Erny

I don't read that as meaning it is compulsory. They are just accusing in a round-about way, people of being irresponsible if they don't annually vaccinate their dogs and cats. In response to that, I say the Council needs to read the AVA recommendations pertaining to vaccinations, at the very least. That, and spend some time here on DOL - THAT would provide a very good source of information pertaining to vaccinations (and other regular, frequent and often unnecessary application of drugs) and the affects they can and do have on our dogs.

That was discussed at length in a thread here on DOL, quite a long time ago. It sounds good in theory, but in terms of practicality, it won't work. And yet again I think you'll find it will only be the responsible and law-abiding people that it will hurt. I mean, what about the old lady who lives on a farm in the middle of whoop whoops - self sufficient, grows her own vegies, has a bulk food order delivered once a week or fortnight and rarely leaves her property unless she can get a lift from a friend/neighbour/relative. Should that person be precluded from owning a companion dog? What would the terms of the licensing be? Have to train the dog? Have to socialise the dog? What about people who don't have transport? But then, who will chose the training establishment that will be recognised as the place that decrees the dog is trained and behaves well? And behaves well in whose environment? In what situations? What about the elderly dog who is rescued or rehomed by personal avenues - a dog who is living in an environment that is suited to its temperament and prior experiences? And will that 'establishment' be easily accessible for all? What would the license really control? Will it make people better dog owners? Will it prevent them from doing the wrong thing? Will it make them do the right thing? Or would it be the same as it is now - that they'll do what they do unless and until they are actually caught and monitored? The anomalies go on.

The "compulsory vaccinating" where? Kennels? Shelters? Sorry - not sure what you mean.

Make it mandatory that they have health checks? Hip scores, Elbow scores, Eyes ...... all the usual. Which ones they have should I guess be dependant on the parentage cross. If one parent is a lab, then they must conduct the usual health checks for the lab. If another is a beagle, then the usual health checks for a beagle. And if they are using an F1 cross as a parent, then all of the above as would apply. That's a thought off the top of my head - I'm sure there is more. And I'm sure my thoughts are flawed with difficulties. Do Pet Shops already have to record where the pups are born from (ie which BYB)? This would render them traceable. Maybe the BYB's need to be licensed? Perhaps the laws need to direct their attentions to the places who sell the pups in the first place and have it mandatory that the pups from whence they take pups in for sale, must be licensed and they need to obtain proof of that to be able to lawfully accept the pups for sale? Would that send BYB's underground though? (Maybe it would - but it would make it more difficult for public access . )Perhaps that's where the "education" component comes into it. But for that, the media needs to come on side and make people aware. The authorities need to send out publications I mean (rightly or wrongly) they did that with tradespeople such as electricians, didn't they? Made it so that only licensed electricians should do your electrical work? I dunno, SM. But the point is, it seems to me that the laws that are being flogged affect the END person who ultimately owns the pup that's already been bred, and of course, the pup itself. And that seems to me to be the wrong entrance for an effective plan to commence.

But Cosmolo .... So, we are relying on an irresponsible BYB to register their dogs and of course desex them so that they can register them? The only whereforehows that are going to affect that BYB so that they end up desexing and registering is if their dog or dogs are caught straying. But isn't it said here that there really isn't a problem with stray dogs?

But how does this reduce any big problem with BYB? They can still breed. Isn't it the new owners (who have paid their moneys for the pups to the BY breeders) of the BY bred dogs who pay the registration fees and desex the pups? That's like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, isn't it? I'm trying to see your view Cosmolo - I really am. But I can't. So please, explain the steps, the semantics, of how this law will actually work to achieve that aim.

No "narkiness" taken, SP ;). The way I see it, the only 'good' that comes of any of the laws pertaining to this registration/desexing/ANKC excepted business is money for the authorities involved in this. People need to realise this rather than being snowballed by nice speeches that make one think it makes a difference to current problems associated by irresponsible people and their dogs. I want some proof from the authorities that what they do actually helps before I commit myself to agreeing that their laws/proposed laws (which will also affect me and any decisions I would otherwise have the freedom to make for the benefit of my dog). They've had long enough to accumulate that. I would like them to put their our money where their mouths are. ETA: Even then, I, as a responsible dog owner, object to being railroaded by laws that would impose upon me and potentially upon my dogs' health and what I chose is the best for that. Remember - this is all supposed to be about animal welfare.

