Jump to content

Tempus Fugit

  • Posts

    326
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tempus Fugit

  1. Schedule 4 (the one which bans importation) was only added to the dog control act in 2006ish after an attack by a crossbred dog of a young girl in Auckland. The breeds were here way before that. The Perro de Presa Canario was added later, after the death of the woman in the United States.

    Ok. Thanks for explaining that.

    At least there are no restrictions on breeds such as the Persian Sarabi, Gull Dong and Bully Kutta.

  2. Not entirely sure who, or what defines a "menacing dog" - or who'd call their dog one voluntarily - but this is still a great deal. It is open to anyone in the Council area - so 'non-menacing' dogs can be done too. I hope it gets good uptake.

    Edit: found out what constitutes a menacing dog.

    Territorial authority may classify dog as menacing

    (1)This section applies to a dog that—

    (a)has not been classified as a dangerous dog under section 31; but

    (b)a territorial authority considers may pose a threat to any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife because of—

    (i)any observed or reported behaviour of the dog; or

    (ii)any characteristics typically associated with the dog's breed or type.

    This does not appear to be entirely accurate:

    Banned breeds

    The following four breeds cannot be imported into New Zealand: American Pit Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentino, Brazilian Fila, Japanese Tosa and Perro de Presa Canario.

    Other breeds or types of dogs can be added to the list of restricted dogs, but only after an Order in Council is agreed by Parliament.

    Before recommending such an Order, the Minister of Local Government is required to consult with local government, animal welfare organisations, dog clubs and veterinary practices, as appropriate.

    Menacing dogs

    A classification of menacing dog was created under the Act. A council may declare a dog menacing if it considers the dog may pose a threat to any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife because of:

    (i) any observed or reported behaviour of the dog; or

    (ii) any characteristics typically associated with the dog's breed or type.

    If a council believes on reasonable grounds that a dog is wholly or predominantly one or more of the banned breeds or types it must classify it as menacing.

    Menacing dogs must be muzzled in public and the council may require it to be neutered.

    Dangerous dogs

    A council must classify as a dangerous dog:

    (a) any dog in respect of which the owner has been convicted of a rushing offence (the Act sets out what constitutes a rushing offence);

    (b) any dog which the council has (on the basis of sworn evidence attesting to aggressive behaviour by the dog on one or more occasions) reasonable grounds to believe constitutes a threat to the safety of any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife;

    © any dog that the owner admits in writing constitutes a threat to the safety of any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife.

    Dangerous dogs must be leashed and muzzled in public and are also required to be securely fenced on the owner's property without blocking access to any dwelling.

    So rather than having a separate 'Restricted Breed' category for pit bulls and pitbull crosses, they are apparently automatically classified as 'Menacing Dogs.'

    Apparently the whole amnesty thing is a reaction to a recent incident in the Auckland Council area where a young boy was bitten by his uncle's pitbull type dog.

  3. I still don't understand the scenario.

    Was the police dog being sent into the helicopter to extract a 'bad guy' (wearing a bite suit) or

    Was the dog being sent into the helicopter to practice travelling to a job (in which case SOP should have required the dog to be muzzled)?

  4. So many ACT laws are being ignored by allowing this dog to roam. Does anyone know if this dog is desexed? How can the government justify this? Has Meegan Fitzharris ever responded to the posts on her Facebook page? Perhaps an email to Andrew Barr's office might be in order or how about the opposition?

    'Local government' type law enforcement in the ACT is a joke. Parking on nature strips is supposed to be illegal but walk around any suburb of an evening and there are dozens of cars parked on nature strips. Go to the local shops in the evening or at weekends and there is usually a shopper's car parked in the taxi rank. There are laws about keeping nature strips clear for pedestrians but for many homeowners if their cars are not on the nature strip then they have landscaped it so pedestrians are forced to walk on the road.

    So if car owners and homeowners don't have to obey the law, why should dog owners have to?

  5. I'm wondering what's happening to all the waste Franklin produces?

    Reading your comment the thought struck me as to what happens on Fraser Island in Qld. The island is a popular tourist destination but it also has a resident population of feral dingoes. Do the rangers pick up the dingo poo or don't people worry about it?

  6. Makes me so annoyed. It's so romanticised.

    People are propagandised from a young age to see dogs living semi feral as romantic. Off the top of my head, I remember reading Jack London's 'Call of the Wild' as a youngster. Then there was the TV series 'Littlest Hobo'. Recently there was the movie 'Red Dog'. Then there are the 'cheeky' camp dogs that live around some aboriginal communities and the cute street dogs of Moscow that use the subway trains to travel around the city.

  7. The comment I saw is '"A maremma rescue organisation in Victoria had offered to re-homeFranklin should he be caught.' The impression I get is that Franklin's present carers have a genuine fear that if an attempt is made to catch and confine him, especially if catch poles, so beloved by dog catchers, are used, he will either become fearful and aggressive or go completely feral, shunning people and catching and killing wildlife and/ or livestock to survive. Either outcome would probably result in a death sentence.

    I suppose the Victorian maremma rescue organisation doesn't have the resources to come to Canberra to catch Franklin and transport him back to their facility, while Franklin's present carers have an ordinary suburban backyard, of the kind from which Franklin has previously escaped from, that has resulted in the present stalemate.

