Erny

FIFTEEN !!!

Erny : It's about Rescue Ethics and aggressive dogs should not be re-homed when there are thousands of well temperamented dogs in need of homes. Some Rescuers let their emotions rule and if they're not a qualified Behaviourist I believe that to be dangerous regardless of the size of the dog. Sas : Yeah - I'm tending to agree with you Sas. I think my earlier post, I was 'bouncing' off the "he's old; should make room for younger, better dogs" comments and forgetting the rest. I still think the guy deserves a chance. Definitely a temp test to 'prove' or disprove what the owner is saying. If the owner really doesn't want him and if the little guy stands a chance at a nice home for the last couple of years of his senior life, then I think he should have that chance, all other things being well (and his teeth getting fixed). I can never bring myself to say "pts" as the better alternative without meeting a dog and seeing it for myself, either.

I probably need to get into rescue to harden up to practicalities a bit. But what difference if the owner had chosen to keep her oldie? If there's someone out there that might like to have this little guy (no one is "expecting" anyone to take him on - I just see it as giving him a chance, if someone would like to), he's still taking up the same air space as he is now. I don't think I could come to grips with a "you're old - move over to make room" attitude, as practical as that might be. As I said - I'm not involved in rescue so I only hear of some of the hardships and heartbreaks, I don't live them as part of what I do on a daily basis. What I hear and what I do see, as infrequent by comparison to you rescue guys (hats off to you), is enough and more than I'd like. ETA: I came back in to add that on reflection what I wrote might have sounded harsh to all our rescuers out there. I know that you have the younger, healthier dogs at your heart.

Hehehehehe ..... gotta luv it. THIRTEEN !! (One of my lucky numbers.)

Hi Kirst - I'm in no position to take him in either. Poor little tyke. For the want of a few teeth you'd think this senior would deserve to be cared for until his real time was nigh. Sounds like an older person would enjoy his company and most likely he would enjoy theirs for the last few years of his life. Some people just don't cherish the 'aged' (dogs or people). I love 'old'. They know so much and have 'seen' life.

We're sitting on TWELVE Victorian DOL people who have written at least one letter to the MP's. Well done to them (which includes me, LOL) . Anyone else who perhaps haven't marked themselves in to the Poll stats?

Perhaps, Mita. But if that little nervous lost Peke is remotely snappish, bet your bottom dollar it will go on the "48 hours" list. The bigger dogs won't stand a chance, for sure. Even just recently a friend commented to me, after having visited one of our main shelters, how it seemed too coincidental the fact that the adoption pens housed all the med to small dogs, and death row was filled only with the larger dogs. But in this law, some of the little ones will get caught up in the net too. And don't forget - it's not just about that (although unnecessary and unfair death to our dogs is the primary concern). It's about the disproportionate penalties as well. I know of people who have committed crimes against people who have got off with less than what they are proposing for the dogs. And what's the point of a fine when you're out walking with your dog on lead, just because the Council tag isn't dangling from the dog's collar? Tags aren't necessary for ID. Council have those electronic devices where they can punch in and check on the spot if your dog is registered. Not to mention scanners for microchips. That angle just feels like revenue grabbing to me. And why would Council Officers spend their time jumping on top of people and their dogs when the people and their dogs are being responsible? Why not spend their time targeting the irresponsible? I'm afraid it just comes back to "easy money" in my mind.

Hey Kelpie-i .... . With the submissions that have been made and the great points that have been raised, the only reason I can see for the State Labor Government insisting on passing the Bill is going to be one of sheer arrogance and bloody-mindedness, with not an ounce of real concern for the people who appointed them to Government in the first place. State Elections are in November.

Mita - thank you for your support and encouragement. Victoria cops the brunt of prohibitive and stifling dog laws and it is a shame that our Canine Dog Authority - the largest and main in the State, aren't working harder (in fact from all accounts they're not working at all, because they are "comfortable" with the terms of the proposed Bill - in fairness, they did work to change the "48 hours" from "24 hours") to help us and that in that respect, we're somewhat on our own. But even without VicDogs, the rest of us together have the capacity to be awesome .

*bumpy*

Go back to your early days (pre e-collar training) "collar conditioning" regime. Pretend it's not on her and interact/train your usual way (as you do when you have not been using it). It sounds to me that although you might have done the "collar conditioning" regime before you began training with the e-collar, you are now only using it situational specific (eg. antibark collar use).

