Souff

One born every day, Castiel. And there is another one just waiting to sell them a cross-bred mutt and take their money. Will never change ... Souff

Thank you God. And thank you too, Keshwar :) Souff

Description of a weed: a plant in the wrong place. Description of a fox: an animal in the wrong place. The damage of both to the environment they move into is catastrophic. Foxes are sneaky vile little critters who get into places where a bullet cannot go, but the carbon monoxide finds them and off to sleep they go. The natural environment needs this to happen. Souff Yay, Souff's back Welcome, I've missed you awww, thanks! Am really supposed to be doing something else of course, but was talking to a DOLer the other day ..... :D Souff

Description of a weed: a plant in the wrong place. Description of a fox: an animal in the wrong place. The damage of both to the environment they move into is catastrophic. Foxes are sneaky vile little critters who get into places where a bullet cannot go, but the carbon monoxide finds them and off to sleep they go. The natural environment needs this to happen. Souff

Thanks for the reminder and the link. It is important that all parties have their say, and I hope they do so politely. There are some good suggestions for change in the feedback form, particularly in relation to registering the microchip details online ... now, why has that idea taken so long? It is not all doom and gloom, and if people in NSW dont bother to respond with feedback forms such as this, well, they deserve whatever result they get. There is the opportunity in this form to say YES, to say NO, and to say if you are UNSURE. If you want the opportunity to remind government to use the laws and resources that they already have, (particularly at local government level), and to tell them to think first and realise that the very first people to the counter to pay licence fees of hundreds of dollars will be the PUPPY FARMERS, the very people they supposedly are trying to discourage. You can say NO to the question about separate kennels being enforced. The many 'cottage breeders' who share the house with their dogs are amongst the best breeders of good dogs, and those who are on a limited income and have plenty of time to care for their dogs properly, must not face the prospect of paying ridiculously unaffordable licence fees. These are the very people that the dog world, and the dog buying public, needs and you can speak up for this group of breeders on the form. This feedback form gives YOU the opportunity to make such points to government. No promises of success, but if you do not use what is given to you, then please do not whinge later. Souff

We need also to remember that there are some dogs that do NOT give any warning behaviours. I have seen it happen at very close quarters ... each time it was a dog and a small child, and there were NO warning behaviours. I am not going to name breeds, but they were small and medium breeds. Very loyal to owners etc, owners in shock when it happened. No prior warning signals were given by the dogs. Jealousy is often suspected, particularly if the dog is usually the centre of the owners world. When small visitors get that attention, trouble might not be far away, but please don't always think that the dog will give warnings. That simply does not always happen. Souff

I can see Aussie Shepherd but I am also seeing Border Collie too. Might be a few other breeds in the background too! Thank you for giving a senior citizen a home - he looks very happy. Souff

I wonder how a court defines the word "cruelty". If these dogs did not like being in those crates and were stressed I cannot imagine that all the stuff on top of the crates would still be sitting there! A Lab that did not want to be in that crate, would buck and carry on and all that stuff would be upended everywhere. The dogs are not flabby and appear to have reasonable muscle tone so my guess is that the crates are for eating in, and sleeping in. IMHO ..... Stress is cruelty. Lack of exercise is cruelty. Lack of company for a young dog is cruelty. Lack of food and water and shelter is cruelty. Lack of water is cruelty. I don't see any water bowls in the crates, but then I also know what some labs will do with water bowls too. Great hats! Plenty of us have seen a young lab sitting there with an empty bowl on his head! If the crating was for short term use, their drinking source is possibly nearby. Somebody was concerned that the young labs did not have bedding .... er, have you ever seen what a young Lab can do to bedding? It is early summer in the US .... a cool surface to lie on, on a warm day, is often preferred by dogs ... many dogs will be lying on concrete when there is a much comfier bed nearby. Not every dog appreciates soft comfy bedding. Larger sized crates might be nice, but to be honest, these dogs don't look as if they have been treated cruelly. Will be interesting to see what happens in court. Souff

