Moselle

DITTO.

Unfortunately, your understanding is incorrect. AA, Peta and co. constantly push the image of sows in stalls without actually telling the facts about what is happening in THIS country. A bit like their campaigns against pedigree dog breeders - they are not interested in telling the full story or any of the reasons why certain practices are used. In Australia, 90% of sows only spend the first 4-6 weeks of their pregnancy in stalls. This is to allow them to be fed and cared for individually while the embryos implant and the pregnancy is established. They are then moved to group pens, where they fight vigorously to establish a dominance order, and they compete against each other for feed each day. Apparently most consumers believe this is more "welfare friendly", so now Aussie farmers will be phasing out all use of sow stalls. I guess all the extra injuries from sows fighting, not to mention all the miscarriages that will occur, will also be perceived as "welfare friendly"??? Farrowing crates are a different issue. They are necessary to prevent crushing of piglets. Sows only spend 3 weeks in them for each litter. Without them, piglet mortality from crushing ranges from 20 - 100% in any given litter. You should do a little more research on wild pigs ... in fact they also suffer high mortality from crushing. They farrow 8-10 piglets per litter, usually 4-5 survive. That may be acceptable in wild pigs, but everyone would be up in arms if we allowed those sorts of mortality rates in domestic livestock. Research has been going on for 20+ years to try to find an alternative to farrowing crates that allows acceptable survival rates for piglets - no one has found the solution so far. IT is all so puzzling. I am relieved to hear that sows are NOT confined to stalls for the entirety of their life but do sympathise with farmers having a battle on their hands due to high mortality rates of piglets and miscarriages. WHat has propelled the aussie farmer to phase out the use of stalls? Is it due to PETA?

By "free range" I mean it literally, there is a farmer that has a fair few chooks that roam under the great ozzie sun, he owns a couple of maremmas to keep the foxes at bay. I am not the one that bags the ozzie farmer albeit I am against live exporting mainly due to the fact that they are exported to countries with no standards in place for the humane treatment of animals. Pertaining to the treatment of pigs....my understanding was that pigs are made to live their short life in stalls and NOT only when it comes to sows raising their piglets. I am not so sure that I agree in that sow stalls are a "necessary evil"....due to sows squashing their young otherwise. I am of the belief that wild pigs seem to be coping alright with the reproduction side of things as with all other animals in the wild.

Decisions....who does want vote for to ensure that the votes are not passed onto either the Labor or LIberal party???

I quickly read Country Alliance's policies a few minutes ago....I must have missed the bit about live export....will be checking their policies again; it's obvious that there are pro's and con's with just about every political party! Decisions, decisions.....

;) I'll pitch in to buy him a pil popper. He certainly needs some Bex for his hysterics over the chiwi I don't get to watch the show but judging from what some of you are saying....what is the problem with a man showing his emotions? I find it endearing when a man has the balls to show his feelings instead of trying to be a macho prick all the time! Fancy poking ridicule at a bloke who has the balls to show the fact that he is a SENTIENT being after all

;)

You beat me to it, Steve.....I was actually thinking of asking you, in particular, if you could provide more info pertaining to the elections as so far as pet ownership is concerned. Thank you for the link....it has certainly answered my question! No labor party for moi!!! If there was no such thing as corruption I would have been all for the RSPCA, I would have celebrated the idea of the RSPCA being given more powers but unfortunately the world being what it is, it would be akin to play russian roulette.

What do you mean by "sort of" ??? Except for the odd cruelty case, I would say that Australia treats its dogs FAR better than most countries especially one particular nation, no comparisons. Live exporting leaves a lot to be desired, unfortunately and I just wish there was no such thing, it is tragic. Basically what I am saying is that cruelty is an unfortunate reality universally but if we were to start making comparisons....Australia would have to be considered to have a more humane approach than many other countries.

Cheers to you MTE. You did all you could for Bobby and even though you honestly admitted that you could financially afford to continue treatment for him you have decided that enough was enough and made the best decision for him that you could. I was also touched in what you said about people spending money on a holiday yet baulking at the idea of what you spent on Bobby!

Ah, like a moth to a flame... How do you feel about sow stalls Moselle? I don't for a moment condone animal cruelty but I also don't kid myself that this country has anything to feel superior about. Yes, PF....like a moth to a flame, huh... How do I feel about sow stalls? one word....DISGUSTED, so much so that I do not, WILL NOT eat pork or any meat except chicken, free range chicken....not my own as they would have to live out their life if that were the case! Australia has every reason to feel superior when compared to the atrociousness that takes place in certain parts of the world.

It is just so disheartening to see that some human beings can be so callous and have no compassion whatsoever for the well-being of animals. I still have nightmarish toughts about the cruelty that takes place in China pertaining to animals. It is beyond me how anyone can conduct themselves in such an atrocious manner towards a defenceless sentient being. I have said my piece on this subject many a times in the past and have had to listen to many excuses but as far as I am concerned....no excuses exist to justify such abominable behaviour in mankind. Some countries definitely stand out from the crowd when it comes to such detestable behaviour towards animals. Very cruel and sad world.....

