Erny

Not sure what training regime/protocol Righteous Pups have (ie are they like Assistance Dogs Australia who train the dog up and then pair the dog to the person?) but I can see where $29,000.00 would easily go. Take into account dog's food, vet care, insurance, housing costs and THEN take into account the hours on hours of training the dog receives before it is homed to a person needing and qualifying for an assistance dog. Think about your own (or the average) yearly wage and work out what percentage $29,000.00 represents, without forgetting how much of that $29,000.00 is not nett but would be taken up by out of pocket expenses. True, though. Assistance dogs who require specialised training do cost a lot for one person to pay out for. But it's not a lot of money in terms of time/out-lay. They are worth their weight in gold, though, IMO. I love seeing assistance dogs with their 'people'. There is a very special bond that forms between them that doesn't as often occur between dogs and able-bodied/minded people.

Yep - what a great revenue grabber. "Money, money, money ..... in a rich man's world ..." Well, I wish the authorities would climb out of their gold fish bowl and get more dog-wise ............... and start targetting the REALLY irresponsible people, rather than just lay down paving on the 'easy street'.

Pockets - I wouldn't be too "rest assured" about that. Thing is, if they bring it in as a law (and they do bring in some stupid laws that never cease to surprise), it won't matter what the Magistrate thinks or feels on the matter. If it is written then a person will either be found guilty for breach of the law, or not. Also, many people will cop fines simply because they can't afford to fight the matter in Court.

My crystal ball tells me that once all or at least most Councils fall into step with what the RSPCA wants regarding the "2-dog" law, the next step will be that it will become a "law" rather than merely Council by-law.

Probably because it's pretty hard to take an organisation seriously when they're quoted coming out with moronic statements like this. The human race could go extinct and I for one would not shed any tears. I mean really, does that look like it came out of the mouth of someone who had an IQ higher than his shoe size? It's all the genetically modified soy beans they eat, I tell ya. LOL ..... of course the person wouldn't shed any tears. He/she would be extinct. So that was a pretty safe statement to make. Der. Time to check with our local politicians what their stance is in regards to PETA. And vote accordingly.

Good - I'm glad. It's what I would do. Better to err on the side of caution rather than guessing that your dogs are not affected. Don't forget to take the rest of the snake with you.

That's only one of the reasons why I think e-collar training is good. Not only for training, but it is that one extra assurance that you have when your dog is off lead. Glad your dog is ok Bindii. Your post very much evidences the rush of adrenaline you would have felt. Thank goodness the ending to your tail is not a tragic one.

So would I. And if they suggest you get on down to see them with your dogs, take the rest of the snake with you for ID purposes. Let us know how you get on. Does a snake need to be alive for venom to be injected? IOW, is it possible for any part of the mouth to be accidentally injected prior to ingestion?

My first thought when I read the opening post and a couple more (but before I opened the link to the article) was "this has got to be in Victoria". And yep. Sure as eggs. It is. . They're going to ban dog-farting eventually, the way they are going. If dogs are securely fenced, then that's sufficient for me. What about at the zoo? Will they fine the zoo-keepers if the animals confined threaten, growl, roar, or whatever? Get over it Councils. This place has become and continues to become even more a society where a sneeze is going to set people a quiver. Get real. Stop being ridiculous. Spend our dog registration money on the real-time culprits who make society living dangerous.

What is "good dog" in Polish, MonElite?

What new law proposal? I have yet to see any concrete reference to new laws. Just people saying that the RSPCA is making recommendations to councils. You're right (from what I gather from this thread). It is not a "by-law" until it is accepted by the Council/s. However, so many of them (and other Governmental departments) seem to hang off the words, wants and recommendations of the RSPCA that I would be concerned it is as good as "in" if we're not careful (ie let the Councils know of objections).

Oooh Try not to disturb it and it will perhaps most likely be where it is when the snake guy comes out. They are very beautiful (even though they give me the heebies). Pity they are so venomous and therefore dangerous to our genetically curious dogs.

