mita

Thanks heavens it's not nation-wide. only Victoria. They must've updated the daily exercise requirements because what was laid down in the original draft would break the welfare law in my state. The other weak spot was their grasp of what constitutes socialization. Very superficial 'practices' were set out for socializing puppies ... & if I remember correctly, there were even optional elements about it. You can't be optional about a necessity. No consideration was given to fact that the socialization of puppies is also connected to the extent of socialization of the mother dogs. Yet they had the research paper which pointed to this, in their References. But seems no one read it or understood it or it was too 'hard'. Not surprising, then, that both the Australian Veterinary Association & the RSPCA are finding 'welfare' holes in the guidelines. Thanks for that info, silentchild.

Dr Harry once visited a nursing home for elderly nuns in Brisbane. Their pet therapy dog was a greyhound. The nuns said that the grey was a perfect pet ... sweet & gentle & could reach his head onto their beds & chairs for pats & cuddles. Not the Brisbane grey, but this one, Shiner, is a pet therapy dog who visits a retirement home for nuns in San Francisco. Shiner's a rescued, retired racing greyhound. The pic says it all: (click, enlarge)

I looked up their Facebook Page. Best Friends Fur Ever Rescue. They have some lovely dogs for adoption. I specially like Merle & the Shar Pei X. They raise funds by making lovely dog coats, too. One post makes the point that the council tolerates puppy farms in the area. But seems an organization rescuing dogs is a target. https://www.facebook.com/BestFriendFurEverRescue

Yes. Or it may be a would be first time dog owner who wants to spend a lot of time with their dog that would be alone part of the day and was asking for advise. However they may look elsewhere for advise after being called names..... I had a neighbour with 2 Weimaraners in a tiny unit.He was very committed to his dogs and made it work. Note that people have said....'sounds like'. They haven't said 'is'. The anonymity of the Net makes actual identification impossible. Having said that, I stick to my original assessment about the signs of cognitive 'youth'. And stuff.... please, please, please. So my opinion stays the same. Note.... 'opinion'. You're entitled to yours & to stay with the giving of advice.

Yes.

Don't sound very old, either.

Having read about this Victorian code on breeding, in previous threads ... my opinion was that it's about serving a business model, not an animal welfare model.. I was appalled by some of the guidelines in that code.... this is just one more.. There were rearing practices allowed that fly in the face of research. I remember remarking that they even ignored the findings in one of the papers listed in their own References.... Doesn't surprise me that they've failed to consult with the RSPCA Vic on this proposed change re number of litters. Why would they consult with an animal welfare body when their purpose is to facilitate profitable 'businesses'? They've made puppy farming practices 'respectable' in Victoria by embracing them in the law.

FB, are there any Australian-French online newspapers. bulletin boards etc that this boy's need for an appreciative home could be listed on?

Airedaler, your post was spot on.

The critical words are 'could be' ... in relation to the condition that is said to be possibly due to 'trauma'. 'Could be' is not definitive. Seems there's no hard evidence to say 'This particular condition, occurring in this particular dog, IS caused by trauma.' Can't see any responsibility by the breeder, in this case.

That's understood... the assessment of appearance links a dog to a 'breed' that has been banned. Those breeds have been banned because of a belief that such dogs are inherently dangerous. And... again, understood.... those breed bans are enshrined in the law. Given that 'mixes' are included in the Qld legislation, that broadens the variety of dogs that 'someone' decides to classify as pitbull. based on conformation (appearance) 'markers. And, accordingly, must be inherently & invariably dangerous. All of this against a backdrop of scientific evidence which doesn't support such a conclusion being predictive of actual danger.... pointing, rather, in the direction of an individual dog's behavioral history/current assessment.

You're right, mel. Thoroughly lacking in any scientific base. It's as primitive as how they used to identify 'witches' by the shape of moles, and 'criminals' by the kind of bumps on their head. Every reputable body now says.... it's behavioral history/assessment that counts, not breed. American & Australian Veterinary Associations , for starters. Even RSPCA Qld says it's deed, not breed. I'm appalled at the level of ignorance that an elected Council has shown in Brisbane. Even more appalling to me, is this sentence: Both council veterinary officers and the head of veterinary science at the University of Queensland assessed him as a pit-bull. What is UQ doing adding input to a process that the Veterinary Associations don't recognize?

Yes, link here. Bonus is lovely pic of a recent rescued Cav, Buddy, with his new sibling. http://www.cavaliersnsw.com/index.asp?ID=15

I'm glad you did. :) Lovely pic. I like how the two of them are colour co-ordinated.

Just to illustrate what you've said, RP. Not suggesting a Tibetan Spaniel! But here's a baby Tibetan Spaniel being introduced for the first time to the resident cat. The Tibbie is accepting of a new 'friend'... but, baby that he is, he still takes his cues carefully from the puss. Puss is relaxed at first, but does a 'Watch it, buddy!' warning. But pup keeps showing he means no harm.... just would like to play. Little tail wags & he lies in a relaxed starfish pose. After a period of that... puss relaxes back. You get the feeling, this pair will be fine.

