Tim'sMum

If you attempt to poison a tick...it injects more poison....that's my understanding anyway. Pulling it out is a better method I gather. I've pulled 4 off my dogs recently, using my fingernails or tweezers....and 4 off myself as well.

Tough if you live on a corner. Our last house was on a corner and people walked past our side fence all day and night. If someone stepped off the footpath, walked down the drive and stuck their head over the gate...the dogs would go ballistic. That was something that I was actually not all that unhappy about...as it gave us the security that only a bloody idiot would attempt to climb over the fence or gate. The fence was besser block, the gate was sturdy metal, covered in panels and padlocked and the dogs could not see through either the fence or the gate. Someone had to be of adult height and stick their head over the gate for the dogs to see them....so if they were scared by the dogs...tough! What were they doing prying into our yard anyway? Laws concerning dogs are getting more ridiculous by the day.

Thanks....will PM her. I know of someone who is doing this and it worries me....having seen the state of her previous dog.

Just a question if you have raised a Guide Dog puppy? How carefully do they screen applicants and how often do they check on the dogs and 'puppy raisers'?

why not ? Personally, I don't like them. I don't like visitors but that doesn't make me less of a good dog owner, I wouldn't expect a puppy buyer of mine to subject themselves to my invasion of their privacy. If there is a specific need for a certain fencing arrangement I could understand but as a condition of sale, I'm just not comfortable with them being a requirement. Granted I'm not a rescuer so maybe I'd see things differently if I were. I just did a home check for a Canberra rescue...and the lady was lovely. She fully understood why someone had to ensure that the dog she was adopting was going to a good home...and it was! I walked through the house briefly and looked at the yard and fencing....so it was not a 'poking and prying' visit, just a check to ensure adequate fencing and get a general impression of the prospective buyer. It did help that there was an immaculately groomed dog there already...ensconced on the couch. I'm not keen on strangers in the house either but would be happy to have someone do a home check if I was adopting another dog. Particularly with rescue dogs, when a rescuer takes a dog from a pound and puts their heart and soul into caring for it until it is adopted, then a home check reassures them that the dog won't end up back in the pound again. Anyone can walk into a pet shop, buy a puppy and take it home...to heaven's knows what conditions.

So sorry for your loss of Sophie.

My oldest friend's Lab X was brilliant at bringing back 'long dead' animals. They lived on acreage and she would find all manner of goodies to bring home. 3 days in a row she left a long dead chook on the back mat. They never discovered whose chooks had died and why they were accessible to their dog? The only problem is that my friend's OH has a really dodgy tummy when it comes to gross things. One whiff, one look and that would be it....

So, by rights, the OP should have called the local Council, and asked for a Ranger to inspect the premises...because Council officers are responsible for ensuring 'puppy farms are comlying with the code for breeding facilities? Why then, when the OP called the RSPCA, did they not say..'Unless you have witnessed actual cruelty, you should call the local Council and ask them to investigate'. :) You could then assume that if a Council Ranger encountered any abuse, they would then call in the RSPCA? It seems like a lack of communication all round? The OP sees what looks like a puppy farm, which concerns them and is worried that there might be neglect occuring due to the number of dogs and the disrepair of the premises, so calls the RSPCA, thinking they are the correct authority to call. They hear nothing back, so calls again, and again...and still hears nothing back from the RSPCA.......but by rights, should have been told by the RSPCA to call the local Council to report their concerns in the first place. :D

Maybe, maybe not. I will never knock anyone who is concerned over animal welfare though. We need everyone to be concerned. In a perfect world people would care enough about animals to ensure that there would be no animal abuse, no animals living in squalor or starving. Unfortunately it's not a perfect world and these things happen, far too often, it is reported on the news far too often. The OP cared enough to want to know that the animals on these premises are OK. I don't think they should be 'drawn and quartered' for caring. I think the main problem is that the RSPCA are accountable to no-one and have lost their way...lost the direction that they started with.

