Angeluca

Another point mentioned much but seems to be disregarded in heated discussions. How often is the Media Right?? As for the tazor it has caused too much controversy in killing people it was suppose to stop. How is a cop ever suppose to know a person has heart conditions before using a tazor. However the police know a gun can kill and seem more reluctant to use. The tazor it still going though inquests in Australia for the current deaths it could cause. And using tazor a dog ???? at what setting, human setting would probably kill a small to medium dog? What would people say to a cop killing a dog with a tazor? Doomed if ya do Doomed if ya don't, but until we can rely on accurate facts the only thing we know for sure is a dog was shot by police when the rightfully (this has been explained a few times) entered a property. The dog is dead. Everything else is circumstantial and no one should be condemned until the facts are presented in their entirety.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be confusing - my Pug is recovering from cancer (Multiple Mast Cell Tumours). I have put $1000 away for his six monthly check-up, which will include a titre test this time around because I would like to take him to obedience classes. I used to have him vaccinated every three years but, now that he is recovering from cancer, I have decided that I would prefer to have him titre tested instead. His six monthly check-up will include an ultrasound, lymph node test, full blood test, urine test, titre test, faecal worm burden count and a dental examination. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude but I don't feel like having a vaccinations versus titre testing debate (but others are welcome to if they wish) :) They only have to draw blood once for a titre test. Ahhh that explains a lot and I totally understand you view, I'd hate to expose a dog which had been though so much to any unnecessary vaccinations. Glad he is on the mend. And no debate just info. I myself are anti annual vac. And Ruby is very soft by nature. She loves the people at the vet but makes them feel horrible when they brought out the equipment. And Ruby loved her visit to the Studs house and is now basking in the sun outside.

It's the idea that if the dog already has immunity, which can be found out with the titre test, why keep pumping it full of unneeded chemicals? It may be cheaper but it isn't in the best interest of the dog. That's the way I see it anyway. Oh and yes it does need to be repeated. I see you point, I don't vaccinate every year either but I live in the country and My obedience school don't required annual vacs. I am yet to start competing. My reason for asking is I just had a girl who ended up having a split season and was blood tested 6-7 times within the 5 weeks and now she hates going to the vet. She a great girl and wont fight but seems depressed as soon as we walk in there, done a couple of social visits during this period but that hasn't helped her. I am now opting out of the ultrasound conformation so I don't stress her during the pregnancy.

This is a purely curiosity question and not tryin to persuade anyone. It this titre test a one off or is it repeated anytime through out the dogs life? Why not just vaccinate annually and stick the dog with needles one a year rather than 6 in one hit? Financially this goes to say if it has to be repeated. wouldn't be be cheaper to just do the annual whit is usually $80-$120 in rather the the $500-$1000 for the titre test? Just weighing up pros and cons for my own choices. Thank you

Add GSD into your topic title and'll you'll attract some more knowledgeable people as well but for what I read Nekhbet seems to know a fair bit and may know a Qld breeder. Keep in mind that at any one time there could be 80 litters advertised on DOL so finding the right breeder for you may take more then a read of their stock. Get recommendations from people who have one one of their dogs, trainers and even some vets. You need to check into your choice of breeder as much as a good breeder will check out their puppy homes. Maybe attend some obedience trials, and talk to GSD owners there. If they breed or who they got their dog from ect. Google the breeders name and prefix you never know what may pop up good or bad.

Yes I have a dog from these people and he is perfect highly recommend. I believe there are about to breed or have bred one of their last litters. I also know another Qld breeder who is my mentor who breeds for temperament which would also be suitable.

Maybe try talking to a DOLer, Nekhbet. I believe they are quiet skilled with trained dogs and if you could explain your situation they could offer advice on how to approach breeders and what terminology to use when referring to a 'alert' dog. Also may know a few suitable breeders for your purpose. If they mention a breeder who would be perfect but may not have a litter on the ground soon don't dismiss it. Your asking for a certain temperament suitable for a family life but has a vocal response for visitors (mostly unwanted)not a highly reactive dog.

From what I believe your under no obligations to engage with them in any way just so long as they can get to and from your front door safely. Danios would know a lot more then I, but you can also ring your local police station to ask for clarification.

