mymatejack

Hi all, noticed this spot on my boys head a couple of days ago which looks like a hot spot to me. Just wondering what others think? (the fur looks wet as I'd just bathed the area with salty water as that's how I cleared up a couple of hot spots when he was younger)

Yep, that's pretty much how it is here, KFC left overs in all sorts of places, kids sandwiches discarded in random places although it's the things like lamb chop bones on nature strips and gardens that puzzle me lol. We also have lots of fruit trees around the neighbourhood which is what caused the recent problem but the random cooked bones worry me too

His walks are his time to have a good sniff around and enjoy and I don't want that to change plus he can find something and have it in his mouth before I've had a chance to see it - the more I try to stop him the faster he swallows I think a muzzle is the best option, aside from other people being worried about him there isn't really any downside to it and the upside is we can keep doing what we do with peace of mind

It's just for when he's on lead walking around the neighbourhood. I find it amazing how many bones and other things somehow end up in people's gardens and on their nature strips(this is suburban Melbourne!) plus the fruit bats take fruit to non-fruit trees to eat and then drop the stones on the ground so they can be anywhere. We're careful about interactions with other dogs and try to communicate with the other owner beforehand(not always possible when you meet on a blind corner) and most people are happy for the dogs to say hello, generally those who aren't have already crossed the street before we get to them The only time he's really off lead is at the beach and there isn't much there for him to eat so I won't be using the muzzle there.

Thanks everyone for the replies The main reason why i don't want people judging him is he loves to say hello to other dogs and I can't imagine too many people coming close enough to him wearing a muzzle for that to happen. But it won't stop me putting one on him to save him from his stomach. I'll take a trip to the local pet store and try a few on. Thanks again for the replies

Hi, my dog ended up at the vet in a bad way last week with an obstruction after eating a fruit stone. He finds all sorts of crap(sometimes literally) to eat while out walking and he's too fast for me to stop him every time. I think a muzzle is going to be the best option, although i don't like the idea of people thinking he's aggressive I think for his own safety it's necessary. What muzzle would you recommend for this purpose? He's a Staffordshire Bull Terrier

Point Nepean Country Club in Rosebud on the Mornington peninsula allow dogs .. I'm not sure of what restrictions there are(if any) but it won't be hard for you to find out.

delete

I've never clipped a dogs nail in my life. Don't you people excecise your dogs?

I stopped reading the smh online, it seems comments on most of the stories on there are incredibly nasty.. As for tennants with pets...if I wasn't living in my house I would happily rent it out to someone with pets! It's very easy to say that when you haven't faced thousands of dollars worth of repairs due to poor tenants. Unfortunately until the courts start sticking up for landlords the pet rental problem will only get worse

Why wouldn't damage to property already be covered in civil courts? To start with it costs the landlord the VCAT(or other state equivalent) fee which as I understand it is not recoverable from the tenant. As an example, you own a property that had new carpet put in 10 years ago, a tenants dog has urinated all over it and cleaning it didn't get rid of the smell. You pay the $250(or whatever it is) to take the tenant to VCAT. VCAT will look at the carpet as having close to zero value due to depreciation and you'll be lucky to get your $250 back, let alone what it will cost to replace the carpet. If you're that concerned about having someone else pay replacement costs for ten year old carpet I wouldn't want you as a landlord. Ten year old carpet is going to have any manner of stains and wear and likely be close to needing replacement, even if a dog hadn't peed on it, and that'd be your responsibility as the owner to replace in order to provide decent fittings. If you somehow managed to get a tenant to pay for the entire replacement cost that'd be a bonus to you, not a fair and reasonable outcome. I'm by no means saying a tenant shouldn't be responsible for rectifying any damage caused by their pets, in the same way as they ought to be responsible for any other damage, but there's fair and reasonable responsibility and there's over the top. Surely you have a more reasonable example than that? Edited for spelling. Firstly, carpet will last significantly longer than 10 years if looked after. If you think that carpet should be allowed to be stained by tenants then i wouldn't want you as a tenant! Stains should be fixed by tenants along the way. Maybe you should buy a property and rent it out and see how you feel when you're left with a great mess and thousands of dollars damage that you can't recover. It's attitudes like yours that will mean that is always going to be difficult to find a rental property that will accept pets. I had a kitchen bench top burnt through the tenants negligence. I was lucky and bluffed them into paying for a new one. I was advised by my property manager that if I had to go to VCAT I stood no chance of recovering anything. This was a perfectly serviceable benchtop with no prior need for replacement, IMO they should be paying replacement cost for whatever they damage, unless there is already pre-existing damage or excessive wear and tear. In the same conversation I was told how another client of hers had taken a tenant to VCAT to recover the cost of holes in the walls. They received next to nothing because VCAT said the depreciated value of the walls was negligable. Do you think all walls should be replaced every 10 years also?

Why wouldn't damage to property already be covered in civil courts? To start with it costs the landlord the VCAT(or other state equivalent) fee which as I understand it is not recoverable from the tenant. As an example, you own a property that had new carpet put in 10 years ago, a tenants dog has urinated all over it and cleaning it didn't get rid of the smell. You pay the $250(or whatever it is) to take the tenant to VCAT. VCAT will look at the carpet as having close to zero value due to depreciation and you'll be lucky to get your $250 back, let alone what it will cost to replace the carpet.

If pet owners want to have easy access to rental accomodation they need to lobby the govt to change the laws so that landlords have some chance at recovering the cost of damage done to their property. As it stands now, the bias is massively in favour of the tenant and landlords don't stand a chance in recovering what should be paid for by the tenant - pet or no pet.

A mini wouldn't be much more than 8kg if that, still no match for 25/30kg dog.....a GSD is considered a medium sized dog so a mini Schnauzer is still quite a small dog I would think? The point is, since you and mymatejack have missed it, this is about a mini schnauzer that was killed. You and others have come in bitching about little dogs as if that excuses one dog killing another. Just stop it. and you've come in(using your laws of interpreting posts) saying that all little dogs should have absolute immunity to do what they please. Do you really think that?

It's hard to take anyone seriuosly when they make statements like that