    Even the local dog rescue groups probably don't have the resources to confine a large dog escapist like Franklin.

    I suppose any local Maremma breeder would have reservations about caring for Franklin, even temporarily until he went to rescue, due to health and quarantine concerns

    Another issue is the length of time that he has been allowed to go semi-feral. Most LGDs are conditioned from a young age to bond with stock they guard. If Franklin were re-homed to an acreage paddock with livestock would he stay or would he seek out a hollow log in a neighbor's paddock?

    Realistically, as with the border collie mentioned in a previous post, there needs to be a coordinated approach to capturing and re-homing Franklin. I'm not putting my hand up as I don't have a suitable premises, nor do I have any contacts with Maremma people or even dog rescue in general. When I started this thread I was hoping to elicit some constructive suggestions from Maremma associated DOLers.

    As to statements that that the community is happy for Franklin to be at large, here is a comment someone sent to the local newspaper:

    'My work colleague lives in Bonner on a street that Franklin appears to like to frequent. She is terrified of dogs after a bad experience as a child. Even though Franklin minds his own business and has never acted aggressively towards her family she does not let her children play out the front of the house (in yard) because of him. '

  8. Also, check with your council rules re: leash lengths. My council considers "on lead" to be on a lead no longer than 2 metres. This means that if an oval in my council is on-lead only and someone takes a dog on a lead longer than 2m, they are considered off-lead and could be fined.

    yes!! That's often an easy one to make mistakes with ...

    Typical vexatious law of a nanny state. If there is no sport being played on the oval what necessity exists for a short leash?

    Makes it hard to practice recalls.

  9. It isn't the medical research aspect that worries me. It is that once the technique of breeding GM dogs with strengthened hindquarters is perfected, is it going to proliferate and are we going to see these GM dogs being used for draught (weight pulling, dog sledding etc) and wouldn't the dog fighting fraternity love more powerful fighting dogs.

  10. So, you've all forgotten the case of Ayen Chol?

    No I haven't forgotten. It is always at the back of my mind. Why do you ask?

    My comment wasn't directed at you specifically. It was to meant to remind some other posters that the Canberra incident wasn't the first time a dog has forced its way into a house to kill its prey.

    I think also with summer coming on people might leave their normal front door open for ventilation but they should be aware that if their own pooch sees a cat or small dog walking past a flyscreen door might not stop their dog getting out and attacking.

    P.S. It seems there has been another dog attack in Canberra.

  11. If you read the article you will see the smuggling happened about 10 years ago. It received wide publicity at the time. If I remember correctly there were similar incidences of implanting drugs in dogs into Europe. The puppies were killed to remove the drugs since once they had reached their destination they were of no further use. There was also an incidence of drug mule-dogs forced to ingest bags of cocaine - similar to human 'mules'. There was actually a notorious anti-narcotics video circulating featuring a drug-mule dog.

    If you google on dogs & drug smuggling you will probably find lots of articles.

  12. I myself have seen the site and it is disturbing. The issue with EPA is the dumping of horses in a creek line upstream and the contamination issues. And I also believe the authority with thoroughbreds in SA have issues with the dumping. It had clearly been happening over a long period of time and to horses of varying ages. I am sure the people responsible will be found and dealt with accordingly. I personally do not agree with the horse or greyhound racing industries and the amount of "waste & excess products".

    Apparently a horse trainer has been charged.

  13. Under our laws pets/animals are actually considered goods and chattels. So they entered a contract with a pet store buying an item (let's forget it was a living thing) that was supposed to be fit for purpose. Under what would be considered normal care (basic food, access to water and adequate shelter) this item would be expected to operate fit for purpose for 'x' period of time. In this instance the 'goods' started to fail within a very short period of time. Alterations to house and lifestyle had been made in good faith to accommodate and care for these 'goods'. It became 'fixed' in place. Money had already been expended to care for these 'goods' above and beyond the basic care needs being met.

    Regardless of the comments in the story I'm not sure about a tribunal can use the emotional card of a dog being a family member. I doubt goods could ever legally be considered the same as living beings (humans who have legally registered birth names) so the tribunal would have to be basing their decision on some legal grounds for it to stick. Basically these people made a purchase in good faith, met all warranty obligations and were sold faulty goods which were now considered fixed in place and couldn't be returned for refund so they got compensation instead. There are lots of other non-living goods out there that can't be returned for a refund either - you can't pull down house extensions for instance but the owners can be reimbursed for extra costs expended to rectify faults and live with a less than perfect job that might give them problems in the future.

    I think it would be a case of 'Caveat emptor' vs 'Caveat venditor: My link

  14. Dog racing of any kind is not only banned but illegal in most US states for a reason.

    I'm fairly sure there is still a lot of sled dog racing. I also seem to remember an incident in the US where 100 huskies were either shot or had their throats slit after a sled dog tourism business went bust.

    As for the Queensland incident, while it might have been legal to shoot the dogs, at least dumping their carcases in a nature reserve should be treated as a severe case of littering, given the health hazards from the rotting carcases.

×
×
  • Create New...