Cosmolo

I don't know of many places Australia wide that would let you use a prong collar. Is a martingale really not an option- even if you worked at distance to start with?

I did not say i see CC pedigreed dogs Steve- although i have seen a few, with their papers fixed to their pen card- i said purebred.

I am not referring to any dogs black and tan as rottweilers and there have been photos i have shown to rottweiler breeders (one who is very well respected) and it was agreed that the dog was pure. I understand tht breeders would be skeptical about anyone calling a shelter/ pound dog a pure bred- i have seen some real doozy descriptions in my time, but just because dogs come in without their papers (and some do come in WITH papers) does not make them a cross.

In my experience, yes Kayla

Wow.. What a dog! Good luck finding a balanced club in WA- i am not sure if they exist.

Have used this with a variety of dogs (and horses) to successfully 'take the edge off' with no side effects and good results for most.

I've never heard it described as BSL Steve- but i think you're right. Thats why i started this topic- to get opinions like this and as i think woofnhoof says, the conflict between the rights of people and the welfare of animals. I am NOT promoting cross breeds by starting this thread. Yes its true that the purebreds i see are not necesarily bred by registered breeders but yes there are common breeds- Labradors, Staffordshires, Kelpies (there is a stunning litter of red kelpie pups at the moment) Rottweilers (we seem to get alot of rotts at this particular shelter) Beagles and German Shepherds are probably the most common. The small breeds seem to be mainly crosses or perhaps badly bred pure bred dogs but the dog breeds i mention above are the ones that appear to be more than reasonable representations of the breed, i don't count the ones that could just as easily be crosses.

If the dog has already been declared dangerous, shouldn't it be contained where there is no possible way of escape anyway?

Jed in the last week i have seen a curly coated retriever, lakeland terrier, akita, rottweiler, GSD, pug, beagle, chihuahua, foxhound and Jack Russell at one shelter. Purebred dogs to come into shelters regularly but i would think the split would be about 70/30- more cross breeds though.

Why isn't being a pet a good enough purpose?

It did suprise me Steve hence the question but i hope you dont think i am having a go at you as i think your opinion is really valid

I only asked the question because of comments from Steve and Lilli about a person's right to cross breed. Its not the impression i have ever received from this forum so i was surprised to see the comments and wanted to see what other DOLers thought. If Troy thinks its inappropriate, i'm happy for him to delete.

We were quoted 3 thousand or 3,500 i think per hip from a very well respected surgeon

After an interesting discussion in another topic i would like to know what DOLers think- If breeders of cross breed dogs cared for their dogs, bred from healthy stock and provided information and support for puppy buyers- would this be 'okay'? What would you need to be happy with cross breeds being bred or do you think they should NOT be bred at all, by anyone? All perspectives welcome

OT but Steve can you give me the link with regards to the increased risk of HD in dogs desexed early. Interested as i have a dog with HD and ED who was desexed early as he was adopted from a shelter. I see the points you're making and now i fall in the middle I still think this legislation has some merit, BUT i also see that it lays focus on dogs not people- which is far from ideal. Such a complicated set of issues- i don't think there is one right answer, rather a number of strategies need to be implemented. I do hope that legislation like this does not mean other programs, enforcement and education fall away or aren't deemed necessary.

I am hardly revelling at owners being forced to desex their dogs Lilli. I am looking at the big picture and trying to explore others ideas about responsible owners being disadvantaged. I don't live in the area either so the legislation does not affect me as yet, i am just a person with an opinion that differs to yours. The legislation was already in force before the conference i attended so no its not the best the conference came up with. With regards to forcing people to be registered with a governing association- who determines what an appropriate governing body is? The same issue as who decides on 'appropriate sources' will exist here. I am genuinely interested in what issues people have with such legislation as i had not seen a problem with it and struggled to think of an alternative. However the alternative Steve mentioned would be ideal- but would need to be done regularly to be effective. I guess the problem with who defines 'appropriate sources' is never going to be clear cut. Lets say you opened it up to dogs that have their own registries- would people then complain about the oodles with registries being allowed to continue breeding? I think its very important to be able to trace dogs to point of sale- perhaps this kind of focus would be beneficial in some way. I have a question for Steve- on the Frankston website, there are 3 different bodies that allow exemptions for cats and only one for dogs. Has the MDBA approached the council in relation to being added onto the exemption list? Or is that something that could be done in future? Would that resolve concerns to a satisfactory degree?