Yeah I was meaning signage as in the terms and conditions that are on a back of a ticket you purchase can be argued unless verbally informed or clearly visible on a sign prior to purchase. I finding the law actually for the most part straight forward. Back in the old days there was this thing called common sense. Usually if you question if it is against the law it probably is. This isn't the first dog to be shot by a cop on it's own property, and doubt very much it will be the last. Our cops go through the ringer they have the hardest job, and they to have a right to preform their job as safe as possible. I have been told by a cop that regardless of padlocks and signage 'trespassers will be prosecuted' or 'beware of dogs' everyone has the right to approach your front door. And if they are injured in the attempt you will be liable.

Ignorance is no excuse If you don't know you don't know. if people want you to follow the law then they should probably make it more accessible to you. Not everyone is going to spend their days trawling through legislations and acts to see if what they are doing is lawful or not. I'll make it easy for you, as ignorance really is no excuse. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/ Yeah as I said. I don't have time to sit and read through then memorize the companion animals act. If they want us to obey obscure laws they need to provide signage as I won't be carrying the act around in my pocket. It should be signed. Often used as a legal loophole. I am only a law student (my lecturers all have qualifications in law, most have practiced.) And That excuse doesn't have much credit in most circumstances and is mainly used in contractual law from what I've read so far.

My comments weren't meant to dictate but more to tug the heart strings , We have more chance of changing a caring owners ideas of backyard breeding with the simple 'what would you do if this happens' and cause we can list so many possibilities that go wrong in breeding let alone the uninformed and uneducated style, we have more chance of helping someone prevent a situation that can cause so much pain for everyone involved (you,your dogs, and puppy buyers). Good breeders should be in a position to take a pup/dog back if something goes wrong even if it's just temporary, most people would never be able to do that due to council dog limits, it is one reason not to breed we don't bring it up much but it is very important. I would die inside if I found out one of my babies was in a pound or an abusive home. It was mentioned somewhere in this topic (or maybe another) but a person selling puppies not saddened by the pups leaving. While i wasn't focused about money more about just telling them about the litter's individuals and of course mum and dad, even known aunts, uncles, half siblings. I was however extremely excited for these guys to be going. They had awesome new homes to go to, it was a sense of accomplishment really. It was quiet and sorta empty when the last to go left, we kept a girl so we still had a ratbag running around but i would never discrib it as sad.

This is the point that I was saying I had an objection to. Please read the parts of my post where I clearly state that I am not saying that registered breeders are charging too much, and where I clearly say I am not trying to question the importance of what the breeders ares trying to achieve or argue whether people should or shouldn't buy from registered breeders. If you decide down the track that you want to breed pedigreed SBTs, my guess is that your thoughts will change. You'll see spending that money as an investment in a dog that's a good representative of the breed standard and you'll pay it to get a pup from health tested parents that's been whelped and raised to the best of the breeder's ability. You'll look at pups tht most people think are cuteness overload with eyes that see conformation faults that may lead to ongoing soundness problems and you'll want none of that. And when the time comes for you to sell your thoughtfully bred pups, you'll put a price on them that reflects the time and effort you went into selecting your breeding stock, whelping the litter and raising it with optimum care. Sometimes, just sometimes with dogs you do get what you paid for - or didn't in the case of dogs with completely preventable health issues. Good breeders don't need to hold a gun to anyone's head to get the prices they charge. I don't see anyone suggesting that those who don't want to pay that sort of money should have to either. But consider for a moment what's paying for the forum so many people turn to for advice on raising their pups. Seems to me that some people aren't fully aware of how much registered dog breeders contribute to providing the informaton so many people gain here. "I'd never pay that for a pup" you say. But here you are, benefiting from those who do. Extolling the benefits of bargain hunting doesn't sit so well with me in that regard. I'm not suggesting that all dog owners shouldn't be here and share in the wealth of knowledge this forum provides. But perhaps a little more respect for the aims of this forum and what it seeks to promote is called for. If your view is that there's no way in future you'd buy an ANKC registered pup (or a rescue), don't expect that to sit well with everyone. For some of us, cost is not the issue that drives what we buy and IMO the more you learn about dogs, the more you'll value what a responsibly bred pedigreed pup means. FYI, I've never paid more than $800 for a pedigreed pup. The last one was free. :) The "bargain" comment was an attempt at a lighthearted way of highlighting my upbringing - I was not trying to say that I equate my much loved pups with a bargain. I'm not sure where you got the impression that "there's no way I would ever buy an ANKC registered pup" - that's not what I was saying and it is not what I think... down the track I would actually love to become more involved in the dog world, learn more and maybe eventually moved down the track of becoming a registered breeder. I wasn't really meaning to debate the merits of whether or not everyone should but a registered pedigree puppy - just saying that if people choose NOT to, it doesn't automatically mean they will be any less of an attentive and caring owner. Just as someone who does buy a pedigree puppy isn't automatically going to be a great owner. The point I was trying to make is that people should be judged on their actions, not from some overarching generalisation. I think I read somewhere that registered pedigree breeders account for only about 10 - 20% of Australian dogs. Does this mean that the other 80 - 90% of dog owners can be automatically catergorised as "“low-cost” owners who won’t care for their dog properly and will dump it at the first sign of trouble."?? I probably have the exact percentage wrong but you can see what I mean. I tried very hard NOT to offend anyone, as I know the majority of people on this forum are either registered breeders or own registered dogs. I really don't see how I was disrespectful. I was simply questioning this one assumption. Forums are designed for discussion and communication, so i thought that would be allowed That conformation you say isn't important is very important an any dog. Over 90% of dogs us breeders breed are for the pet home, but we want them to have the best possible dog they can get, equally as important to a pup retained for breeding and or showing. A dog's conformation helps stabilize a dog running full pelt around a yard/beach. It serves the dog in old age when his bones and joint are getting old his structure and conformation may make it that bit more bearable. As a byb what advice do you sell your puppies with what help that puppy settle in their new home, will you offer the home when they are having a few issues more importantly what are you doing to do when the pup you sell is very very sick with something you could have prevented, and that family is loosing their baby. Do you care what sort of home you pup the child of you furkids id going to, what happens if those people change their minds will you take it back or let it go to the pound or past on to another unknown environment, what if the puppy you bred turns on it's family will you take responsibility for now checking the temperaments? Please think about this and not breed your dogs, love them raise them and grow old with them but don't breed them. It's not fair on your dogs or the puppy owners if something goes wrong.