The OP, Heavy Paws, saw a premises that looked run-down, overgrown, uncared for....which could correlate to the owner being either just slovenly when it comes to outside maintenance, or they just have little time, or they are struggling due to physical or financial problems...or their attitude is one of not caring, and that could include the animals? Without being able to go inside or see inside....if someone has concerns....just what do they do? I think the crux is that no-one from the RSPCA came back to the OP to reassure them that all was well inside the premises. Without communication you would perhaps presume that perhaps nothing was done? All it would have taken was a phone call from the RSPCA...'Yes, we checked the premises, it's a bit messy but the animals are well cared for.' eg: Friends live on acreage up the coast. Their next door neighbour is 'different'....possibly mental problems, and is probably an animal hoarder, of horses. She seemingly can't help herself and has far too many horses on her small property. The ones in the front paddock are in reasonable condition but the horses in the back paddocks are in very poor condition. My friends and other locals have all tried to talk to her, in a friendly way about the number of horses she has, their condition, asked if she needed help etc......but she will go inside the house and refuse to discuss it, telling them to b**ger off. She is quite strange at times and once called the police to complain that my friends had stolen her peacock....which just flew over the fence into their property all the time, mainly to raid their vege patch. :D The locals are a friendly bunch and will pull together to help those in need, even if they are a bit different. You could not see the horses in the back paddocks from the road but both adjoining properties could and anyone going past in a boat on the lake behind could see them. Their only recourse was to call the RSPCA. Numerous calls, over many months ensued, yet nothing changed and no-one bothered to update anyone about an inspection or what was happening. The locals just wanted to know that the horses would be OK. It basically took 'nagging' to get the RSPCA Inspector to ring someone who had made a complaint and advise that yes, he had inspected the horses and that due to the drought, their condition was not perfect, but was reasonable. The only problem was that he admitted that he had not seen the horses in the back paddocks. The neighbour had told him that the only animals she had were in the front paddocks. So, lack of communication in response to a complaint meant those horses suffered longer than they should have. Quite a few horses were sold off in the end and the ones that remained were given more feed. The owner was not penalised. Hopefully the RSPCA are checking on her periodically to ensure she does not buy more horses.

Surely that alone rings alarm bells....and rather smacks of a puppy mill? And the problem with this is???? Aside from the fact that most here find it MORALLY reprehensible, it does not make it illegal. Do you honestly think that if they were doing anything wrong, or are as visible as implied that the RSPCA would NOT be aware of their existence already? ASSUMPTION again. Wasting RSPCA time on a suspicion which is not only a waste of valuable resources but could potentially cause unneccessary distress to somebody who just MIGHT be doing absolutely nothing wrong. Simply having a sign outside your property or a property that isn't maintained in the manner in which you feel is satisfactory does NOT give grounds for a complaint unless you are sure there is something to complain about. If you're THAT keen to find something to dob them in for, then why not enquire about a puppy. That at least gives you legitimate grounds to be on their premises and seeing exactly what it is that you are speculating about. Have any of you who say it is fine to call the RSPCA on a whim or suspicion actually have ANY idea what it feels like to have the RSPCA land on your doorstep? Particularly after a complaint from somebody who has no idea what is happening behind closed gates? Well, I can tell you now....I have and it isn't nice. Even if you have done nothing wrong (which I hadn't and have in writing), the RSPCA arrive ready to find ANYTHING that they can ping you on and I mean ANYTHING!! Aside from the stress of having them there and wondering if everything you say and do will be used against you, they invariably arrive at times which are highly inconvenient. It's not that there is anything to hide, but from past experience, even the most legitimate person has to be on their toes and accompany the inspector around each and every animal and each and every item that is animal-related. It is a COMPLETE pain in the behind and not something that I would wish upon anybody! We weren't......were you? :D Ellz.....the whole point is that we have no-one else to check on animal welfare other than the RSPCA....there are no alternative organisations with the same policing powers unfortunately. As I said previously, puppy mills are legal, but that doesn't mean they are all well run. Even breeders of pedigree dogs don't always do it right. There has to be some 'policing' of large scale dog breeding to ensure the 'cowboys' are controlled and doing the right thing ...surely? The RSPCA have certainly had their moments and been totally unfair in some situations, as some DOLers will attest. I'm certainly not their greatest fan....but we really have no-one else to rely on to check on animal welfare. What would you suggest someone do, if they see an establishment that looks run down, a bit feral, has a large number of dogs and is constantly advertising puppies and kittens for sale....and have some concerns? Should they just assume that everything is OK there and just sit on their hands and say nothing? Should they march in and demand to inspect the kennels themselves perhaps? Or should they call the only legitimate animal welfare organisation (who can legally enter premises), that we have....to check to ensure all is well? You also can't just assume that the RSPCA will know about every dog breeding premises.