I don't believe there is a dog over population problem but i do think there is a cat over population problem. What do you think about mandatory cat desexing? I don't think the aim should be to reduce the number of companion animals- but i do think changes that redirect the source of such animals is very important and i don't see how this law punishes reponsible owners who have also purchased their dog from appropriate sources and registered the dog with the local council. I actually agree with many of your points Lilli- particularly relating to the community attitude problem. I think this legislation stops those people with the attitude problem who don't want to be educated, from breeding their dogs. This is the kind of thing that was spoken about by Frankston council at the conference i attended- they weren't talking about over population as the reason, (except cats) they were talking about BYB and this being a way to try to stop it.

The books aren't exactly what you'd call easy reading thats for sure! One of us will definitely be going- logistics of a new puppy will determine whether or not we can both go!

I would love to hear alternatives- what do we do with Bogan Joe who does not want to be educated? And what changes to the legislation would make it fair- or do we want no legislation at all of this nature?

Kelpie i- if there was an exemption for working dogs, would that sway you in favour? I know education is the answer to many problems instead of legislation. I too, don't like knee jerk reactions of legislate, legislate! But we also have to find solutions for those people who don't want to be educated, who don't care and don't listen and i can't think of another way that does not involve some kind of legislation. I actually think Frankstons model and exemptions are really appropriate and workable and aside from the issue Kelpie i mentions (which isn't an issue in Frankston but i agree could be an issue elsewhere) i think they've done a really good job. I think they are targetting the right people with this.

Most councils won't register dogs unless desexed?? Which councils do this, genuine question? I will see if i can find my notes because i vaguely remember something about exceptions for working dogs but i am not sure if i am mixing up another speaker as there were many talking about different strategies. Putting aside for a moment the farmer with his working dog (and really- the simple solution to ensure this legislation is never enacted on a dog like this is to contain him/her. In all the suburban pounds and shelters i have worked in, i have never seen a real working dog that was reclaimed so i question how often such a scenario would arise- if ever, especially given the council areas of Frankston and Kingston are suburban areas) are there any other responsible owners that legislation like this would adversely affect? ETA The working dog exemption i referred to applied to a rural council where many farmers do live, not in VIC. I think this is fair and that different demographics like this should be taken into account.

Fabulous vet- getting to see the same vet every consult is awesome Practice uniforms and clean facilities without the over powering 'vet' smell. A little bit is okay but the really strong smell makes me nearly pass out (its a classically conditioned response ) Easily accessible scales to weigh dogs I like to read animal related things while waiting- so some of the cute coffee table books my vet has are great to have a flick through. I love friendly vet nurses who acknowledge me and my dogs I like the cat adoption unit in the window Treats for the dogs after or during consult and time taken to make animals confortable during consult Given choices regarding treatment when appropriate and vet supportive of raw diet. I DON'T like that the door takes so long to close- would prefer a fast closing door as the clinic is on a busy road I think thats all for now..

I think to really understand what this legislation is trying to achieve, you need to stand behind the counter where people come to reclaim their dogs. And watch Bogan Joes come in week after week with his entire cross breed dog who he uses over his mates bitch because its 'cool' and they can make money. And you'll wish you could desex his dog but in most places you can't- and so the cycle continues. With regards to being a younger dog- register the dog with the local council and it won't matter if the dog is 10 weeks or 10 months or 10 years.

If the fence blew down and the ranger picked the dog up, provided the dog is registered- no problem! If the dog was registered with another council and the owner could provide proof of that- no problem! I was at a seminar where a representative from Frankston City Council spoke and the dogs are only desexed once the owners come forward for many reasons- 1- if they didn't and the dog did have an issue and died on the table, the council would be liable. They need to get the owner to sign something but the law allows them to compel desexing if they don't meet any of the requirements for an exemption 2- the dog is not legally the property of council until after the impound period anyway so no work of a permanent nature can be done during this time 3- if the dog was desexed on entry, and unclaimed= wasted council funds. The list goes on.. I fail to understand why people with registered dogs (local council rego) would be in any way concerned about this type of legislation?

But Kelpie i- why would that dog not be registered with the council? The criteria is double unregistered- not registered with the CC AND not registered with the council. Erny- the dogs aren't desexed before the owner comes forward! What if peple contained their dogs? What if people REGISTERED their dogs with the local council? If people did EITHER of these things, they won't find themselves in the predicament where the council insists the dog be desexed. ETA I understand the frustration with regards to over regulation, i really really do. But having seen first hand what kind of people and dogs this law relates to, i do support it. BYB puppy machines were previously released to their far from responsible owners with the council/ shelter KNOWING the dog would be back, knowing the dog would be BYB. This measure gives the council power to stop that WITHOUT impinging on responsible owners- is it really that hard to register your dog with the local council???