Just to enjoy. Not suggesting you get a Tibetan Mastiff. But the owners on this site tell how they did research at first re how TMs got on with cats. They said that breeders told them that if the TMs had early socialisation with cats, things would be fine. So they got TMs that fitted this from breeders who owned cats.... & have a bunch of gorgeous photos to show the results: http://www.dorisanddodger.co.uk/#/tms-and-cats/4534013159

Yes, that'd be a good start , mel. Is there anything in the legislation that says muzzling & signage should be an immediate, urgent requirement? Like in this case, where there's sufficient evidence of deliberate attack on innocent dogs & their owners who were behaving within the law.? Those two requirements would contribute to community safety, while more detailed assessment was happening. If it's not in the legislation, it ought to be. Same principle that a damaged building must be immediately buttressed and signage warnings put on the perimeter.... to protect passing public. Not unless the Council has declared the dogs to be dangerous, menacing or restricted. Or if they negotiated a control order with that requirement, but it would need to be signed off in the courts before it would actually be required. So, mel, the public get protected from immediately obvious dodgy buildings.... but not from immediately obvious dodgy dogs. It'd be good if the legislation was altered to allow Councils to slap on an immediate, temporary control order re muzzling & signage. That is, pending the outcome of further investigations & then relevant application of the legislation for permanent solution. The temporary measures might be lifted. applied in the long-term, or other solutions put in place.

Yes, that'd be a good start , mel. Is there anything in the legislation that says muzzling & signage should be an immediate, urgent requirement? Like in this case, where there's sufficient evidence of deliberate attack on innocent dogs & their owners who were behaving within the law.? Those two requirements would contribute to community safety, while more detailed assessment was happening. If it's not in the legislation, it ought to be. Same principle that a damaged building must be immediately buttressed and signage warnings put on the perimeter.... to protect passing public.

Interesting things happens with black dogs. My father once spent considerable time entertaining bemused people walking by on the footpath. In the night gloom he was calling our black BC X. Peter, whom he saw sitting at the front of the neighbour's garden. And couldn't figure out why the usually biddable Peter wouldn't come. He got more & more frustrated. Until someone pointed out that he was talking to the neighbour's letter box.

I agree with one of your points. I don't believe the woman has got off 'scott free'... especially in relation to financial cost. Where I differ is that there's enough reason for the dogs to be declared 'dangerous dogs' ... in respect to their demonstrated behaviour if circumstances lead to their getting out again. You say that NSW law would then require her to build secure runs that she clearly cannot afford. Which appears to be a fact. However, that leaves these dogs at risk for doing damage in the future. Because their situation remains exactly the same as what allowed this horrible incident to happen. Members of the public who live in the area.... & who walk their dogs past that house... remain at the same level of risk that HW and her dogs innocently faced. The owner cannot guarantee there'd never be a 'slip' again. I believe that those passing dog walkers need to be made aware of that. The simple signage. 'Dangerous Dogs' on the gate would alert people. I'd avoid like poison walking my dogs past a house with that Council-required sign. You say that the Gosford Council can exercise discretion. And so not require her to build containment runs that she can't afford. OK, why can't they exercise discretion by requiring a Caution: Dangerous Dogs sign be placed on her gate? To meet the Council's obligation towards the general community. To fit the NSW law, could the sign use the terminology, 'Danger: Menacing Dogs'? Quite true.... because the situation remains dangerous. I'd be furious if I lived in the area & found out that it was being 'air-brushed' by the Council as if it didn't exist.

Double post

Frankly, it's not just a matter to be discussed with the owner of these dogs.... it's a matter for all community members who live & walk in her area. That section of the public need to know there's a pair of dogs that are bloody dangerous to passing dogs on leads & to their owners... if there's any hitch in containment. Predictably so, because it's already happened, with evidence. Don't know what the details are in NSW... but in Brisbane, a clear sign gets put on the fence. 'Dangerous Dog'. A good alert to people walking dogs, to consider giving that house/street a wide berth. In fact, the public has a right & a need to know. So some local media publicity on those lines would be useful. If the Council does not take steps to alert people of possible danger from these dogs, based on their history, then it's failing its duty of care re public safety.

It's known the dogs are dangerous because they already acted dangerously, causing documented injury to other dogs & a person. It's not hearsay. There's evidence of what happened. Again.... it's a truism 'The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.' Given a similar owner 'slip up' in monitoring & management, it's predictable that these dogs will do the same thing again. So the community has a vested interest in something firm being done about this owner & her dogs. Council animal management is supposed to be in the interests of community safety. Do you have an independent body in NSW the same as the Q'ld Civil & Admininstrative Review Tribunal? People can challenge government & local government decisions that they disagree with. Interestingly, 'animal management' is given on their website as one of the areas that can be challenged.

30 very good reasons to be happy. :)

You're right. This is a clear case of why deed not breed is at the heart of public safety. Another 'slip up' and those dogs will do it again. Best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Breed is not predictive of an individual dog's behaviour. Apart from the horror that HW & the greys had to go thro', those dogs pose a community problem. Which is why mel's post makes sense to me.