mita

Seems audio & video records of law enforcement are commonplace these days. We talked about that when the JG case first came up.

I've read the Animal Care & Protection Act Qld (2001) with its description of the responsibility chain for RSPCA Inspectors to the chief executive of the relevant government dpt. And with its setting out of subsequent review & appeals processes, both internal & external. With the addition of appeals via the external body QCAT (Qld Civil & Administrative Tribunal) set up by legislation in 2009. I'm satisfied with this Qld situation, so won't be signing the petition.

A little less hysteria & a bit more education. We have a legal system with checks & balances. Go back a few posts & see that Victoria has a Law Reform Commission (as do other states). Individuals & groups can bring to their attention, problems they perceive/experience as a result of laws in their current form. Stating ad nauseum... the letter of the current Victorian law, re debarking, was followed in JG's case. The RSPCA followed each letter of the law. Which that law requires them to do. (There's no wriggle room written into it, of first priority in intervention being an educative role ...as the much later Qld law allows.) First thing I did, was to go read that Victorian law. And found that was so. Right down to the fact that animals don't have to be distressed or disabled to be seized under the Victorian law. They are described among 'things' that can be taken away for evidence. So there was collective horror to many dog people (including me) in how all this letter of the law actually plays out in reality. A poorly worded law that lumps debarking & tail-docking in together....prohibited. And proceeds to apply the same penalty, in that there's a 2nd offence if the dogs are purebreds which are shown. Totally overlooking the fact that a docked-tail has consequence for conformation when exhibited in the show-ring. But a pitch-lowered (debarked) dog has no consequence for the showring... unless it's expected to sing opera at a volume rate to fill the Myer Music Bowl. And totally missing the point that it's restricted procedures they're dealing with....even tho'. elsewhere. the law indicates the circumstances, processes & procedures under which they can be done. Left hand not realising what the right hand is writing, and confusing people in the process.

Yes. Exactly the same thing applies to many human conditions. There's far, far less than 100% knowledge about nature, prevention & cure of all conditions in humans. So why has this expectation grown up that it's somehow negligent & irresponsible that conditions occur in dogs, to which there is no current easy answer??? Except winging it with protocols that do the best in the circumstances. All the pedigree dogs exposed stuff, never addressed that.

Sorry, Jed. We got our wires crossed. I was talking about the general public needing some PR directed to them re purebred dogs. I take your point about the particular forum member.

Here you go, SP. Victorian Law Reform Commission has a form that individuals or groups can fill in, re their concerns with a particular law. https://submit.justice.vic.gov.au/CA2569180...uggest?OpenForm Ah yes I did know about this- my brain is on holidays at the moment lol. Thanks for the link ! It's worth a shot..... Sure is, SP. Actually, the questions they ask you to speak to, are very sensible in ferreting out exactly what problem you've encountered with a law in its current form.

Yep, shortstep. Seems to be less hysteria in Norway, Sweden & Finland (my Annie's dad was Ch in all 3 She came from Sweden & is a brilliant example of her breed ) Scandanavians get down & do it....& evaluate when something is not working. They try to be evidence-based in their breeding policies, but also greatly respect experience. Also some sensible studies come from Denmark. I love the one where a bunch of pure breeds were found to come out tops in the longevity stakes. And one of those breeds was one that can set hysteria going among the purebreds exposed lobby. Dachshunds!

Here you go, SP. Victorian Law Reform Commission has a form that individuals or groups can fill in, re their concerns with a particular law. https://submit.justice.vic.gov.au/CA2569180...uggest?OpenForm

The public doesn't get told. There's no coordinated public relations efforts on behalf of purebred dogs. It's skilled PR that's catapaulted rescue dogs into the public consciousness.

Discrimination is pretty rife throughout our various Victorian dog laws. Eg. Dog #1 in Public Place - Microchipped and Council Reg'd. Not actually wearing Council Rego Tag on collar. Ka Ching! $240.00 Fine to that dog owner, thank you very much. Dog #2 in Public Place - Microchipped and Council Reg'd. Not actually wearing Council Rego Tag on collar. But has been shown at Dogs Victoria Sanctioned event in last 12 months. That's ok then. No fine to that dog owner. What?????

