Erny

Are you suggesting that because something is routine it is minor? I don't consider a spay "minor" surgery, even though it is performed regularly.

I agree with PF. It loads the system more than is necessary, vaccinating on top of a surgical procedure. What do you mean by "first shots" Do you mean in the plural? If so, how many of the first shotS did she have? You might find she has the immunity required to see her through. A titre test will tell you if she has immunity. But regardless, I'd put a halt on having the vaccination until your dog has recovered from the surgery.

Probably because a lot of people dont read signs. Have you ever been in a bank where it says Queue Here and some idiot walks straight up to the counter and asks where to queue? Actually no, but I don't doubt that it happens. But most people DO queue, so in some cases signs can help, although I wonder on the cost -vs- effectiveness though. I also wonder how many of them just serve as graffiti pallets.

Don't worry - I already thought I might be coming across as being negative to your suggestions even though I didn't intend to. So no need to apologise. All is good . I think what we need to realise (including me) is that our ideas/suggestions will be relevant to the demographics of the area that we live in/frequent.

Negative consequences should be there, at least so that they can be used if required/possible. But I think making doing the wrong thing a "socially unacceptable" thing and something to feel guilty about it a very powerful controller. More than fines/punishments. The hard part is, getting these things to begin to be socially unacceptable. For that, many people need to adopt the idea in the first place.

Yes sorry. It does seem as though I'm picking. Intention is to just be constructively conversive. They are ideas and don't be put off by me. Apologies, and your posts are appreciated .

I agree it is not difficult, but there are times when they can easily be forgotten. It is a relief to know that where you are headed supply them. Picking up poo using a tissue isn't the nicest thing in the world to do, lol. Yes/no. Councils are responsible for services that assist the community and providing services that assist people in achieving that end as far as dog waste is concerned is not a bad thing, especially considering the presence of dog faeces is a fairly major complaint. Like one of the other posters, when I am in areas where there are doggy doo bag dispensers, I tend to find there is less dog faeces to be found on the ground. But I agree that "bored children" (so to speak) can be a problem to the dispensers and the poo bag supply, which is why these dispensers need to be found in more publicly frequented/busy areas. For example, along the street scape towards the entrance of a park; maybe near shops if this is on the way; etc. This would need to be different in each case, according to the neighbourhood environment and park location. TOTALLY agree with that. I tugged on my dog's lead to stop him pulling me over one day, and the poo bag (which was in the same hand) hit my leg and split open. Yuck! It was the bio-degradable one which I have no complaint about, but our ones can be thin and weak at the seams. I'm always careful of that now and like to get rid of it asap. Bumma if your dog 'goes' at the beginning of a walk rather than the end. Also, holding a full poop bag and trying to train with (eg) tug is awkward. Not to mention that it really urks my boy as well, for he is very much put off by the smell of his own poop and any remnants of its scent on a toy/tug will have him refusing to go near . Not picking on you specifically, SP, but again I am compelled to express my disagreement. No 'crime' is committed if your dog hasn't pooped. Like I have said before, I've forgotten on the odd occasion over the years but have been known to pick up using a tissue (or two). I've also found a plastic bag along the way and used that. So just because I don't have a poo bag on me doesn't mean I have and will do the wrong thing and I would very much object to being fined because someone thinks I might do the wrong thing.

We had that too (Casey Council). But now it is a case of cheaper rego fees if dog is microchipped and/or trained. So, you get a discount if your dog is microchipped. You get (from memory) the same discount if your dog is trained. But not both. I don't see the sense in this given that microchipping is mandatory anyway. I did raise this with Council a few years ago and pointed out that it seemed they were removing the incentive to train dogs. They acknowledged that point but to my knowledge nothing was changed.

Maybe others would, but I wouldn't like this. I pay rates just like many others. I also pay Council Dog Registration fees, just like many others. And I don't think "large dog owners" should be discriminated against. I think we pay enough for everything that we do without knowing that even going for a lovely walk and run with your dog is going to cost too - and to have to think to remember your card .... and to have to know to keep an eye on time limits for being allowed to run your dog. Sorry, but that's like bringing in more and more laws but in the guise of restrictions and levies. Besides which, who would police these? Not to mention the cost involved in fencing and monitoring people's cards at gates. Even if automated, that would cost a fortune and then there will be break-downs and maintenance. And who would be the responsible party for the card issue? Would the cards be "Nationally Recognised" at all parks, or would they relate to Council area. Which would mean that if you were 'out of town' you wouldn't be able to run your dog in another Council district's off-leash park. I want the freedom to enjoy what little freedoms we have left.

Roger that

When I ran the Petition to try to change our Victorian law that bans the use of the PPCollar, I referred to "Fact Sheet 8". Seems the link to this (Government) Fact Sheet is broken, removed or no longer valid. I printed out a copy of that sheet from way back and it said "The signatures must be numbered on each page, starting with number 1 for the first signature on every sheet." I notice that in THIS GOVT LINK it doesn't say signatures must be numbered, but the example template has the lines numbered.

This thought has tinkled an idea ..... Although in my area Council supplied and maintained dog poo bag dispensers are not provided in many places (only one that I could name), I do know that the Council supplied dog poo bags have writing on them. What about if these could be used as a source of advertising for responsible dog ownership, providing different short messages on each one? Eg. "Observe on-leash area requirements" or some such.

Steve - I'll be in on this and will do what I can. But have sent you an email. I think the Victorian Petition form has to have every line numbered.

And also for clarification - wouldn't have mattered had it not been for the fact that my post came directly after yours, Anne. Sorry - didn't read your post before I posted mine. You mentioned "rewarding good behaviour" so it seems we are on a similar page.

