~Anne~

All I see is zest and spit and not much else.

In fact, they would possibly be the logical ones. Don't they handle some dog/cat welfare things laready such as importation or am I getting their role confused? In my personal opinion, it must be Federal or at least Australia wide. The State vs State thing already causes too many issues.

Another issue with DPI is that it is State, not Federal. Each State would be adminsitered differently. Interesting that no-one has offered anything else. I guess it is easier to criticise than to think about the implications of the cristicisms perhaps?

I used it as a rinse before on my dogs without any issue. It was a very weak solution though. I have never had any problems with communications with the Odour-go email system. Each time I have placed an order, the response has been within hours and the bottle delivered within days. I might give the odour blocks a go although my dogs would eat them if I had then anywhere they could get to them. VJB - was it you that had all the trial scents sent to them?? If so, which scent do you find the most pelasant. I usually always order talc but I might trial another. Apple sounds nice. What do you think?

I've worked for several Vets, each with a different process, and I have delivered frozen bodies to the RSPCA's Yagoona shelter when the Vet I worked for the NSW President of the RSPCA. Yagoona incinerates. One Vet delivered the bodies to Yagoona, one Vet had a contractor collect and another left it to his staff to drive the Hi-Lux to the local tip to dump them illegally. It was set up with the operators of the tip and as we drove it, we waited for the grater driver to acknolwedge us and point to where we had to dump. They then came over and covered the bodies immediately. Awful business.

Not sure the Gov would like PI to administer and police it though as it means they would have to find the budget for resources. One reason why the Gov would be sitting back on the issue having the RSPCA administering it is because it saves them $. It does seem illogical and fraught with issues that an organisation that relies on charity and fundraising has to supply resources to administer something so important.

This is exactly what is needed and it will happen..... it is just a matter of when I would think. Yes, this has happened to me. The reason why I know this happened was the person who won the tender surrendered the Pug to me approx 5-6 days later with it's eye hanging from the socket! The injury occured when her existing dog attacked the Pug. She handed over all the paperwork she had for him, including her purchase receipt from Blacktown. I queried the amount she paid as I noticed it was only about $10 more than my tender and her receipt included admin and vacc fee. She confirmed the amount of her original tender and it was less than mine.

For those who believe the RSPCA is filled with incompetent employees, little knowledge, and plans to take over the animal welfare world for ill gotten gains, *who* do you think could fulfill or administer animal welfare related laws such as POCTAA? Genuine question.

The tender system favours the bybs who can put in a large tender bec they know they can recoup the cost in the first litter. The tender system can't be looked at in isolation - it needs to be looked at in conjunction with compulsory desexing. Dogs should be available for a set price which includes desexing, m'chipping, vaccinations etc. As it stands at the moment, people might win a tender and not know if there will be space on the free desexing program - if there's not, then the adoptor is paying a higher price for registration (bec the dog is entire), and then has to pay for desexing once the dog is out of the pound. It's hard to encourage people to adopt from a pound using a tender system, when they have a number of hoops to jump through to adopt a dog. Adoptions would be higher if all the work was done, and people knew the amount of the adoption expense involved. And the fact they have no guarantee that the dog they have chosen and often visited at least once, if not several times, will be able to be purchased by them. The tender system is a no win system for everyone, except Council. You have to gamble. I am not a gmabler and I hated the thought of gambling. I sat there often deliberately how much I should write down on my tender. How ludicrous. If I put this much, will someone else go higher? If I put this, and no-one else tenders, will I be wasting valuable money I could put towards another rescue dog? It is a stupid, inadequate and revolting way to sell any animal.

The other fatal flaw of tender systems is that dogs become commodities. The highest bid wins, not the best home wins. The other issue is that it is also a silent tender. As I didn't have a clause exemption, to get a Pug from Blacktown I had to tender. If it was an undesexed Pug, my biggest concern would be that it would go out and be bred from. I could put a bid for $200 or more on a Pug, but I have no idea if anyone else had also bid. If I won the bid I paid the $200 plus their vacc and admin fee and a fee to register an entire dog if it wasn't desexed (if it wasn't already currently registered) plus chip (if it wasn't chipped). However, if no-one else bid then I could have only bid the minimum which is currently $60. When you are bidding to rescue, that difference of quite a few hundred dollars can be rough on your budget. To prove the tender system allows the dog to go to 'any' home which may not be suitable, I have had 3 Pugs that I have bid on at Blacktown and lost the bid, only to have them surrendered to me. Two were surrendered within weeks, one within months. If that doesn't indicate the system fails the dog, what else does.

I must say I agree with this. It has always been difficult for me thinking along the evolution form wolves line when I look at Pugs. They are so far removed from wolves it isn't funny. I am more interested in the modern dog and the theories around them.

How sad. It seems someone's ineptitude was responsible for the needless death of a horse. What causes this 'windsucking' thing?