Surely that alone rings alarm bells....and rather smacks of a puppy mill? Sure, puppy mills are legal, but it certainly doesn't hurt for the RSPCA to be aware of their existence and to keep periodic checks on the welfare of the animals kept there. Without marching into the premises, Heavy Paws, or anyone who cares about the welfare of dogs and cats, would have no idea if animals are sufferering there or not, particularly if the premises looks a bit 'feral'...so getting the RSPCA to check is a very sensible option. If the owner has nothing to hide and the animals are kept in good conditions, have adequate food, water, shelter, vet care and exercise...then exactly what harm is done by them being checked out? Honestly....I wonder if some of you are just posting to start yet another argument?

I'm sorry you had to cop a fine for what is really such a trivial reason Mita.

Oh...these other people (who may have been there or may have not) would have been uncomfortable while the owners walked for all of the whole 10m it took to cross the sand, holding a 4.8kg tiny dog? You know that for a fact Steve? How long does it take you to walk 10m? Maybe 15 seconds? Was that 15 seconds of sheer terror for any other beach goers with them thinking...'Oh, no an evil horrible dog is'almost' on the beach!' ...despite it paws being at least a metre above the sand and it being totally controlled at the time. The owners were approached by the Ranger when they were on the rocks...not on the beach. Therefore the dog was NOT on the beach and NOT in the water. It was sheer bloodymindedness of the Ranger to fine them over such a trivial interpretation of the law.

Well, I am not allowed to take my dog to work with me, but if I use your logic and carry it around all day, it won't be at work will it? They didn't carry it around all day on the beach. It was outside, not inside a building. You can't use that as a logical argument.

Thank you Tracie. I find it hard to understand why so many dog owners are paying out on people who attempted to NOT break the law. They saw a sign saying 'No dogs on the Beach"...obviously designed to stop dogs pooping and peeing on the beach and keep them away from kids, swimmers, picnickers etc. which is fair enough...so they carried their dog across the beach (for less than a minute probably) to an area of common land (being the foreshore) where presumably dogs are allowed, because there were no signs saying....'No dogs on the rocks or the foreshore'. A dog is ON the beach when it's paws are touching the sand. It can't be ON a beach if it is carried, it can't poop or pee or annoy people on the beach...which is what the 'law' is trying to prevent. Just how anal are we as a society going to get? :p I wish Council Rangers were as quick to fine every perfectly healthy bastard that parks in Disabled Parking. Our local shopping centre has very limited disabled spaces, and I think people would be surprised at just how often people park in these spots, without a legitimate Disabled Parking Permit. I actually rang the Centre Office to complain about how often I see it happen (and how often I end up parking at the far end of the car park and then have to push a wheelchair with my 60kg mum on board much further than I should). The shopping centre have said it happens often.......but only Council Rangers can fine them...yet they rarely ever bother to visit the car park. Why....???? They are probably too busy fining people who have carried a tiny dog across a beach.