More rangers to implement the laws we already have, and/or to place articles in local newspapers, give community talks etc? But then it comes down to council allocated money. Hard question. Will ponder a bit more. I wanted to give free "Community Talk/s" to people about doggy related (educational) topics, such as dogs and babies; early socialisation; and so on and contacted our local Council to see if they would permit me to conduct them via the Council Chambers, as I noted they often have people who would provide "self improvement" type seminars (eg. website building etc) there. But the Council informed me that my service would not be about self improvement for small businesses and that it might be seen as promoting myself (can't deny that ..... but so?) and consequently the answer was "no".

I don't think that it is just about getting more people to go to dog schools. That's great, of course, and I think it should be very much encouraged and certainly it is an avenue that would go towards being able to educate on various different levels (eg. training; park etiquette; courtesy; council laws; etc) but not everyone wants to take their dog to dog school. Not everyone can. Not everyone needs to. I'm not sure the answer, but I have the (not so?) silly idea of the "Metre Maid" type thing rattling around in my head. Well, not really Meter Maid, but a campaign where people doing the right thing are randomly spotted, rewarded and publicly recognised for just this fact. Does anyone remember the campaign that ran for a while where if you had a special sticker on your car and you were spotted driving courteously, you received a reward? I wonder how successful (or not?) that campaign was for the duration that it lasted. The point being that it would have helped get the word around and give people incentive to do the right thing. These things could perhaps be Council sponsored and/or Media sponsored. And even could be a marketing strategy for other groups/orgs to sponsor and get their names/services advertised with every "Good Citizen" (to steal a label) reward publicised. Just a loose idea. Not necessarily a great one and not necessarily an easy one without its own flaws.

Agreed - far more concerning are the vaccination site cancers and the vaccine mediated auto immune responses than AT THIS STAGE are the "chipping" cancers. I agree, although this thread isn't a "vaccination -vs- microchip" topic. Not that I mind anyone stating their preferences, just don't wish the point of my raising about the microchip/cancer theory to be misunderstood.

Yes - interesting. Thanks LukeW

That link didn't work for me. Seems you need to go to www.wellington.vic.gov.au Search for "dogs" and click on "pounds" in index at left. Follow prompts to "dogs" and you should get there. Cute little one - she doesn't look all that bad for her ordeal and "pink collar with coloured stones" sounds like she is a loved dog for someone. I hope they don't give up contacting pounds and shelters, given she's been missing for a while and the rightful and potentially fretting owner might have already contacted the pound at least once or more times.

Interesting, all of it. Thanks for the informative contributions. I agree that it is a case of weighing risk against benefits and certainly it stands that the benefits win out. Besides which, microchipping is law. I think too it is interesting to realise that yes, the chips are implanted at the same/similar sight of vaccination. I could imagine a vaccination reaction embodying a chip and growing from there - easy to potentially wrongly point the finger at the chip. I also agree - with the information that is available to us, I would think vaccination the lesser of two evils (so to speak - that is if the chip really can trigger cancerous growth, albeit rarely). Still, "rarely" doesn't mean it hurts less, when it is your own dog. So I do hope there is next to nothing in what the email I received incited.

Is it possible though that this dog has digestive issues and that the bone isn't being broken down by the stomach's own enzymes? Genuine question to all those who are reading and who might know.

And how does the regular puppy buyer know to do this?? None of my friends even know of 'registered' or 'papers' 'limited' or 'main register'. It's not common knowledge so for a Joe Blow puppy buyer to go the extra length to sus out the background of the breeder is not the norm either. I agree with Clyde. Maybe, as part of the "purchase from ethical registered breeders rather from pet [etc] shop campaign" (so to speak) there could be an educational piece prepared on "What to look for in a puppy Breeder", and then advertise it - joint advertisement financed by contributions made by all registered breeders??? One of those items might be "Sight the Breeder's Current [xxx] Certificate" (insert name of certificate/paper/card which verifies breeder's prefix currency and registration with relevant State Body. ??? Just a thought, although probably wrong thread.

I have received an email today. I receive interesting snippets periodically from this person and from what I can gather, these are passed on to him (ie not necessarily him as the author). This one is about possible link between microchip and cancer. I don't wish to cause hysteria on the topic, but I am interested to know what anyone else happens to know about it, as it is the first time I've heard that the humble microchip can cause this very serious health issue and something that needs to be followed up on ..... whether that be to rule it in or rule it out (or sit on the fence). A copy/paste of what I've been sent : There are many links included throughout the email content in the email forwarded to me (from what I gather, it was originally posted by "Dr Mercola" on 3rd November on some other forum (???)) but I can't get them to activate.

Hear hear. The loss of a dog by one is a bridge to the heart of many people. I'm really sorry for your loss, Moselle. RIP :D Sophie. She joins the other of our heart dogs who play aloft in the warm sunshine and on the soft grass whilst they patiently wait our proper turn to meet up again.

I think that depends. I agree that inexplicable increase of weight is a symptom, but there could also be the cases where thyroid dysfunction causes anxiety/stress and as a result, a dog who might suffer weight loss. So, the weight loss isn't the symptom per se, but anxiety/stress may be and the weight loss a subsequence. I'm not an expert and I'm not sure whether Dr Jean Dodds would agree with me, but one thing I know through some of the research I have done over the while is that early onset thyroiditis in young dogs can represent with similar symptoms to that of hyperthyroidism (which dogs don't get - or is considered very rare). ETA: Hair loss is normally symmetrical if its cause is due to thryoid issues.