shel

JB will be dying with excitement right about now Yellow Dog Day pics!

Oh noes!! Don't think it's dampening the spirits too much (I hope!) Though the yellow dogs look a bit damp!

Its on as we speak - Sydney just got a wee bit wet, but clearing now. Melbourne is cold but unbelievably upbeat. Brisbane is sunny and cute! Edited to add; I've just added some more pics! Yellow Dog Day page

Brisbane, Reddacliff Place (Brisbane Square) Near Cnr Queen Street and George St Melbourne, Southbank near Southgate Sydney, Wynyard Park, At the York St entrance to Wynyard Station Watch PetRescue for updates!

Resisting BSL is a fight, having it repealed is a process. But it being repealed is a certainty. The laws are being repealed in other countries because they are really, really, really, really, really, really expensive to enforce and defend, and then the public start asking why other dogs are still hurting people and musing that maybe all that money could be spent on things that actually work? This is the kind of legislation that effects a lot of people, who think quite innocently that it won't effect them. It might be experiencing first hand the huge loss associated with losing their own mixed 'bull breed'. Or it might be growing movement of the owners of the hundreds of dogs that have been seized who've done nothing wrong. Or it might be ongoing problems with identification tying up the courts and costing councils and tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's these that make the legislation untenable. We've already seen the 'creep' that is unavoidable with BSL. The Amstaff, Staffy, Ridgey, Boxery breed creep. But the more this happens, the more expensive it gets and the more people start rejecting the idea. Especially as people keep getting hurt by dogs, and resources which could be spent on genuine prevention get tied up in chasing a 'pit bull boogieman'. BSL is a knee-jerk that eventually has to come back to a more reasonable baseline. That is, those laws that target irresponsible owners, rather than breed. Unfortunately, while all of this happens, we will watch really damaging laws take hold and hundreds of thousands of innocent people's, innocent pets be killed. If you want to see how these things play out, spend some time reading the BSL section of KC Dog blog Not a lost cause. Just the usual Australia vs the rest of the world, couple of decades of lag.

Labradoodles and other oodles: The problem isn’t ‘impurity’ - Pet Connection blog

Depends. Here's 'Australia's largest' shelter Some are running closer to no kill. Totally depends.

Hey T, Do you have that article? I'd be really interested in getting a copy. Ta! :)shel

There's not one 'right' answer in situations like this. The dogs don't 'deserve' to die. That's a very human way to assess the situation. If the dogs have dog aggression, then they can be assessed for dog aggression. Prey or pack behaviour is a management issue, not a reason for euthanasia. This owner just got a new dog and the cycle gets to start again. There has to be an enforceable ban on people who have shown they can't keep their pets safe. Unfortunately, the whole discussion is mute. These dogs will be killed is because they are at the Lost Dogs Home and will be deemed a 'pit bull' crosses. Dr Smith made it quite clear that his opinion was that these guys were pit bulls.

In order to get BSL repealed, a large section of the community would have to understand why it fails to make the community safer. Some would have to experience first hand the huge loss associated with it, by losing their own pet, or one that they know that was seized who'd done nothing wrong. The media would need to stop beating up attacks by 'pit bulls' (especially where the breed is misidentified) and start reporting the true nature of the risks associated with interacting with any breed of dog. So it's a process. We don't just 'change the law' and then hope with crossed fingers nothing happens. We educate the next generation of dog owners on dog safety. We increase support services to owners, focusing on 'at risk' pets. We work with the media to try and make them more aware of the problems their sensational approach is causing. We work with our local politicians to try and educate them on the services they could be providing to the community to reduce dog attacks. While we do all of this, unfortunately, we will watch really damaging laws take hold and hundreds of thousands of innocent pets die. But it's a flare up of action that eventually has to come back to a baseline. The laws are being repealed in other countries because they are really, really, really, really, really, really expensive to enforce and defend, and then the public start asking why other dogs are still hurting people and musing that maybe, just maybe all that money could be spent on things that actually work. It's a process. But educating people is getting easier every day. If you want to see how these things play out, spend some time reading the BSL section of KC Dog blog

Tybrax your website is excellent http://www.victimsofbsl.com/home.htm More info on Tango http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/featu...6-1225804507090

Only the Victorian government could be so nonsensical as to drive a new law to curtail roaming dogs, by using a dog attack that took place in the home.

My car is denty. And my usually non-storm phobic dog had to be locked in cupboard... poor old chicken! http://twitpic.com/1afx9w Hail http://twitpic.com/1a7nd1

How hard this must be for you! Just heartbreaking. What advice have your behaviorists given you? Have they been able to suggest management techniques, or given you any advice whether your situation is going to get worse or better? I'd want and have expected a plan on how best to manage his behaviour long term with a priority on keeping everyone safe. Really coaching you through this process.

Ugly, ugly stuff http://www.blacktownsun.com.au/news/local/...en/1777712.aspx Don't kill my mate

Lols... actually on reflection, it's pretty terrible. Funny that our standards for 'good' for celebrity dog comment is: "well, he didn't say set them on fire... so WIN!" :rolleyes:

Agreed. He told people to stick their fingers up the nose of dogs that are fighting ( ) but other than that, I thought he did a great job.

Toilet paper. Definitely.