We have a dog door....which neither dog will use. :D The laundry door stays open except on cold winter nights. The dogs have free rein and can go wherever they want. As for walking...one is OK if it's raining, the other isn't....she despises getting wet. I will walk them if it is sprinkling but not in heavy rain. I too don't see the point of having a dog if it is kept outside 100% of the time and I think it's cruel to have a dog and not walk it....unless it has a medical condition that precludes walking or if someone lives on acreage and the dog has a lot of room to exercise in.

They didn't say they were adopting more dogs....just pointing out that the amount of the fine was equivalent to the adoption of 4 rescue dogs, and it may put someone off from becoming a dog owner due the the amount and the ridiculous situation. Perhaps people should actually read things...rather than 'read things into' what is written. So what harm is there in carrying a small dog across a beach? The beach had a sign saying 'No dogs on the beach' so they carried it. The dog was not ON the beach. Did the rocks have a sign.......'No dogs on the rocks.' ? Do beaches now have to have sign saying....'No dogs on the beach, no dogs in the water, no dogs to be carried across the beach.'? Is every tiny inch of our coastline banned to dogs? In the same situation....I would have fought this in court too, purely because the Ranger, or who whoever gave them the fine, was being totally anal. It smacks of revenue raising rather than fining someone for breaking the law. Surely there are far worse crimes than carrying a tiny dog across a beach. :D

It's a dog. Dog's don't have psychological problems about pooing in public. It's fine for a dog to poo on public land, as long as you pick it up. The only place I don't let mine poo is at the top of steep driveways....it's rather inelegant to have to chase nuggets as they roll down someone's driveway and have them bounce off the front door. :D

I'd love to confirm the breed... Why? Does Breed even matter? Not trying to start anything. Just thought that was an interesting comment to make on a forum where the general opinion is DEED, not Breed. So why ask? It does matter! Why? Because every time you hear of a dog attack it seems that the dog is reported as a 'Pitbull'....when in reality it could be a cross breed of any number of breeds that might have a bit of a bull breed in it. Reports that may or may not be accurate about breeds do nothing for owners of well behaved bull breeds. Which is why friends of ours, with the most well trained, obedient, beautifully natured, soft and sooky Pitbull have her registered as a 'Ridgeback cross'.

I don't know how you find them lovemysideways.....the idiots that is (after the problem you had at the local dog park). Maybe our area is riddled with them? Hope the dogs are OK?

Thank you fuzzy for brightening my day and making me smile with this photo! :rolleyes: What a gorgeous litter of puppies. Congratulations on choosing a dog from a rescue organisation....well done.

I want to know what is hanging out of his mouth?

You are not alone. Friends decided they wanted a dog about 7 years ago. They were thinking about getting a Corgi, so asked the local Vet about Corgis when they took their rabbit to him for vaccination. The Vet recommended they buy a new breed....a 'Spoodle'....because it would have hybrid vigour. So they did.

Agreed. I definitely don't think the cat nor the owner deserved this, but I still really don't understand why anyone thinks it's okay to let their cat roam the streets. Definitely agree - if you love your cat, keep it inside/in a run etc. Keeping cats indoors 24/7 or at night is a relatively modern concept.....as in the last 30 years or so. Growing up in the 50's & 60's we had cats, as did many neighbours. Putting the cat out at night was considered quite normal...it was what everyone did. The cat might be out in the daytime or inside, but once it had come in for dinner and hung around for a while, you put it out...as cats were considered totally nocturnal and were sent out to hunt vermin. You opened the door in the morning to find the cat waiting...and often a row of dead mice or rats too. Keeping even dogs inside or in the yard was not the norm either. Many of our neighbours dogs (when I was a child) never stepped foot inside the house. We were considered quite strange in that our dog was allowed inside and was kept in a fully fenced yard. Minxy....some people have not, as yet, cottoned on to the concept of keeping cats indoors for their own safety and for the safety of wildlife etc.. Whoever did this has some serious issues....and the correllation between animal cruelty and callous crimes against humans makes me wonder what next?