Curlybert

Recently read someone describing themself as a "gluten for punishment". Guess spell check won't help that mistake.

The Canberra Times sees itself as a broadsheet on par with The Age or the SMH but its content is pretty ordinary. During Coeliac Awareness Week a few years ago, the CT talked about the need for coeliacs to observe a 'glutton-free' diet. Yes indeed, but gluten-free is more to the point!

And just so my post is dog-related, another plural that makes me gnash my teeth is puppy's.

Are there no supermarkets in your area? Coles and Woolies (Safeway) sell dog collars.

As I stomped and scowled my way past Pets Paradise this morning, an elderly woman and a young girl, most likely her granddaughter, emerged from the store.

Grandma was loudly decreeing "No! You are not having a puppy from there!" I was silently applauding her good sense, when she continued: "Dogs are stinking, dirty little bastards. And I am not going to be stepping in dogshit all day!"

Not quite what I was expecting! ;)

But at least Grandma knows she doesn't want a dog, so that's probably a good thing.

Yes. It's quiet horrible. In that first photograph the woman is spruced up as though she's going on a date with the wretched roo in his collar and tie. Maybe it was just a staged pic for the news article but it's creepy nevertheless.

The poor creature should be put down just like any other badly injured animal with no chance of recovery.

A former Biggest Loser contestant remarked that he was "literally crapping his dacks". I understand that being a contest on that show requires above average humility, but I probably would have kept that to myself.

This post just caused me to have a splurk moment....I need to hastily find something to wipe coffee from my keyboard!

LOL Real estate ads can be pretty bad too! Story instead of storey is a big one.

Just one more from me... I have seen "colder sack" in an on-line real estate ad. As in "This house is nestled in a quiet colder sack."

All of the above! I also gnash my teeth at the transposing of "brought" and "bought". It's such a simple rule: "brought": past tense of "bring". "Bought": past tense of "buy".

And people who think you make a plural by adding " 's " to a word. eg diary's. lady's. box's. Wrong wrong wrong!!!

I could go on forever so I'd better stop and give someone else a turn!

[quote name='lilli' date='18th Apr 2011 - 07:23 PM' post='52

Having just negotiated my way through a mandatory desex situation with some fkd up no idea pound staff

whose knowledge on dog health equates to their rescue network and personal belief system

I'm more than tired of social ideas being forced upon people.

I might have my own ideas about what I think are suitable dog breeds, pets etc

but I can still see they're my viewpoint only, and dont expect the rest of the community to embrace them or be forced to abide by them via legistlation.

At the end of the day, who made you the doyen of what encompasses a 'responsible' dog owner.

I don't like social engineering.

Aww, does Lilli need a hug? Sorry about your bad day. And I'm most flattered "to be a doyen of what encompasses a responsible pet owner". Thanks!

Responsible dog ownership encompasses making informed decisions for what is best for your pet in conjunction with your vet. If you choose not to desex that doesnt make you less responsible.

Interesting that the vast majority of dogs in the Canberra dog pound are not desexed when mandatory desexing has been in that state for so long.

Pound dogs come from all sorts of homes for all sorts of reasons and sometimes people have to choose the lesser of two evils to survive.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree then because I can't think of any circumstances where it would be appropriate not to desex, apart from the one I outlined in my earlier post. Or maybe where a rescued animal is already very old. I think it is unfair to leave a dog entire, with all its natural urges unfulfilled. Desexing helps to eliminate that problem. Perthaps you can outline some reasons why desexing of pets should be optional.

Bahaha

you don't happen to moonlight at the Cranbourne Pound hey?

lots of zealots there too

one of the worst pounds in Victoria

pffft

When you've stopped bahahaing and pfffting, please explain who's a zealot. Truly, I have no idea what you're on about.

What a very special boy. Sleep well, old son. How lucky you were to have each other. And now I urgently need a tissue!

Thinking of you and your special Billy Boy. Never forget how happy, safe and comfy you made him after years of neglect by a bastard owner. Bravo, Lowchenlove. XXXX

To me that is just strange, why would somebody want to go to a National Park and shoot a parrot? Are they going to eat them?