Self congratulatory posts are always slightly nauseating.

Thank dog others also laughed. How absurd. :D

Most dogs handle disabilities incredibly well. Sadly, there will always be those who don't though. I know of one little Pug that became very withdrawn with sudden onset blindness. His life became one filled with terror. He was sent to rainbow bridge as his life was not a happy one. :D In having said that, I have had many Pugs come through that were blind or had lost the greater majority of their vision. They were all happy little Pugs. I have even had one that was almost 100% deaf and was blind, Navey. He lived most of his life in a backyard on his own until he came into rescue at 8 years of age. Navey is now one very spoilt little Pug that is living the life of luxury in the tropics of Port Douglas. We have also had two Pugs in that were deaf. Marley and Gizmo were both deaf, but both very settled and confident dogs. Cookie was another disabled dog we had come through. Cookie had deformed front legs and this caused her to walk with them splayed completely out to the sides. She still managed to jump up on things, go up and down steps and do every thing a dog would do. She did all of these things even after she was hot by a car and had her hip and hind leg smashed as well! Here is Cookie.

Glad to hear she has found her spring again. A sad Pug is a really sad sight. She looks to have a very deep chest Huga?? I had a girl in once whose chest looked like that and her ribs came almost to a point together. Is this what Lola has?? The little girl I had was papered though and the rib cage was just an abnormality.

She never does as she prefers emails. [email protected]

Now your statement is clearly irrational. I have never said everyone who has issues with the way the RSPCA does things is irrational, emotional (or invalid), ranting or jumping on bandwagons. You are responding and quoting my posts so I assume you are aiming these points at me. The bigger hilarity is that clearly, many take my posts as supporting the RSPCA, so they have to keep refuting my arguments. Hence it seems to me anyway. Otherwise, why is it that I can't put an opinion forward on what a fellow DOLer thinks (in this case Chocolatelover) and explain to them why I think that people don't like the RSPCA on this forum without being continually questioned, and my arguments refuted? There IS an overwhelming sense of irationality and biased opinion on DOL with regard to the RSPCA. That can't be denied. I believe in the context of the OPs subject, they are based on emotion and without fact. To me, they seem irrational. Funny you should say that since the very first posting I made on this thread I feel as though I've been shouted down and insulted just because I don't support the RSPCA. This is my point. A little respect on all sides would go a long way. I don't think I've disrespected anyone's point of view or posted irrationally and my opinions about the RSPCA are based on my own research and rational thinking. It is highly insulting to be told I am incapable of rational thought just because I have specific and very legitimate objections to the RSPCA. You take debates to personally Spotty. I have not called you irrational or even suggested you are incapable of irrational thought. Anyway, I am bowing out. The debate is now becoming about who said what and the focus of discussion is being lost. I don't want to argue you with you Spotty and if you think I have dissed you then I am sorry for making you think that.

To illustrate irrational and or emotional statements made I have copied and pasted from page one only; And I could keep posting. That is not to say there is anything *wrong* with any of the statements above, people are merely expressing their opinions as they are entitled to. But the fact still remains that the RSPCA are targetted here. There is nothing wrong with that in all reality, hence I was trying to explain to Chocolatelover the reasons why it occurs on here, but it is off putting to your average folk though. Anyone who supports the RSPCA has known for a long time, not to mention their views on DOL because they will be shouted down.

I don't quite understand this statement. Respect for whom or what?

Steve, when all is said and done, you can put all the counter arguments up you like and the impression across the board will still be very similar to "you can't have rational or reasoned arguments on DOL regarding the RSPCA". The evidence is here in blue, grey and black on this forum. Good grief, there are even breeders with signatures that slag off the RSPCA. It is natural for people who have had experiences that may not have been positive with the RSPCA to view everything about them in a tainted light. The same happens with breeders. One person may have a bad experience and so they taint the lot with the same brush. For people who think breeders are bad, they would find it very, very difficult to ever be able to discuss the good breeders ratioanlly or even at all. Human nature is human nature. The RSPCA's biggest downfall is the fact that they answer to no-one and they have too many conflicting roles or roles that may potentially conflict. Their biggest assest is the fact that they are a massive organisation with a lot of power, knowledge and ability. No-one is denying anyone the ability to talk about the things they stuff up but, as shown in this thread, the immediate reaction is based on emotional distaste and without fact by most. Rationality and emotions don't mix.

PM Troy before naming. I think that he can be made liable for allowing businesses to be dissed but I am not sure. Best to check directly with him first. Good job on the reporting too!

Glad to hear it was nothing serious.

Irecognise that ailments do not 'follow typical fashion' showdog, hence why I made the statement that it could be anything. P.S I too have a lost a dog to bloat.

Yes, I totally agree with this statement. I am a fence sitter with the issue of the RSPCA. I acknowledge there are issues, but I am also not afraid to acknowledge the good they do.