Yes, that pretty much sums it up. The stupid slogan "there are no bad dogs, only bad owners", is so wrong. There are certainly dogs born with really aggressive temperaments and they should be culled. Some of these dogs could also have brain defects but no one ever thinks to biopsy the brains to find out. Timid dogs are a whole different thing. Most grow out of it when removed from the litter if they are carefully exposed to many situations that allow their confidence to grow as babies. They will never be "brave" dogs but can certainly enjoy a normal life. There is also a huge difference between a baby puppy that constantly bites as a form of mouthing and one that attacks. I had never had a bitey puppy until I got my JS. He has the sweetest cuddly temperament and is very confident for a JS but as a baby he would bite all the time. It took me 4 months to get on top of the biting but it was play biting, not aggressive biting and breeders need to know the difference. Yes agree with all of this. My recent litter i had a couple of very bold puppies, goldens are a very mouthy breed whilst this is usually very very gentle the sharpness of puppy teeth will easily cause cuts and scratches. I've had a call back with a demanding little puppy, she would bite her owners cloths, hands, feet whatever she could get with consistent excessive barking in the demand for attention. This pup was the smallest but the bully of the litter too. but boy was this girl intelligent, had learnt sit for a treat at 4 weeks with the all 7 siblings being extremely excited little monsters (loved human interaction as if I was a giant raw bone)but you could see this girl figuring it all out, I stress that this pup would need obedience and a firm pack structure with owner at top. She went to a quiet but confident young lady who lived on her own. at 10 weeks Holly as the pup was call was barking and growling in the background as she spoke to me. I told her to get a couple of pan and smack them together to get her attention. I then I re affirmed the owner that this pup works on negative and positive reinforcement with high intellect. Give her no attention even to the point of locking her in another room or outside when she is being demanding. And excessive attention when she behaves. I called 4 days later because if the owner couldn't assert herself she'd either need assistance or the pup would need to be returned before permanent bad habits developed. She was described as a different dog and was actually had access to her yoga classes which her owner taught. All within 4 days. now 3 months on I've had a number of phone calls inquiring about a puppy like her.