Melstar, I have now found the post where you mentioned the age of your pup. She is just 1 year old. Still settling into that adolescent frame. I take patella issues seriously but as AussieLover has pointed out, we do not operate for Grade 1 patella. To reach that diagnosis, the vet has to physically manipulate the joint and get the knee to dislocate. That is not normal use of the knee. Take notice of people like Oakway re diet and such (they are awesome) and also look at the chiropractic options. There are some fantastic chiros who work with dogs. Surgery is for severe problems, not Grade 1. By all means see a specialist, but I would be inclined to wait a bit. At this age, there is no rush. Souff

Why would any of that matter now? She has a GENETIC FAULT, and the ONLY right thing to do is have her desexed, and eliminated from the breeding programme, whether she was a breeding quality or not. Her options regarding the dog's quality of life regarding surgery, etc, are a seperate issue. It is people who take breeding animals to orthapedic surgeons have the damage repaired so they are invisible, put them in the show ring as there is no way of telling once the fur has grown back, and then breed from them that is causing issues within our breed. If a dog has a genetic fault such as patella luxation it should be eliminated from breeding, no ifs and buts about it. There is no genetic test for patella's to test for carriers, so even if you have pups from the bitch that are unaffected they could still be carrying the fault. Not only is taking these chances wrong, and against the Code of Ethics, it is cruel to the potential pups that have to live with the disorder, or have an excruiciating surgery for the repair, that may not work. Unfortunately for the owner, because the bitch has patella luxation it is not of breeding quality, so there is no point assessing its other points. It could be the most amazing dog structually and temperament wise but its patella's eliminate it from breeding potential. And if I was aware of anybody who did have a patella luxation operation occur and then still breed then I think that is something I would report. No, the only RIGHT THING to do is to let this puppy grow a little more, and for now keep her away from vets who are pulling kneecaps out of alignment. If we all de-sexed pups that exhibit Grade 1 patella in one leg while they are still growing, then there would be no breeding stock left in a few years time. But hey, don't believe me. Before you go off about reporting people, first read what canine orthopaedic specialists with over 40 years diagnostic experience say: http://www.offa.org/pl_grades.html Patellar Luxation Grades The Patellar Luxation Database is for dogs 12 months and over. Examinations performed on dogs less than 12 months will be treated as Consultations and no OFA breed numbers will be assigned. Melstar, give that vet the flick! Don't let your dog be the means to her next new car. Souff

This is a property where the dogs have access to all areas and will seriously take on an intruder should they climb over a fence or gate - it is unlikely that they would get to the house in one piece. I have no problem with anyone having dogs for security purposes but these are large dogs and their barking is huge. The dogs could secure the house from inside the house when their owners are not there and if anyone did get in the house, they wouldn't be getting out in one piece! There is much more training and advice for dog owners than ever before. I just shake my head that we still have people (who are otherwise normal people) who can leave their dogs out at night to create such a racket when the owners are not at home, particularly when there is a longstanding nuisance barking history with council. In some rural areas this type of barking might be OK, but in suburbia it is definitely not OK and as others have said, I too would be concerned that some fed-up person would take care of the matter permanently. It is very bad PR for dog owners per se. As a dog lover, I feel very let down by such owners. It is inexcusable. Yes, the whinging dog hating nutters are out there - many of whom just live and breathe whinging and love to put anon notes in letterboxes under the cover of darkness. One of them eventually moved from our neighbourhood a while back ... I like to think that he ended up in a neighbourhood with loads of really noisy dogs and other problems... ;) Despite everyone's efforts to keep their dogs quiet he would still have a whinge any chance he could, and if he ever paid you a visit, the dogs would really go off at him. They sensed that he did not like dogs. Souff

Erny, this is a very good point. With this situation, the neighbours who cop the noise no longer treat the barking as an alarm. One neighbour cannot have a phone call in the back rooms of her house, such is the level of the noise. Windows are kept closed. They no longer think that these otherwise beautiful dogs may be giving any warning of danger. They think only of the deafening noise. Souff