No. I think they would be intending to refill their doonas.

As requested, Katrina! See highlighted bits of news article below.

And as for shooting as a school sport, you honestly think that a disturbed or depressed adolescent should have ready access to firearms?

GREENS OPPOSE RECREATIONAL HUNTING IN NATIONAL PARKS Sydney Morning Herald - June 12 2009

A NEW bill that would open the state's national parks and reserves to recreational hunters who could be licensed to shoot native animals and birds has been condemned by the NSW Greens, the Liberal Party and environmental groups.

The NSW Shooters Party has introduced the private members bill to Parliament. It allows for private game reserves to be set up for professional safari hunters, overturning NSW laws that prevent the enclosing of animals on land solely for hunting purposes.

A Shooters Party MP, Robert Brown, said the bill would not allow the hunting of threatened species and, in the case of native waterfowl, licensed game hunters would be required to pass an official identification test of the ducks.

But the Opposition's environment spokeswoman, Catherine Cusack, attacked the bill, saying key elements were unacceptable. "We totally reject the idea of shooting in national parks and the concept of shooting native animals in national parks is repugnant to almost anyone."

Among the birds and animals that could be hunted are the Australian wood duck, the chestnut teal and grey teal ducks, galahs, corellas and eastern grey, western grey and red kangaroos.

The Shooters Party hopes to gain the Government's support for the bill but the Environment Minister, Carmel Tebbutt, is already signalling she will oppose key provisions in it, including allowing recreational hunters into national parks and the hunting of native animals.

Her spokeswoman said the Government would consider the bill's merits but it did not support "the hunting of native animals or hunting in national parks".

Mr Brown said the bill drew on many of the recommendations of a government-backed review of existing laws undertaken with staff from the NSW Department of Primary Industries and the Game Council.

He said that under his bill, the environment minister would be responsible for declaring any national park or reserve open to hunters.

He told the Herald that opening national parks to recreational hunters to shoot feral animals would save the Government significant amounts of money and the hunting of native animals and birds in parks would require ministerial approval.

The Greens leader, Lee Rhiannon, called on Ms Tebbutt to reject the entire bill, not only the provisions concerning national parks. "Opposing shooting in national parks may well be a tactic Labor is using to divert attention from the fact it will support other equally regressive changes being pushed by the Shooters Party," Ms Rhiannon said.

The Greens are also concerned about provisions in the bill that would make it an offence to approach anyone or interfere with anyone "lawfully hunting game animals" on any land that had been declared public hunting land.

The Shooters Party has provided critical support for the Labor Government in the upper house, especially since the 2007 election. Last week the Shooters voted with the Government and the Reverend Fred Nile of the Christian Democratic party to defeat a bill backed by the Greens and the Opposition to preserve prime agricultural land from mining developments.

That's a bit melodramatic isn't it, Shortstep?! On this thread I have stridently stated some opinions just as you have done on many many occasions on many many threads. Not sure why you're being so thin-skinned.

grinning triumphantly next to the huge and magnificent bull elephant he had just blasted to death in Zimbabwe.

The old pulling an elephant out of your hat trick! Well done!

Here are some links to some recent information about Zimbabwwe and their elephants.

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2011/...-flip-test.html

and

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2011/...iving-room.html

and

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2011/...human-over.html

Enjoy!

You refer me to someone's blog??! You'll need to be more specific than that.

Whatever you say Katrina. But you talk about the Game Council as though it has some sort of respectability in the wider community. It doesn't. And it only exists because the NSW Labor government was bribed into creating it (and providing it with millions in taxpayer dollars each year) so the Shooters Party members in the Legislative Council would vote with Labor on particular legislation. And now Barry O'Farrell is stuck with it. Tell me, what has the Game Council ever done that is of any substance? And what does it do with its 3 million bucks each year? All it does is bang on about being forbidden to shoot in national parks - it's simply busting to be allowed to shoot native wildlife in NPs too, including parrots, not just introduced animals. It's also calling for shooting to be a sport in NSW schools. (And what a top idea that is.) And of course, there's that famous pic of former Game Council chair, Robert Borsak grinning triumphantly next to the huge and magnificent bull elephant he had just blasted to death in Zimbabwe.