Some level-headed thinking about welfare issues & purebred dog breeding come out of Scandanavia (they seem less prone to hysteria than the UK). Neat paper prepared by the Norwegian Kennel Club & the Clinical Sciences section of the Norwegian Vet School. http://www.actavetscand.com/content/50/S1/S6 (I just patted my tibbie girl on the head, she came from Scandanavia & her dad was a Norwegian Champion! )

SP, I also think there's civil liberties issues in the playing out of this legislation. When I first read the legislation, I had to keep checking if I'd read correctly. If a dog is illegally debarked in Victoria, then the owner has committed an offence. But if that is a showdog, which is then 'exhibited', that attracts a further offence. This seems like discrimination to me. Same offence, but non-showdogs walking around don't attract a 2nd offence. However, showdogs walking around a showring, do.

Jed's got a good point that something weird happens in the world of pure-bred dog breeding. Responsible, knowledgeable breeders put their heads together to deal with a problem that can turn up in their breed. They cooperate with researchers to get more reliable information on the nature of the problem & possible screening. And nothing lends itself better for research than the registering of purebred dogs across & thro' generations. Researchers at Sydney Uni, delving into diseases that commonly affect humans & dogs, rave about what this opens up for them in tracking & controlling conditions. I still have the article from The Australian where these researchers did their raving in praise of purebred dog breeding. So work like this in purebreds is well reported. Then a funny thing happens... the particular breed gets branded as the sole source of that problem. You know, like labradors & hip dysplasia.... But, as one of the best US researchers pointed out. Other breeds, mixed-breeds & cats get hip dysplasia, too. Purebred dog breeding, & its benefits, need to be better conveyed to the public. Best person I've heard talking about purebred dog breeding was a Victorian Rottie breeders on Radio National. She was talking about the Vic Dogs pet therapy team. The interviewer expressed surprise that....gasp! a Rottie visited elderly people. The breeder gave the best summarised explanation of what went into the healthy, well socialised breeding of purebred dogs, like her Rotties. Bloody brilliant...she was articulate & sounded like a thorough caring professional. But who would have heard her, tucked away for 15 minutes on Radio National?

We're not alone in being confused by the Vic law about debarking dogs. There's an excellent website, Rural Law Online, which provides a guide to the law for Victorian primary producers. This site only says this: It's an offence to debark a dog except on the advice of a veterinary surgeon. Says nothing about ...BUT if you live near the state border & go to vet in NSW, then it IS an offence. Even tho' that vet's work is fine under NSW law. So any poor soul following this well-intended info, would find themselves in exactly the same position as JG did. The site requests feedback. Someone should tell them. http://www.rurallaw.org.au/handbook/xml/ch04s02s03.php

Yes, to 1....dogs should be kept away from the front fenceline and the passing parade. Which they believe they're controlling. Yes, to 2. Our neighbour once helped a dog that was stuck by its collar on fence. The dog was terrified out of its wits & he got bitten. He said, in retrospect, he would've tried to get some 'padding' first to protect himself. But he acted instinctively. Yes, to 3. The postie saved a life.

aussie, the operations were done in NSW where they complied with the law in NSW. But the Victorian law says that debarking is illegal if it's done outside Victoria, & the owner is a resident of Victoria. (And extra penalty if that 'illegally' debarked dog is shown in Victoria.) So it's the Victorian owner, not the NSW vet, who has broken a law. The NSW vet is not subject to Victorian law, but the Victorian owner of the dog is subject to Victorian law.

Pet Friendly Rentals website was started by someone who nearly lost their pet, when faced with an accommodation crisis. AWL Qld used to have their own Gold Coast area data base, but also supports & recommends this site. Their own action research had told them that renting problems was one of the number of situations which could lead to a dog being surrendered. http://www.petfriendlyrentals.com.au/

The Victorian law is written in a way that would trip up a Rhodes Scholar. Who would ever think that getting a procedure done, in another State (NSW) & in accordance with the law of that State, would be an offence if you live in Victoria. That's the rub. Who would ever think, reading the Victorian law, that debarking is actually allowed in Victoria, but under a certain process...when the law initially states that it's a prohibited procedure in Victoria. Someone needs to tell them the wording should have been restricted procedure. The word RESTRICTED would tell people immediately that there are circumstances & a process which do allow it, legally, in Victoria....so go find it. Speaking from the safety of the Qld law, which says exactly that, I have an urge to send down some dictionaries to whomsoever framed that law. You've got a Green in the state Parliament in Victoria...tell them about the need for the Victorian law to be written more clearly.