Very simple title for this one. Friend has a longstanding neighbour and has a longstanding problem. Two barking dogs. Loud barking dogs. At night. History with council goes back forever apparently. The only thing that has changed is that older dogs have died and been replaced with ones of the same breed. Large dogs. Great security dogs. Barking dogs when owners are not there. Control measures were put in place, and peace reigned for a while. After a while the barking (for hours) starts up again and council gets involved again, and there is peace reigning once more ... etc etc infinitum. For one hour and twenty minutes these 2 dogs were barking mad continuously on a recent Saturday night ... late. Nobody at home. You could hear the racket from streets away and these dogs were seriously riled up and the noise carried through the still night air. One resident was so concerned that the owners must have been murdered in their own home, or that the dogs had an intruder bailed up inside the security gated compound, that they called in the police! There would have been no point in calling council, this was Saturday night. The resident who called the cops had a valid point, there could have been something horrible happening and the dogs could have been doing their job. The dogs owners are apparently annoyed that somebody had the nerve to call the cops in. There was no problem, no problem at all, according to them. No problem for them, they went and had a good Saturday night out, left their dogs outside to annoy all the local dog hating people (can you really blame them) and generally give dog owners a lousy name. Dog owners like this fail to see just how much harm they do to the rest of the dog owning world in today's society. These days good dog owners bend over backwards to do the right thing by their neighbours, and when I hear stuff like this (from very reliable sources) it just does my head in. Your dogs DO bark and you MUST take ALL the necessary steps to stop your dogs from annoying the people who live around you. The future of dog ownership is constantly under threat of more and more legislation, and you are, in part, causing the problem. Rant over. Souff

Or is it just that the boss does not want to take on the extra responsibility? Souff

No Cavvies, no Border Collies .... a lot of breeds with cropped ears and docked tails, and a lot of dogs with different features - dogs that today's judges might not give a second glance. It is really very interesting when you look at a collection of photos like this. Souff

Oh curses, Souff will now have to spend a lot more time at the computer this week! hehehe ;)

Bringing in a $500 licence will not stop puppy farmers and will only push matters underground. You only have to look at the pitbull world to see that. The Department of Ag and the RSPCA and the AWL all have powers to act on animal cruelty under existing legislation. Perhaps if the AWL and co targetted the vets who stay silent about the disgusting conditions in puppy farms that are known to the vet (as a regular customer and excellent source of income) ..... well then they might be doing some really good animal welfare work. Souff

Ah yes, education, the universal fix all. Only problem, lots of people don't want to be educated . . . and your attempt to compete for educating people will compete with much better organised and financed efforts by the Animal Rights groups. Btw., I hope, idealist that I am, there's a difference between advertising and education. United we stand, divided we fall. There's no question that the pedigree dog world is deeply divided.So long as one breeder's 'improving the breed' is another breeder's 'narrowing gene pools and promoting exaggerated characteristics', the pedigree dog world cannot effectively advertise.. . . or educate. Sandgrubber, in the early years of the last decade (gawd, I am soooo old)the masses were educated without leaving the room where the telly was. They were educated with lies and half truths, but it worked really well for those who wanted to have tail docking banned. There were no classes to go to, no books to read, no formal education and no fees to pay for courses, but the general public were educated that tail docking was "cruel" and only done for "fashion reaasons". This was not the truth of the matter, the truth became the casualty and anyone who stood up and opposed these popularist and well promoted ideas was either branded as a nut case or a selfish and sadistic person. There was no scientific evidence asked for by the government of the day and so the public did not need to ask difficult questions - they just needed to read the mega-sized ads on the sides of buses in capital cities and watch their television screens in prime time. The public was educated by the advertising. Why cannot the same be done, along the lines of "Is this where your next pet-shop or internet puppy will come from? and show disgusting scenes of little matted dogs lying in their own urine and faeces. "Check out your puppy's first home before buying - ask a registered breeder now" Shock tactics work. Strong messages work. If potential buyers are shocked by what they see, will they continue to rock up to pet shops and buy a puppy? I think not. The canine councils have done little advertising to encourage people to check out their puppy's first home and it costs a lot of money to put this advertising on buses and television. Perhaps the advertising could be a government initiative? No money? The Federal Government should have bags of the stuff after the Carbon Tax kicks in - we are all going to pay for that. Advertising works, that I do know. Shock tactics also work and there are enough pics of neglected and matted little fluffy dogs being bred from despite matted coats and oozing sores, to fill a bus. They are shocking. They are disgusting. We know that advertising can educate the masses - both with crap and with good information, so why not use it against the cruel breeders. Souff

