. My boy got sick on a Sunday morning and they were the only facility open at 5.30am.

But this is all OT. To the OP - I hope your dog gets better soon.

What is a 'proper' hospital?

The clinic my dog went to also had x-ray machines (I know because I had to develop the films when I worked there), it also had equipment for pathology. I said it was the only clinic in town, not that it was a run down, shoddy second rate clinic.

I don't think that the fact that the so called 'proper' hospital has someone there 24/7 or that it has lot's of equipment is a good enough reason to over charge people for what is essentially fairly basic treatment. They would not need to use any of it to treat the dog in question so why should the owner have to pay for them having it?

I will add that a few months after I started working at this clinic I brought in a friends dog for treatment of Parvo and told the vet that I would be paying for it as my friend could not afford the $600 and the vet then told me that I could just cover the cost of the bags of fluid used and any drugs given. When said dog was released a few days later and I asked how much I owed them I was told that $100 would more than cover the costs.

Your vet was very generous. The costs did not cover any rent of property, nor use of equipment nor staff time which all adds up to the cost of the bill.

What kind of world is it when the RSPCA and their cronies make debarking more difficult to achieve than putting a noisy dog to sleep?

That is a profound truth PF.

I hadn't thought of that.

We need to keep an eye on this ...

Keep an eye on it? I say it needs to be pounced on, squashed, trampled and thoroughly rejected BEFORE it goes ANYWHERE. Don't just sit back and wait because it will take a long time. It'll creep up on you before you know it. Happens every time .

True Erny. I was thinking more about them putting the law into their by-laws then legally challenging it.

I do not think this will come to pass because their legal eagles would be telling them it is illegal for them to do this.

I will ring the council up and see what they say as I am sure they can't do it.

ETA i do not think this will get a guernsey as they need to change the Dog and Cat Management Act to make this into council By-Laws.

From the article:

The plans have been developed by the metropolitan councils' Senior Animal Management Officers Forum,which wants changes to the Dog and Cat Management Act. The State Government's Dog and Cat Management Board will comment on the plans when the LGA formally forwarded the proposals.

I think some of the dogs you mentioned are registered with another registry. Not all registered dogs are registered with the ANKC.

I do not believe the ANKC is the last word on registered dogs as there are many registry's out there.

Also, I think developing breeds can be part of some registry's as that is used as they develop the breed, the breeders need to know the pedigree of the dogs and to prove their lineage before the breed will be recognised.

Sorry, which dogs did I mention apart from Labradoodles?

I know there are other registers out there, similar to Koolies in Australia they are a breed and have their own register but I personally couldn't breed them if I wanted too......guess it's lucky I like ANKC recognised breeds huh!

The breeders if the breed I like, aren't interested in recognition as yet.......the reason was sent to me in an email but I can't remember why at the moment

Labradoodles have a registry as well

Just because you seem to really hate this breed, that is not a good reason to think she is wrong to attempt to get the breed going in Australia.

Sometimes I really wonder how people think breeds get introduced and developed on to an isolated island like OZ.

Actually I couldn't give a flying rats arse about this "breed" of dog.

Like alot of other posters there is a breed overseas that I would love to own one day, but it is a developing breed and as such isn't recognised. I wouldn't import at the moment based on that alone, it wouldn't sit right breeding unregistered dogs

If/When I happen to import this breed I will gurantee you I will not be charging $4000 a puppy just because I will be the only breeder in Australia.

I wonder, what are peoples opinions on people breeding Labradoodles? They appear to breed more true to type than these dogs and apparantly have a better temperament, have limited health testing done and are also sold for a hefty sum for an unregistered "breed".

I think some of the dogs you mentioned are registered with another registry. Not all registered dogs are registered with the ANKC.

I do not believe the ANKC is the last word on registered dogs as there are many registry's out there.

Also, I think developing breeds can be part of some registry's as that is used as they develop the breed, the breeders need to know the pedigree of the dogs and to prove their lineage before the breed will be recognised.

I only realised a little while ago that I train all my dogs to "wait" and they are calm and wait until I come back to them no matter how long they are left. they never get bored and they usually lie down and sleep or watch the world go by.

Thing is I just realised that I was teaching them self control and how to manage boredom...who would've thunk.

All my dogs have been calm and go with the flow so IMO self control is really important as is delayed gratification ie TOT.

Ipswich thankfully is about to be partnered with AWL Qld who will be working at the same facility Hopefully I will be able to do a bit of volunteer work when we eventually get back to Ipswich. Just to add the UQ of Qld have a great rehoming program

I wish I were closer to AWL Qld to do something more hands-on than financial support alone.

Yes, the UQ adoption program is one of the best places to get dogs & cats from. Our cat came thro' that program & she's great.

By the way, unvaccinated dogs are all over the place...leaving their 'presence' on footpaths, in parks & other public places. Human shoes supply a transport system.

True however there is an expectation that anyone purporting to have the dogs best interests at heart would behave in a more professional and responsible manner.

Let's be honest, if a breeders behaved like this they would be hung drawn and quartered. the same rules should apply to rescue as it does to breeders

If a pup of mine ever became sick and I could trace that to an unquarantined dog being on the flight, I'd be lawyering up and taking the rescuer to court. It's negligent behaviour IMO.

x 2. I would be soooooo furious it's not funny.

x3 I am disgusted with rescues who do not quarantine their animals.

There is no excuse and it is negligent and I wonder if it is reckless endangerment (or is this just for humans?)

I really hope someone does sue them because maybe they will then get the message.

I will also be taking a road trip if I get a pup from interstate.

I got my pup from NZ but I would never do that again knowing what I know now about poor rescue practices.

I never want new laws but in this case I may have to rethink that position, maybe we do need laws to manage the rescue cowboys

I for once am speechless. There are no words to express how bad this situation is.

I have a lot of time and respect for rescues and foster carers who do the right thing and they are out there thank goodness however, this sort of situation makes it very difficult for good rescues.

What on earth were they thinking, where was the quarantine process and where was looking after all dogs?

The thought that innocent dogs may get parvo, one of the most awful dogs diseases, is beyond comprehension.

This is exactly like someone taking a gun to a dog park and indiscriminately shooting at dogs...some will die and some will not.

Would anyone here defend the shooter....I think not....this situation is the loaded gun

saw this back seat hammock today when I was looking for soft crates http://www.k9softdogcrates.com.au/index.php?p=products

I think that if bitches have a litter it may add a risk to desexing

proof please

and to the original poster no your bitch does not need a litter to settle her down

my vet told me that there is an increased risk...proof enough?