You deserve the prize for identifying the central issue, Centitout. UQ research into the huge dumping rate, found that the reason which topped the list was that the the owners didn't think the dogs met their expectations. In other words, they had unrealistic expectations. UQ must have translated that finding into their screening for adoption from the UQ Adoption Program. Because when we adopted a puss from there, their screening contained questions of the type, 'what would you do, when....' or 'what would you do, if...'. indicating the kinds of situations that happen in real life with real pets. Unlike someone's fantasy life, whipped up by the emotional excitement about getting a new pet. Also the screening picked up on the fact that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. And the applicant's past history as a pet owner was sought, with documentation/evidence. I also agree with Anne's comments. It's a matter of figuring out strategies which reduce the risk of dogs being dumped. In the complexities of the real world of human beings, it's necessary to work at risk reduction. There's very helpful research findings to drawn on. Places like AWL Qld do this & it's the reason for their many insighful programs that specifically address the various risk factors associated with dogs being dumped.

I don't know if this will help you, but I just found the answer to a sensitive gut problem in my Tibbie girl, Annie. Last August, I gave her some dog treats...& around the same time, she started having liquidy or mucousy poops. This kept going on whenever I put kibble back in her diet. And also whenever the vets tried prescription kibbles. They did blood tests & even a scan....but nothing showed up. For a while, the vets were wondering if it could be chronic colitis or inflammatory bowel disease setting in. In the meantime, the vets gave her Metragyl for any upsets. But I agreed with them in trying diet first. Because it could be just a food intolerance set off by the highly processed treats. We went back to natural foods & sorted a simple diet that I find easy to get and prepare. Annie's been on it 6 days now & she's back to her normal self. Now the vets think it was just a food intolerance based on her being sensitive to the processed stuff in the treat....& then transferred to kibble. And I'm impressed with what a natural diet can do for a sensitive gut.

Onya, Ams. Also would the lovely Cav Rescue Qld ladies have any ideas/contacts?

I'm talking about comparisons of puppies sold in petshops with the optimal situation and age range for early socialisation. The kind of socialisation that's been found to link with less behavioral issues later on. Less chance of dumping. Petshop puppies would be just one of the situations where this optimal situation does not apply. For example, puppies from dogs kept in a 'farmed' environment (minimal human contact) also miss out in these optimal conditions. Even if they're kept with the mother dog throughout the critical period. I've argued that the general public needs to know what constitutes the best basis for a puppy to be bred & raised, so it's most likely to develop well later as a companion dog. Puppies being sold in pet stores lose out in length of time, mother contact & continuity. And prospective buyers have no idea of what conditions they've been exposed to beforehand. I've also argued that the relationship between a pet store & a breeder should only ever be as an agent & information centre. Prospective owners need to check for themselves how a puppy they're interested in has been raised. While breeders need to exercise the responsibility of placing their puppies carefully. So direct contact between a puppy buyer & an actual breeder is essential.

Another thread about the University of Qld that overlooks the fact that their veterinary clinical studies section, the Centre for Companion Animal Health, rescues pound dogs & cats and uses them in minimally invasive research studies. During that time they are housed in good accommodation & get playtime, socialisation & training. At the conclusion of the study, the dogs & cats are adopted to good homes. Desexed, microchipped, vaccinated and thoroughly vet checked. Our puss came from that University of Qld Adoption Program. Best socialised puss we've ever had. She was at the Uni for a year & had a ball, playing with 29 other cats in her program & having volunteers come in for playtime. The day I went to see the pusses, I was very impressed. 30 gorgeous cats in a special playroom & so well socialised with people after their 12 month stay. (They'd been in a study looking at effects of various diets.) I thought the program's screening of new owners, matching with pets & pre- and post- adoption support, were the best I've seen in rescue. I suggest that people circulating this petition do something proactive on behalf of the pound dogs & cats and circulate the current PetRescue listing of pets for adoption from the University of Qld. Help them find good homes. Yes, they're kept until the right home comes along (no PTS). And, yes, they do interstate adoptions. http://www.petrescue.com.au/search_by_member/?member=443

“What is clear from our data is that virtually any breed of dog can bite,” Durairaj said. “The tendency of a dog to bite is related to heredity, early experience, later socialization and training, health and victim behavior.” The keys to prevention are in that summary. The list of factors involved in whether a dog will tend to bite or not, are all controlled by humans: Selection of which dogs to breed from, the critical importance of the socialisation in early weeks of life (& the prior socialisation of the mother dog), training & further socialisation later, monitoring the dog's health (watching for signs of illness, pain or muscular-skeletal discomfort), supervision & training children how to behave around dogs. And watching babies & toddlers specially carefully. AWL Qld has an excellent program of child safety around dogs with one aspect teaching children how to recognise the warning signals when a dog is getting discomforted or feeling vulnerable. PetSense is free & downloadable. Also the kit can be ordered in hard copy. Spread it around & help make a difference. http://www.awlqld.com.au/petsense-program.html