Sometimes a pups which is the bottom of the pack appears withdrawn Some pups don't like getting held, The eye contact is usually a submission thing. My breed golden retrievers being as friendly as is it arguably one of the most human focused and affectionate breeds (this going by a breed generalization) , if i had seen these sorts of signs I would, first would be a vet visit to rule out a few basics, separated them with either another calm pup or 2 or another kind well mannered adult for a few days(provided the pup had been weaned), visit with the pup on a one on one basis offer treats (soft cooked chicken breast) and if eye contact was a problem i'd show the pup the treat and bring the treat to my nose and things like this, the signs might just be the slightest but any sort of improvement would be good, then they would go to a quiet home but probably at 12 or 16 weeks after I had taken them to preschool and outer sorts of outings unless i trusted the home. If the pup proved unresponsive even in a quieter environment with the treat association i would probably cull as it goes against every temperament associated with the breed and would have an underlying problem. Goldens are publicly known for friendliness, children and parents seem a lot more inclined to think of it as an approachable breed, It would be a very high risk of a child getting bitten by a golden with a very bad temperament then a bull breed based on looks. A half intelligent child sees a Rotty of staffy in a back yard they may think twice about getting their ball (regardless of whether they should enter someone else's yard without permission), they see a golden they would probably assume it would be safe.

My thought exactly after reading the first couple of sentences. Sorry if its been answered later on in the thread, but any actual science to support the notion that cross breeds are unstable? There is mention of reasoning behind certain breeds being crossed are more prone to the genetic mismatch resulting in a vicious dog. No mention of scientific fact, although some situations speak for themselves. Having said that there is No notion or suggestion that all crossbreds are unstable and there is the environmental and health factors the have their own roll to play in most situations. There is mention of purebreds being mismatched to produce the same sort of unpredictable behavior and of course the fore mentioned environmental and health factors would be considered into that assumption as well. I hope you have a chance to read the whole thread cause the breeding and attacking are also discussed within their own problematic issues.

Yeah it would defiantly curve a lot of accidental dogs attack due to 'owner didn't know the dog would do that' or the 'it's never done that before' excuses. Then the time and effort could go into to chasing down the 'law doesn't apply to me' idiots and hopefully result in a down turn or more serious attacks.

Sorry if someone has already picked up on the bit I've highlighted - I've just discovered this thread and haven't been through the whole 8 pages yet. Federal, state and local govt funds are very seperate pools of money. Pretty much 90% of all application fees or fines simply go back into general coffers at each of these 3 levels. The reason for this is that this money is then invested on the stock market and in other money making efforts to help boost shortfalls. This is why Qld has had to sell off a lot of assets after the GFC and several natural disasters. Govt agencies (or local govt sections) then have to apply for monies to meet certain purposes, fund projects and employ new staff from those who protect these coffers (usually the Treasury depts. at federal and state level). It is rare that the two ever meet, ie that fines or application fees are used directly to fund the same work. Local govt could apply to the state or federal govt to access funds for a specific purpose (like more rangers to police state legislation) but here too, because of funding shortfalls they are likely to only receive base funding and would have to come up with additional monies through their own pockets to cover all salary and operational costs (vehicle for example) needed for a ranger. Base funding means that while a ranger's salary might range from $80,000 to $95,000 they will only get funded $80,000, so as an employee gains more experience or years of service that extra $15,000 has to be found internally. Operational costs are usually an on top percentage figure of base salaries and this percentage does not necessarily reflect actual operational costs either. And I have no idea what a ranger's salary is worth - just plucked those figures out of my head. Ah if only it were all so simple! Indeed. The motoring lobby have for years been trying to have all monies collected from vehicle registration to be directly put into roads and this hasn't happened for the reasons you have outlined. Even if it was a possibility, however remote, it would take many years and a great deal of cooperation from government all levels to achieve it. I think I see a flying pig. Agreeing with both of you, little gifts I haven't gone into why it wouldn't in my idea/doesn't with regard to current laws happen but have mentioned that it can't. My example was QLD government cutting hospital funding resulting in a no way in the world would what considered by the community as (steve has mention) a non pressing - non important issue especially in comparison to human health or education. Or even the same sex marriage issues are considered more important then the enforcement of already existing dog related issues. This is probably because they are louder in the requests and protests. And I mentioned local councils are more likely put the effort and funding in to the recovery of outstanding rates owed as it would be of more financial value then chasing down unregistered dog or dogs without leads which would probably cost more then they recover.