Well, a $500 licence is not going to close down any puppy farms. They will be the first to get the licence and get a licence for each stinking property they use. Souff

Not only is the information on that site disgusting, but the technology being used on that website is also disturbing. Using your link, I read through to the end of the article and was surprised to see that my name and my private email address had been already placed in the box where they were calling for comment! No, I did not put them there. The site has the ability to track anyone who reads it and I think we should be asking very serious questions as to why this type of tracking technology is being used on an animal welfare site. Souff Mine didn't- I think that depends on your computer having autofill switched on rather than it tracking you. Although I will qualify that by saying I don't know much about computers! That sounds like a logical explanation but no, I don't use autofill. I always type in what I need so this is why I was so surprised to see this on a site I have never visited before. Will get the tech to tell me why this happened.

Not only is the information on that site disgusting, but the technology being used on that website is also disturbing. Using your link, I read through to the end of the article and was surprised to see that my name and my private email address had been already placed in the box where they were calling for comment! No, I did not put them there. The site has the ability to track anyone who reads it and I think we should be asking very serious questions as to why this type of tracking technology is being used on an animal welfare site. Souff

I also understand that it is necessary and I agree with your comments. I do not agree with the shooter's actions in leaving 2 dead dogs in a plastic bag in town though. Dig a hole and bury them on the property, then leave a note in town perhaps. That is enough. Sadly, there are too many owners in semi-rural places like Collinsville who are a bit too relaxed about dog laws and they don't make sure that their dogs stay at home. It is not their poultry or stock that die a horrible death by being mauled to death. If it were, then they would make sure that their dogs did not roam. These 2 dogs have paid the highest price for what they saw as a bit of fun, and it is their owners who are to blame for not making sure they were safe at home. Souff

Absolutely correct.So, lets give Leema time to respond. Perhaps complaints to the state CCs might be in order Oi, there is no belittling from Souff! Sorry if it came across that way. Part of it was tongue-in-cheek, but yes,I too would like to see Leema return and respond. cheers! Souff

Education holds the key. Why cannot the powers-that-be hit the television screens and sides-of-buses with a campaign to educate buyers? The RSPCA had plenty to spend on advertising and plenty to say when they wanted to ban the docking the tails of pups. Why not use the same tactics to make sure that the general public are not getting ripped off when they buy a puppy. A role for ASIC, or the Dept of Fair Trading maybe? Souff

Something has to be done to regulate use of labels in pet stores (& by backyard breeders, too). If they tell customers a puppy is 'purebred', that should only be permitted under Truth in Advertising, if proper pedigree papers are also provided. But the pet stores here have made a real thing about not identifying the breeder... And it appears those selling to pet stores (registered or not), tend not to want their details passed on. And you're right, there needs to be education about what 'papers' are, so the backyard breeders can't just type something on a piece of paper. The UK law says that a breeder's identity must go on a means of ID that follows the puppy (each puppy is given a 'breeding' number). I don't know, if since then, that's been combined with the microchip. But it'd be a darn good thing. I totally agree. It is surprising how naive some puppy buyers are, and how they will believe things from people who know better and should be giving the puppy buyer the same opportunities that they were given. Over the years, puppy buyers have told me that they saw the registration papers of the parents and when I asked where their pup's registration paper was, they said that their pup didn't come with papers. Often the breeder told them that there was no point in belonging to a dog club if you didn't show your dogs. My standard response is "Why? Is there something WRONG with your pup?" I also tell them of the tiny price that it would have cost the breeder for their pup to be registered, and 9 times out of 10 they were certain that a papered pup was going to cost them a lot more!!! Part of the culture of not buying a papered dog has come directly from the animal welfare organisations, who insist that it is just snobbery on the part of purebred dog people. It is a vicious, divisive and damaging attitude that should have been stamped out by the animal welfare organisations years ago. Anyone involved in the selling of dogs should be promoting the purchase of good healthy dogs, and promoting the fact that buyers are entitled to get a properly CERTIFIED document that shows the pup's verifiable family history (pedigree). Not too hard and it does not damage reputations to do the right thing by the public. Souff edited for S & G