Active Manuka Honey UMF 20+ or higher

Huh? I don't think so. What about cross-breeds? They aren't registered or recognised by ANKC. What about purebreeds that aren't registered (by owner choice or otherwise)? I know of no law that says they must be, if they are to live. I think SpikesPuppy ment all living pups from an ANKC breeding. Thanks Menacebear. I'm really sorry to be 'dumb' (mind is in other things so I'm multi-tasking here) ..... but to me an "ANKC breeding" means that it is a breed the ANKC recognises. I still do not believe that it is law that dog breeds recognised by ANKC have to be registered with the ANKC ??? I'm asking here, as I feel as though I've missed a point somewhere along the lines of the posts in this thread.

Huh? I don't think so. What about cross-breeds? They aren't registered or recognised by ANKC. What about purebreeds that aren't registered (by owner choice or otherwise)? I know of no law that says they must be, if they are to live.

Shel - beautifully and succinctly said. Rounds up the whole situation (especially) Victoria seems to be in right at this very moment.

Actually, I think if you let your instincts surface, you'll realise the difference between the two. Practice it with a friend (yep - humans communicate this way too, we're just not so conscious of it these days, we tend to bury this natural ability under a cloak of reliance on verbal language) and see if you can spot the differences. Practice 'soft eyes' and 'hard eyes'. Sally Swift (horse trainer) wrote a book on natural horse riding methods - I loved that book ("Centred Riding" - about your balance; your relaxation; and how these things affect or effect your horse). It was an awakening to me that no other riding instructor was able to communicate to me. Coincidentally, after I got the book and revelled in it, I so very fortunately stumbled upon a riding instructor who was taught by Sally Swift, and so began a wonderful feeling and heightened union between my horse and I. I felt as though I was a flower beginning to bloom.) I do believe we actually 'know' what dogs are saying to us more than we allow ourselves to realise. By comparison, I think verbal language is vulgar and limited. I far prefer body and face language. (Note : I'm not suggesting verbal language should be done away with, but I think we could afford to tune in more to our own body language as well as that of others. In that way we will be more inclined to release our ancient instincts and understand animals and others who perhaps don't communicate very well verbally with us.)

Will look up all of which you have mentioned - thanks again, Horus . Actually, I think I need one of those "backyard make-over" things - you know, the ones on TV where I go away on a holiday (with my dog, of course) and come back to find it is all done? Just want to keep my lemon tree and a few other 'special' plants that I've put in over the past couple of years. Hey Horus ..... aren't you due for a trip to Melbourne yet? ;) Accomodation would be taken care of :D .

No debate from here, either, HC.

Personally, I think there is now cause to turn this back to Council. I'd like to know how much of our registrations is specifically spent on or towards our dogs and their activities within the community and its facilities. If it is only a small percentage of the funds, then I think that is cause for objection. In the past, registration served as not only a means of providing funds for Councils to ply back into that component of community sharing activities, but also as a means of identification and owner location. Nowadays, we have mandatory microchipping, which to my mind takes care of the ID side of things. So it seems to me that the only real purpose of the funds we pay year in and year out, is for the purpose of revenue which goes to ....................... what? If the fees we pay are not being predominantly used towards and in relation to dogs within the community, then I think to say to anyone "we [council] won't make you desex your dog if you pay us" is akin to [legal] blackmail. Because of mandatory microchipping (which I think is a good thing) I do not accept that NOT registering your dog makes you an irresponsible dog-owner. But it does make you a person who is breaking the law. Does anyone else share my thoughts? ETA: I think my points need to be addressed on a 'Council to Council' basis, as I suspect there are some Councils who might put more of the dog-raised revenue back to dog-facilities and services than others.

I would actually love an evergreen. But I think my preferences narrow the field down and I've not been able to find what I want that would suit. For example (and I think I've mentioned this in another thread some time back) my MOST favourite tree is the Peppercorn Tree . Too big for my back yard. I thought of gum tree, but got put off because of people telling me how much mess there is (was thinking about one of those newer varieties that have been designed to grow smaller - I'm pretty sure they are red gums). But I agree that they are lovely trees and I do love their gentle shapes. My backyard is on the south side of my home, but being fairly high up (I'm built on the side of a hill - steep, although not by any stretch extreme) my yard cops a little of the weather from the east and a reasonable amount from the west (hot sun; wind). I don't need a tree that is too dense in its foliage as that would cut down the light factor to my lounge/family room, which faces out south to the back yard. I love the 'peace' that soft, feathery foliage gives (such as in the peppercorn tree) and the cool shade it would provide (which of course would benefit my dog, but also protect some of my other plants from the scorching sun). I checked into White Cedar ages ago. Quite like the tree (and the scent is adorable) but too big. And from what I read here, a "no-no" when it comes to dogs. Thought about Lilypily, but its foliage is more dense than I really want and I've been told the berries can cause a bit of a mess. I think I could cope with that, but to be honest, Lilypillies don't really float my boat as a feature tree, which mine would end up being. Robina 'Fresia' is out (as per previous post). Thought about an orange tree which would compliment my wonderful lemon tree, but its foliage too is more dense than I would like - and I'd prefer a canopy style tree. If the orange tree grew anything like my lemon tree, it would take up far too much ground space. All the trees I like and could potentially have grow too large. Maybe I just need to move to acreage. I think I'm a country girl at heart . I don't think I thought about Crepe Myrtle for the backyard - perhaps I dismissed them when my heart was set on evergreen. I do like them (ergo the Crepe Myrtle I planted in the nature strip, and the mini crepe myrtle in my front yard), although they are fairly slow growing and I think it would be some time before I would be able to enjoy the shade it would eventually make. Thanks for that suggestion, Horus. Will re-visit that line. Prunus doesn't 'do' anything for me, but will check into your other suggestions - thanks ..... I appreciate them.