I am so sorry that you have had to go through this! It makes me sick to see how hungry for money some people can be! There is NO justification in wanting to charge you $4-$6000 for that type of surgery and what angers me even more is the fact that they didn't have a bloat rescue kit and even worse that they did nothing for 30 mins and then to have the hide to quote you such an exhorbitant fee! I just hope that karma hits these blood sucking leeches!

Same. Another one here. I would not spend one cent on my dogs if the vet could not give me an indication that treatment was likely to be successful. I would spend whatever it took to keep one of my dogs happy/healthy if treatment was likely to be successful long term and not just management of an accute or rapidly deteoriating problem.eg: CK cracked his elbow at 4 months and took a LONG time, a lot of effort/inconvenience for the entire extended family and a considerable amount of money to get him right. He is now 4 and has no problems. (Inconvenience is not really the word I want, because it suggests I begrudge doing it, I don't, but I just couldn't think of a better word.) Before CK came to live with us we PTS a 7 month old pup with severe OCD. The vet told us that it would take two operations and ongoing pain management for the remainder of his life. I didn't even ask how much the operations would cost - that was not the point. I would do either again knowing for us it is the right decision. It is very personal and I don't judge anyone for the decisions they make for their animals - as long as an animal is not suffering unnecessarily. I would go without myself to save my dogs providing that the outcome was successful and lifesaving but I wouldnt consider it if it meant that my dogs would have to suffer for the sake of only a few more weeks or a month or so of life, I would find it too heartwrenching to have them suffer unecessarily. I would rather let them go peacefully than prolong suffering but I do respect people who opt to prolong their pet's life.

Life is not fair and other avenues are either risky or unethical. Children's safety has to be the priority. Children's safety is important but it was due to mischievious children that this problem came into being. There are other methods that can be adopted. The dog can be isolated when kids are over. Where there is a will, there is always a way! Perhaps boarding the dog overnight for the occasional sleepover or as the OP has stated, restricting it to one part of the backyard. Killing a dog that is loving and affectionate with members of its own family and relatives alike deserves far more than to be destroyed.

It isn't the dog's fault that it has issue, obviously past experience has moulded it to the way it is now; putting it to sleep is simply unfair, there are always other avenues. Edited to correct spelling.

Well said Steve, implants in a dog's scrotum and it's no big deal yet having one's dog debarked by a VET and it's a big stink! I just cant get my head around that one! How did this law ever go through? I would have thought that common sense would have prevailed....isn't it obvious that having one's dog debarked is a sign that the dog is loved and valued??? isn't that a better option than having it destroyed??? Disappointed in that Dogs Vic simply sat on their haunches and did bugger all and disgusted in the RSPCA in fighting to have this dastardly stupid law brought into place....it is the height of stupidity and totally nonsensical.

you forget. they took every single one of them debarked or not was my understanding. No they only took the debarked ones. makes you laugh doesn't it ( well not really ) but the dogs were apparently in such danger that they needed to be seized immediately, yet they left dogs on the property. The debarked one's must have been the one's without food, shelter and water :D You beat me to it! That is exactly what I thought upon reading that only the debarked dogs were seized! UNBLOODYBELIEVABLE! :D

This is NOT safe. IT has me baffled as to why this product is being sold under the premise that it is safe around pets :D

Mine have access to the back verandah which offers a shady spot for them, plenty of water and trees as well. If I happen to be home on a very hot day I make a point of going out and hose them down every hour or so to cool them down. If I owned a brachycephalic dog he/she would be in an air conditioned room as the heat really does affect them more so.

you forget. they took every single one of them debarked or not was my understanding. I was not aware that the RSPCA seized all of her dogs including those that were not debarked :D ! It is scandalous and I can only hope that justice will prevail. They may do some good along the way but the bad is starting to outweight the good imo!!!!

Steve, suffice to say that yes, you are correct in saying that the RSPCA were simply doing what they have full authority to do under current legislation but it was none other than the RSPCA that was wholly responsible for bringing in such a legislation in the very first place. However, it was Vicdogs who signed off on it and its their dogs, their members and their dog shows. Steve, what you mean in that Vicdogs "signed off on it" ???? Is that to say that they agreed to the debarking law or that they simply "dobbed" the lady in to the RSPCA???

Are you wanting to adopt the dog? where is the dog at the present moment? Is it possible for the former owners to sign the dog over to you should you be wanting to adopt this dog???

Steve, suffice to say that yes, you are correct in saying that the RSPCA were simply doing what they have full authority to do under current legislation but it was none other than the RSPCA that was wholly responsible for bringing in such a legislation in the very first place.

Under Victorian law, they were illegally debarked. Hardly a proportional response to the offence though. Yes, I know that debarking is illegal in Victoria, the most that should have been done is issue a fine, not seize the dogs. The dogs were not in any form of danger, they were well looked after, there is no justification in seizing them.