But if you're impressed by the Game Council, good for you.

The Greens, or more correctly the Greens MP David Shoebridge seems to favour poisoning - a terribly cruel form of death in anybodies language.

Wow. How many facts did you have to twist to arrive at that conclusion? I lost count.

No twisted facts. Read David's blog. Read the Code of Practice. Read the Standard Operating Procedures.

Gee, Katrina you remind me of the Black Knight in that Monty Python movie! I've read David Shoebridge's blog and I note his comment that of the killing methods contained in the Code of Practice, "ground shooting is the most humane." But hey, if you think that actually means he's an enthusiastic supporter of baiting, then you go ahead and think that.

Curlybert, I cant provide evidence from the NSW Greens that they support baiting any more than you can provide evidence that they dont. Fundamentally no political party would support animal cruelty yet all over Australia poisoning and biological control methods funded by our Governement are being used that make me physically sick.

Yet you asserted confidently that the Greens favour poisoning and now that you've been caught out with your pants down, you can only muster this feeble argument that I can't prove that they don't. Your exact words: "The Greens seem to favour poisoning - a terribly cruel form of death in anybodies language and they seem to want to twist the facts and outright lie to persecute a group of people who give their time to help control a feral pest."

So who exactly is twisting facts?

I agree Curlybert, the Greens are contradicting themselves.

Nice try, KatrinaM but I said no such thing. It was you who asserted the Greens supported baiting, yet you could produce no evidence to support your claim. Perhaps you should heed your own advice about twisting facts.

[

The Tasmanian Greens are certainly do not favour poisoning and are seeking to ban 1080 being used in their state. The NSW branch do not seem to feel the same and have no policy that I can find in this matter. If they are against hunting then there is no other real option to try and control feral pigs but baiting. You cant have it both ways.

The NSW Greens website says "the control of feral animals ...must be carried out with minimal suffering". This is somewhat at odds with your claim that "The Greens seem to favour poisoning - a terribly cruel form of death in anybodies language and they seem to want to twist the facts and outright lie to persecute a group of people who give their time to help control a feral pest."

The Greens seem to favour poisoning - a terribly cruel form of death in anybodies language and they seem to want to twist the facts and outright lie to persecute a group of people who give their time to help control a feral pest.

Do you have a reference for this? I couln't find any when checking out Greens policy on feral animals.

I sugest we send the Greens in to flush out the pigs. I would even pay the government a ticket price to watch that.

I'd pay for that. Send in the PETA people and the Babe lovers too ...

go give the nice wild sow with a litter a cuddle then ... oh look there's her boyfriend! Go give him a cuddle too! *sit back and watch the show*

Hard to see you getting any fence-sitters onside with these sorts of comments.

Most wedding receptions are stupid displays of extravagance.

Mine wasn't. It was a modest, tasteful affair.

I think the owner just wanted 15 minutes of fame for herself and didn't have anything else to offer the world but an expensive dog A terrible waste of money when there are people and, indeed, animals living in appalling circumstances, particularly Japan, as Dogmad pointed out.

Folk might like price the average cost of a Japanese wedding. ;)

It was her money

What are people really objecting to? The fact that someone can afford to indulge themselves to the tune of 20,000 pounds or the fact that they spent it on their dog?

Would it be less objectionable if she'd bought herself a cruise on the Queen Mary or bought a nicer home?

The quote you are wholly attributing to me is only half mine, Poodlefan. But in any event, I object to stupid displays of extravagance.

I think the owner just wanted 15 minutes of fame for herself and didn't have anything else to offer the world but an expensive dog wedding. When she put her make up on she should've drawn a big L on her forehead at the same time. Horrible waste of money.

Does the 'L' stand for loser, PS? I'd be even more unkind and suggest "FW" for her forehead. A terrible waste of money when there are people and, indeed, animals living in appalling circumstances, particularly Japan, as Dogmad pointed out.