Thanks Casster17. I'm doing no more than anyone else can and is. Just letters and more letters - and trying to use any feasible mode I can to spread the word on this. That's the sort of thing we all need to do. We've got a whole 2 weeks to do this (ETA: well, actually, it's 10 days) and to demonstrate to the Government that there are many people who do not agree with the Bill Joe Helper proposes. If others contacted the radio stations about this as well, it might demonstrate to them (ie the radio presenters) that people out there are interested and concerned and where the radio presenters might not have initially thought it newsworthy, interest generated and shown might have them change their minds. As the submission by "Lawyers for Animals" points out (and as I pointed out earlier in this thread) this is NOT just about "Dangerous Dogs" as we know them from Govt definition pov. This is about ALL dogs. But the title of the proposed Bill is misleading that way, which is why everyone should have this brought to their attention or they could find themselves quite shocked and heartbroken when the one thing they never thought would or could happen to them and theirs, does.

What the OP hasn't mentioned is the 'findings' of the initial veterinary examination. Although that doesn't guarantee that the same thing is happening over again, it is something I'm curious about.

Have emailed MTF1377 as well . Thank you, Casster17 ;) Good stuff, Chewbacca ;).

Submission to Mr. Neil Mitchell 3AW made.

Is it safe to assume from what you've written (refer my highlights) that you're saying your dogs were both found with having ear infections? (Otherwise, why the antibiotics and cortisone?) Do you use spot-ons regularly? Is it possible THAT's what is causing irritation?

Perhaps they have been inundated . Thanks for doing another letter to them, Kelpie-i .

Don't worry Casster17 .... all of my emails have a "request response" but I've hardly received any. They must be hitting the "no" button their end, or they haven't opened the email. It takes a while before I receive "not read" or "deleted before read" messages.

I thought this part of the "Lawyers for Animals" response was particularly pertinant, given the evidence already shown in this thread that some people think this proposed Bill only relates to declared "Dangerous Dogs" . As I have mentioned earlier here, the laws under this proposed Bill, if it gets through, can and will affect ANY dog : For any one who thinks the Government will do what it wants anyway, so don't bother - believe me, I know and understand first hand your frustrations and despair that might cause you to being unable to muster the energy to do anything about this proposed Bill. It is possible that the Government will do what it wants, anyway, regardless of our objections and very good reasoning for it not to. But it is DEFINITE that it will do what it wants if we don't voice out, for the sake of our dogs (and ourselves) now. Because of the letters that have been submitted already , we have politicians who have taken an interest in this matter. If they are to debate for us because they now understand our views and objections, we need to 'arm' them further by showing how many of us have grave concerns about this Bill. We can only do that by communicating how number strong us Victorians are. This doesn't preclude letters from interstaters, as that all goes to assist. Every law that is passed in one State is one step closer to the same or similar law being adopted in another, and another .... As Mike has said, we have another two weeks within which to take the opportunity to know that our voice was one that joined the throng of others, to make a difference.

The term "Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness" has been referenced quite a bit : in the proposed Bill itself : (which, although I'm not a lawyer, is suggesting to me that the Government acknowledges that this Bill is one that deserves observation of Procedural Fairness) ; in a number of the responses which have been submitted to Government; and also, I think in some of the posts in this thread (I think I've used the term several times). For those who are not aware of the rules of "Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness" but would like to know and understand more of it I've provided a link below. It is a NSW publication but I couldn't find a better Victorian one. It's not too tedious to read and it isn't too lengthy. Rules of Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness

Thank you for that post, Mike. And I agree - that was an excellent submission by the LFA. I wonder - do you think it would do well for a copy of the Bill, along with a copy of the LFA (which begins to make sense of what the Bill is about and what problems it will create) to the media, as is? May I clarify as well, please .... you've given a link to the contact details of "relevant" pollies. But these are not the ONLY pollies we should now be directing our letters to, are they? I'd be inclined to suggest they would be the main ones but not the only ones ?????

I've written to her as well - no acknowledgement/response as yet.

This is my latest letter to Govt (sent to all MLA's) I'll confess up front that I stole the questions/points that Steve (Julie) raised in this thread and included those in the letter. This was my covering email : And this was my letter :

Ok - perhaps I don't understand political process. But when a Bill is proposed and is up for debate, aren't all Members of the house it's being debated at supposed to attend the debate? I KNOW that doesn't happen, but isn't it SUPPOSED to happen? If every polly passed this on to Joe Helper, is he supposed to debate about it all by himself? Which polly was your response from, APBT Club of Aust Inc ?