This is the same person who has been complaining for years now? I remember the Club having same/similar issues from way back. I utilise the grounds - sometimes the (yard) facilities. I generally use it just as somewhere different to go and/or when I wish to generalise my boy's training.

Bummer ..... just read up. Prone to suckering if roots are damaged or hit an obstacle such as clay soil. I am on clay soil and I believe (from what I read) the suckers can be a real nuisance in small gardens . Dang it. I thought I'd finally found the tree for my back yard.

Horus . "Acacia" is the name I was thinking of . Appreciate you enlightening us ..... I will go to bed easier now, all for the lack of wracking my brain trying to think of that. I think they are reasonably fast growing, too? Appreciate also the tip about grafting -vs- having thorns growing up the trunk. I'll be sure to speak to the nursery about that .

I have one for my boy's kennel. Given that's for outside use, I have no issues with noise of the fabric and nor does my dog. Although to render it a bit more 'cuddlier' and so I don't have to wash the cover so much, I usually put a blanket of some description on top. No issues with it flattening - perhaps that's because it is held on all sides by the kennel walls, so doesn't get a chance. Mine is now about 1.5 years old and is pretty much as good as new. Nothing will every be completely indestructible if it is also to be soft. Any attempt at chewing a bed was very quickly stopped from the get go and I don't have any problems now. You could try spraying some stop-chew on any new mattress or item you bring in. However, if the habit is particularly ingrained, stop chew products tend not to work as well as they would if the behaviour is only at its very beginning. If you use a bad-taste substance, make sure it is not of the smelly kind as well, given that it is a place you want your dog to be (but just not chew).

Yes - I apologise too, RubyStar. But I need to ask - do those seed pods turn brown and hard at any stage? The tree still looks similar to what I am thinking, but I'm not so sure now. Need Horus or Hortfurball. Lovely tree.

If it is not a Wattle, then it may be what I am thinking of. Do the leaves have a golden tinge to them at any stage? I've seen some that are green, such as yours, and others that are a golden green. Not sure if each is just a variety of itself, or if this is a growth stage phenomena. And if it is the one I am thinking of, I have a seed pod from one that I picked some time ago (and never got around to planting). I have been thinking about planting one of those (not from the seed - I need it faster than that) in my back yard as well, for the lovely shade it provides.

I purchased some this morning from the Deli section in Richies. $1.75 per kg. It smells as well. I thought that was odd as I have purchased from elsewhere before - although in that case it has always come frozen, so I thought that might have made the difference. But it didn't smell like this lot does after I thawed it out. Or perhaps that the smelly stuff contains 'more' of the chicken that just its frame ???

I'm pretty sure I know what tree that is, but the name is not coming to me. I'd take a stab and suggest it starts with "A", but the name is so vague in my memory banks that I'm likely to be far wrong. Unless someone (Hortfurbull or Horus or others) come in to enlighten us, I'll try to find out the name and let you know. Does this tree have longish seed pods? The only other thing I thought of was that it is a variety of Wattle tree ??? I like Wattle Trees.

That sounds like sooty mould which is usually caused by honey type secreting insects (eg. scale). The soot isn't the problem as such but it can stop the leaves from breathing/taking in the light (which prevents photosynthesis - an absolute necessity for plants) and a wash over with a mild soap solution. You might do well to look into a pesticide - Confidor (which is systemic) or a pest oil. I'm no horticolturist - Hortfurball and/or Horus would be our two reigning DOL members in that respect and it would be better to confirm the above with them. I'd hate to hint towards doing something that would damage your tree.