And... Take the little threats seriously. As mentioned by others, this probably hasn't happened in isolation. If those dogs are owned by a nitwit, they have likely done other things that would be 'red flags' to animal management that they were a danger to others. Rather than just zap the owner into financial oblivion once someone has been fatally injured, why not give the little signs the gravity they deserve? There are models that do work to reduce dog attacks but it means being proactive, rather than reactive. After the fact punishment, doesn't reduce dog attacks, because they've already happened. More solutions from Calgary (video) Edited to add: Watch the video. The centrepiece of Calgary's model is for animal management to develop a relationship with its community that promotes responsible ownership and builds trust - and offers them a service for their $. Rather than see the public as an enemy to be coerced with more laws, more fines and more dranconian pet ownership criteria.

For the Council to issue a dangerous dog order, the horse owner will have needed to make a formal complaint about the dog roaming. There absolutely are fines for roaming dogs. Are they enough? Worth examining maybe, though I expect at least some thought went into them. There is no precedent that Council act as 'judge and jury' in a civil matter. A ranger (or Council) can't say to someone, you must pay this person X. Its completely outside the scope of their authority. While it seems 'fair' that the dog owner pay the horse owner damages, it's a matter for civil court. There has to proof presented in a formal way. As stated in the original article, the Council can impound the dog if it's not secured properly. Does this guy have a perfect adequate enclosure, but the dogs got let out somehow? No one knows. We're only getting one side of the story in the article. If the dogs get out again (proving there is a genuine problem with confinement) then they can be seized. During an attack, the property owner is able to protect themselves 'person who owns the property is legally entitled to injure or destroy the dog to prevent it from further harassing or killing'. After the event however until the paperwork is sorted, in the eyes of the Council the dog owner has just as many rights as the horse owner. Boring I know, but hey, we decided to have a democracy where government officials can't just go around doing whatever the hell they like to the public (unless you're in Victoria, where they'll be packing guns and shooting strays). Even if we got the most draconian, the most wizz-bang fine-based, impoundment heavy law we're still going to have a frustrating lapse between when the person was wronged and when we have all the authorities through to prosecute the owner. Such is the governmental solution. ..... Its worth noting that usually in these cases it's a problem with 'enforcement of existing law' rather than the need for stronger laws. Strengthening existing laws when the problem is actually enforcement, brings about a weird schizophrenic result where the law is completely not enforced... then enforced so heavily as to be seen to be unfair. Everyone has the right to live safe from roaming dogs. If you have a problem in your town it probably isn't that you don't have enough laws, it's that the community hasn't demanded from council that animal management are well resourced and enforcing incrementally existing laws. Nipping the problem in the bud, so to speak.

To quote the original article: Which part of this isn't strict enough in your opinion?

It's fine if we want legislation which means impoundment and death for dogs who stray and cause other people/pets problems. We can have whatever kind of 'justice' we desire. But when so much time is spent fighting legislation that makes it harder to be a pet owner, we must realise we can't chop and choose. We can't get hysterical when the media reports 'pitbull attacks', then be unhappy when the government passes BSL and starts killing our dogs. We can't get hysterical when the media reports 'people being rushed', then be unhappy when the government dreams up crazy legislation like 'public muzzling' and 'anti-fence running' law and starts killing our dogs. We can't get hysterical when the media reports 'stock being attacked', then be unhappy when, when our dogs get loose we have no recourse because there are no longer any second chances... and now our dogs - us! The good people who shouldn't have this law applied to them! are having our dogs killed. Why can't we learn that when we try and dream up ways to punish the 'horrible awful' owners, history says the only one who suffers is the dogs?

You've just described a dog that chases other animals. Not a stock killing dog. And therein lays the problem. Whose dog wouldn't chase and kill another animal. I have both, one I think probably wouldn't and one who I know would. If I f*ck up and my dog gets out, chases and kills someones cat, I expect the council to be around on my door step slapping a dangerous dog order on me. I would also expect to be taken to small claims court for any veterinary fees by the cat owner... that's if I didn't go around, apologise and see if there was something I could do to begin to make amends. Would my dog deserve to die? I think as long as it never, ever gets the chance to happen again, then no benefit comes from killing it. Am I a 'bogan' who would inflame the situation by being insensitive? No; but there's no law you can create that applies only to people who are insensitive bogans. It's all very well waving pitchforks and baying for blood, but when you 'toughen up' these laws, they don't just target 'those horrible owners', but everyone equally. Suddenly people who made a very grave error in losing their animal one day, are having their pet seized and destroyed. Which is fine unless it's you.

Adding the survey details in as it's now been taken down: http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:Pioe2...lient=firefox-a Department of Primary Industries The Victorian Government is preparing to introduce legislation to toughen laws around dangerous dogs and your view is important. Please let us know what you think about dangerous dogs by answering the questions and providing your comments on this online survey. If a stray dog is suspected by a council officer to be a danger to the public by virtue of its size, breed or disposition and it is also not registered – should councils have the power to immediately seize and destroy the dog? If a dog has already been declared a “dangerous dog” by a council and it is found at large should councils be able to seize it and immediately destroy it? Should there be a penalty for possession of an unregistered dog, and what should that penalty be? Should medical practitioners or hospitals be required to report any dog bites to the Government Chief Medical Officer or the Police or Councils? Should restricted breed (i.e. pit bull) owners be able to keep their animal only if its de-sexed and muzzled when off the property and registered or should they all be destroyed? Do you have any further comments you would like to make?

Obviously this is awful for this poor horse owner. She has my sympathies. If a dog gets out and is reported for attacking, the owners are served with a dangerous dog order. The owners then have to secure it per all the dangerous dog restrictions. Also, the dog owners are able to be sued for loss or trauma through civil means. The law is adequate. The owner is punished (living under a dangerous dog order is no walk in the park) Would we rather that the dog was automatically impounded and killed in retaliation? Be careful what you wish for...