I am just going to place all answers and agreements to the last few posts since my last one here. Anne, I did mention it briefly somewhere, Yes I believe crossbreeding irresponsibly is a big problem within it's self, due to lack of education and suitable dogs this can occasionally but not always results in very dangerous dogs, sometimes it's just a problem because it puts a lot of hope and good fortune that the bitch have a textbook preg and whelp cause the idiot that put her in the situation may not know the risks and/or can't afford the c-section. Greed is also not a reason to breed. And markings or looks should never outweigh health and temperament in knowledgeable (pure or cross) breeding But yes I agree with the rest of your statement. Steve I agree with you entirely nothing will change unless a community if not larger push for it. And I also believe owner responsibility and poor breeding practices need to address in their own manner as well together. The Ayen situation for example was %100 owner fault no dispute. But if the situation never happened and that dog stayed contained there would have been a lot more litters come off that property may be even one with the dog in question being the sire. Then there be more little time bombs out there. Tdlierikx your question to me is - in my ideal world federal funding with better trained rangers on the field at assist where the fines fall short. But it would be written with the assistance of those knowledgeable with dogs. but like i said not going to happen any more then getting more rangers to enforce current laws. My solution was to entice the discussion as i know good dog people don't want more laws cause it will always affect them in a negative way even though it shouldn't. And you and many of us on here know how to read a dogs vocal and physical signs, most don't and without the education they won't. And they shouldn't be expected by council to approach strange dogs for this reason alone. The problem with education is some people fail to absorb it or disagree with it and do their own thing anyway.

intent is an action not an emotion, content is an emotion, you can't feel intent. you can do something with intent. however your understanding of instinct is correct, but a Jack russel would follow though with the instinct towards a rodent with the intention of killing it. A dog bred for fighting decades ago would follow though with the genetic instinct to attack another dog with the intention of not stopping until the other dog stopped struggling aka death.

I stated that ages ago and specifically to you in stating the oxford meaning to Malicious. A Jack Russel when attacking a rat isn't just doing it, it has intent to capture and kill the rodent as instilled within it's genetics. or is this another it just wanted to play?

Yeah we know all that.......problem is we can't rely on people being responsible so the next step is to remove the type of dogs who kill and maul people when the owners are irresponsible.......the idea is to save lives and prevent the trauma of injury by dogs.....don't you get that What I don't get is how you and those like you can look at any and every dog and determine which are dangerous and which aren't. Sounds a bit like magic and soothseeing to me. Dangerous is determined by the individual dogs actions and intent.

I agree with your no dog should be out full stop argument hands down. But The Ayen Dog is not your run of the mill loose dog. part 9 of inquest saw the dog's first charge at the attacked family part 10 sees the same dog visit the neighbors opposite whom state the saw the dog and discribed it as wanting to play but were intimidated by it's side. part 11 sees the dog return to the victims in an aggressive manner and rush lady (aunt of Ayen) who hit it with a bag and ran inside, dog ripped bag and followed inside part 12 sees 5 yrs (daughter of aunt) attacked at the head causing severe injury. Aunt grabs dogs collar when she is bitten on the arm. 13 sees aunt try to remover her arm from dogs mouth 14 sees aunts call for hel and another female hits dog with table 15 sees aunt removed injured daughter, and calls for other lady to call police, meanwhile other children are in the house on the kitchen table 16 sees Aye and mother in lounge room scared on dog Ayen attached to mothers legs. when she was attacked and ripped from mothers legs by face 17 states mother heard 1 scream and saw dog thrashing and dragging Ayen towards kitchen. There is no reason for this dog to be that aggressive and as corvus and I have stated posts about experienced most dogs aren't like that. It was stated that the dog was able to escape due to a faulty electric garage door. Sometimes mistakes happen and sdogs get loose despite all efforts. My goldy boy got out last week cause he doesn't like the new pen. But he wouldn't try to kill multiple people. My dog was out a whole 40 mins which is longer then this attack in it's entirety. This owner didn't care about the law therefore this happened, but he had managed to keep them contained for the 4 years of this dogs life as there were never any reports of it being loose prior to the incident. And had managed to keep the other older dogs secure as well. yes we got owner bad bad man, lawbreaking idiot responsible for murder < not disputed. Ignoring all other aspects right now A once off unpredictable failure of equipment could see anyones dog out for a brief period but most other dogs wouldn't set out to kill. Returning to dogs temperament this dog did not bite and release as if in fear, this dog was not instigated or teased. And this got was not injured or frightened in any way. Annual vet check never returned any concern of mistreatment or malnourished. So what Santos and I are saying is this dog while probably un-socialized this would not result is such a Malicious attack by meaning of intent to harm and in this case kill. Would come down to breed traits aka genetics.