Lhok - it seems to me that you and I are like-minded in our grave concern for National power in the hands of the RSPCA. I am not a breeder so I'm not the ideal person to comment as far as some of the suggestions you make. However, comment I will, but please take into account the fact that I do not believe I am the best qualified (if qualified at all) to do so. I can clearly see that you have the best of intentions, but I see some logistical problems with what you have suggested. The issue I see with the above is the simple fact that some genetic diseases aren't going to show up in the young pup. Could this then not cause the unscrupulous pet shop owner to be a bit more hasty at getting rid of pups that don't 'move' quickly? I don't know what normally happens to pups that are not sold ........ I am only thinking that it is quite possibly an outcome we'd prefer not to think about. I think a cooling off period is necessary. Not sure about 7 days, but I think you're on the right track. That is, however, if pet shops should sell them in the first place. I abhore pups being kept in their glass/Perspex tanks. If pet shops are going to be permitted to continue to sell them at all, IMO the perspex tank system of confinement should be banned - forthwith. Funny - so many other things that actually do have benefit to the welfare of dogs have been banned. Yet nothing about these fish tank type arrangements for the confinement of pups.

Good for you, CWW. Charlies certainly got everything going for him in terms of support from you :p. Great that he's have'n fun .

CWW - I really hope very hard that there is something that can be found and done for Charlie. I congratulate you on your attitude. I'm sure you are more upset and worried than what your very sensible posts portray - I love the fact that you treat Charlie like a dog. I think that's one of the highest honours we can give our dogs. Good for you. Many people find that hard to do when there is nothing wrong with the health of their dogs. To be able to do so in the face of such a trying health issue must be very difficult. After all, I know that you are human with human emotions too. Good luck. I'll be wishing it so hard for Charlie and for you.

And not for people with potentially the wrong or insufficient training (along with the brain wash of breed bias) to have the power to decide whether a dog needs or deserves to be euthanased. I have made my submission.

This has saddened me deeply. RIP Reg . Run free, laddy.

The RSPCA has been pushing for a long time for National laws. Given the extremely poor and often wrong and devastating administration of them though, and the people (or at least one of the few persons) who would have a major influence in wielding the almighty and powerful sword, National laws (read : National 'power') scares me. No - until the people start getting their game right and show us that their animal welfare intentions are true and honourable, then I'm against nationalising of the laws.

I agree, Kynta. And besides, I wouldn't want the people that I know - albeit they be my good friends, even - to sit/lay on my lap and snooze whilst I snooze. LOL And if any one of them dragged their tongue up my cheek, I think I'd hit them. . And let's not talk about where they might put their cold wet noses . Oh, but wait - they generally don't possess cold, wet noses.

Elections are happening this year. Don't anyone forget it. Find out from your local members (both current and future) what their take is on these sort of subjects. And take that into account when you place your Vote.

Noted - thanks again, SBT. LOL ..... and I'm glad you didn't think my question stupid, Smoothiegirl.

Problem is, no-one of my "own-kind" could possibly be as honest; as forgiving; as non-judgemental; as ready to go for a walk/play/work when I am; as happy to share and rejoice in quiet company with me; as happy to watch the same TV shows with me, without quibble; as stoic in the face of discomfort/ill health; and as ever-ready to thrill in the sheer joy of life for every moment life provides (even though we're not going away on holidays or doing anything unusual); as my dog is.

Well, if they'd only look at the other end of the leash (as we keep asking/suggesting/telling them to) they might just get a clue.

Although that shouldn't really come into it, even if you discount the moral aspects of it. Pet Insurance claim approvals are not a 'given'. There could be all sorts of reasons for a claim being denied. Unlike human health insurance where they don't ask if you had that sore 'xxxxx' before you took out the insurance with them, or whether it might be genetically related. And I agree with the response to the dog having a caesarean to a dog toy. Could that be the birth of the first genetically modified 'perfect' pet dog? Doesn't bark; won't dig; etc. etc. Perhaps there's no need for the "Building Better Dogs" seminar here in Victoria on 11th February ?????

I have found this in general, of the IPO people I know. Willing to help, support and encourage.