I read that inquest and not anywhere does it say 'aroulsal or subsequent pain in the animal' it does however stereo type the breed as rapidly aggressive and without warning in section 33 Dr Dunnett's statement. 34 states no external wounds to the dog, dog has calluses sprayed with insect repellant by Dr Crosser 38 qquote'this breed according to documents tendered(20), and the evidence of the veterinarian, Dr Dunnett, had a propensity to attack and that there were no specific indicators of the likely onset of an attack.' end quote It also concluded that the owners deliberately mislead council at insisting their previously deseased GSD was still alive,they lied about knowing the breed of dog when owner's cousin bred the dog who also denied knowing the breed even though there were informed by Dr Michael Beattie attended the property to vacinat 2 litters of american pit bulls one of which the dog in question was born, he informed owner at this time they were pit bulls . The vet also attended annually to vacinate the dog and other Pit bulls by his identification at this property. It states that the dogs were not contained to the regulations of the restricted breed and it was not enforced as council were not aware of the breed. It conclude that the owner and breeder full knowledge of the law and had absolute disregard for the law. 86 - 93 find that the owner's failure to comply with particulars including containment contributing factors 94 Finds the knowing bred and supplied a restricted breed and the unauthorized breeding contributing to death 95 finds that if the breeder would have complied to the neutered the breeding pair, the dog would never had been produced, attack would not have occured and the death could have been prevented. Can you explain where you got your information from?

for your question on why is there 6 pages of opinions, cause that is what the thread is for not one of us are in a position (that we admit to) to enact any ideas. Lots of people have an idea on why some things are the way they are. It's not just attacks it is all dog issues from attacks to irresponsible breeding eg puppy farms and BYBs, current laws, new proposals and the failure in both and so on I can't list them all in topic heading as there is not enough room so I put the 2 most serious and put AND not causing. I stated in my opening topic that I think crossbreeds cause most the attacks. Your link does look like a great solution to the attack problem, but not the bad breeding practices and the genetic component which regardless of if it is a minority reason, Some genetics does cause a higher risk then others and that crossed with bad ownership = human death. Most dog attacks don't result in serious injury let alone death this would be the example of majority environmental component. Most dogs would never set out to Kill a human, these ones that maliciously do regardless of breeding style are badly bred on the genetic component, to ignore that is a failure to those who have died and a failure to those who will be killed. In my opinion.... Dogs do nothing maliciously, they are not human and do not have human emotions. Malicious isn't an emotion. oxford meaning= adjective characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm: he was found guilty of malicious damage a hotbed of rumour and malicious chit-chat the transmission of malicious software such as computer viruses I would class rushing into the home of that little girl malicious. Then you would be wrong. How? and what is my thinking a dog running into a strange house and killing a child the dog didn't run into the house for a cookie! or the meaning of Malicious?

Yes i agree, but as stated page one or two my opinion on why that isn't happening, And some of the current laws fail on large scales even with enforcement after all they allow farming. And I agree with 24 hour contact to council ranger, not 2 days a go I had a beautiful looking mastiff in my horse paddock playing with my dogs who were in their pen. this was at 11pm, I have a girl locked on the enclosed veranda and locked in her crate who is in season, which is why is was probably visiting. I told him to pi** off and he growled at me and ran away, I was within my house yard and knowingly safe, and I interpret his growl as 'leave me alone don't chase me'. But the point was he was not where he should be at the wrong time of day. And why should the public risk approaching a strange dog, the boy in my yard wasn't aggressive but if he didn't leave and acting on his sensors due to girl in season and I cornered him and put a rope on him and tried to shove him in my car to keep my girl safe, what would he have done? But if you ring some councils during office hours with a strange dog on the property they say' try and catch it'. which would mean close proximity cause most normal people don't have a lunge bar or whatever they are called they are unable to come out until later this afternoon or until tomorrow cause our range is not on duty today. The government failure just keeps on going.