KKDD

In the search bar I jsut randomly put a town and buy swap sell etc anything that leads to animals. RADAR like many good rescues has a FB page and even these BSS pages are good for general thing like an ongoing garage sale but not good for exploiting animals. I agree bombarding them from all angles. But I do wonder if local government or the DLG would like to know what is happening, particularly in their back yard. Oh I have found if you try to comment many block you and also one tried to report me to have me booted. Off. I haven't been booted off yet! People in lots of jurisdictions openly break the law by advertising unmicrochipped dogs etc - but in most instances the local councils dont appear to have the resources (or perhaps its just not a priority) to follow these people up for law enforcement. Personally I think they wouldnt need to go all the way with a prosecution, they would get an awful lot of mileage by just sending an official-looking letter to the vendor, or even just giving the vendor a call, and letting them know what law they are breaking, and what the penalties are. In the absence of local governments taking any action, perhaps if people just sent these vendors the same message - "this is what the law says, and this is what the penalty is', a fair proportion would stop doing it - (albeit more out of respect for the penalty than for the law). You could even cc in the local ranger (or just threaten to notify them).

I thought it was actually illegal (in NSW at least) to sell pups at less than 8 weeks of age? If this is the case, facebook is assisting an illegal act by allowing such advertisements. I dont see that would be any less the case than if someone was advertising for sale other illegal products, such as prohibited drugs, or certain types of porn.....

I think part of the reason Australians dont value and care for their dogs as well as people in some other countries is that we have a lot of space and a great climate, so mostly you can choose option of simply leaving your dog outside in the backyard and ignoring it. With that option so widely available, the collective philosophy around dog ownership is different to that in affluent european countries where the climate and the population density (lack of space) mean that owning a dog necessarily means having a dog indoors at least part of the year. So the expectation about the relationship you will have with your dog, and the committment that is required in owning one, is different. IHere its just easier here, to take the slack route, so a lot of people do and this has flow on effects about how many dogs conduct themselves in public, and the attitudes about where dogs should be allowed to accompany their owners. While of course there will be overlap between the attitudes and experiences in all the countries, 'normal' in Australia lies closer to the end of the spectrum that affluent european cultures might consider 'neglect', while 'normal' in those countries probably lies closer to the higher end of the caring spectrum here, (or the average attitude of a person who is interested in being part of DOL). Across the whole population, it makes for a much happier situation for the dogs in affluent european countries, than here. i dont know that a dog in a poorer european country fares particularly well however. Like poor countries everywhere.

Kelpies make great companions to border collies and there are LOTS in rescue. Also please dont assume that a rescue dog of any breed mix is necessarily an 'unknown quantity'. Most rescue dogs live with foster carers, in their homes, with their families and pets, prior to being adopted. A rescuer can tell you an awful lot about the individual foster dogs in her/his care and help you to choose a suitable dog (and warn you off unsuitable ones). Rescuers tend to talk less about general breed characteristics, and more about the specifics of the individual dog you enquire about.

Hes very cute, and Enzo is a fabulous name - congratulations. :D

ACT RSPCA treats pitbulls like any other breed of dog that has no restrictions in the ACT, and regularly have them available for adoption in the shelter.

On the news this morning I heard that St Vincent De Paul in some NSW town is seeking greater government support because the human need in their area has gone up 4-fold in recent times. Also another charity organisation mentioned in the story noted that the requests by low income families for assistance with bills has increased 75%. I imagine that the needs of animals in the community parallels some of the struggles that families have to contend with. Do you guys want to have a kick at those charities too, for not managing their expenditure better?

Not much point in making a thread on the RSPCA on DOL and expecting balanced discussion. There is a vocal cohort of people on DOL that have their minds made up that RSPCA deserves only criticism and will hear no good of the organisation. Their veiws are not strongly reflected outside DOL however and the RSPCA remains a respected organisation in the broader community, and it is widely recognised that it is staffed by people who genuinely care about animals and do their best for them. In so far as the RSPCA enjoys broad popular support, it can be seen that their policies that attract some of the most vitriolic criticism on DOL, are at least tacitly supported elsewhere. Important to remember that DOL is a very small community of people with a particular narrow area of interst in common. Within DOL the RSPCA-haters are a narrower group again. Just having the loudest voice doesnt make a veiw mainstream.

Bringing a new baby home was a very positive experience for my mini dachshies. New baby meant hours and hours every day when I was just sitting on the couch with baby sleeping or feeding, rather than moving around busily as I normally would. The dogs loved it because they would just snuggle up next to me, and got to spend a lot more time in physical contact with me, or just having me home, than previously.

Yep, typical lab. :D Our lab Audrey (who doesnt even have the excuse of being a young dog) will steal any food she can find. She goes through the kids school bags of an afternoon and takes the empty lunchboxes off for a chewing just to get the crumbs, or if no lunchbox, just shreds whatever food wrappers she can find in there. We must never leave any food on benches - of course we forget sometimes and within minutes she can get it on the floor or carry it out the door. Cakes always have to be stored in the fridge or she will get them and eat the lot. She will steal and eat a dozen eggs, or a packet of dried fruit, or a box of milk powder. The worm farm always has to have its lid on tight cos Audrey knows there are rotten veges and old teabags in there - yum! I cant count the number of times Iv lost a dirty saucepan out of the sink or off the cooktop and found it later, well cleaned, under a bush...

Iv been reading through the pets haven threads and have found that they were shut down for having more animals than their permit allows. This seems to be the only fact in circulation, but its been extrapolated by some as meaning that the animals are being mistreated, overcrowded, rehomed expediently and inappropriately etc. Are there other FACTS to support these charges? Iv read a lot of speculation and hearsay but not many facts. Plenty of councils have a 2 dog limit (for example) in homes - would we extrpolate then, that if someone had say, four dogs, or even 6 dogs then this MUST mean that the dogs are neglected, overcrowded, poorly managed etc? I think not. We all know Councils can be imperfect in their manmagement of dog related issues, so maybe we should give PH the benefit of the doubt until FACTS show they are as bad as some are assuming they must be.

Ahh but Fifi, havnt you noticed how much easier it is to discredit challenging ideas, by simply picking out the really extreme stuff and pretending its the mainstream? Some might call it intellectually slack and mean spirited, but gosh, ridiculing the idea that other species deserve to be treated with compassion, is so much easier and more fun than actually confronting the issue with any sort of intellectual rigour.

Great, informed post RR-Melbourne. The increasingly serious outcomes for dogs declared dangerous is the same as for any breed isnt it? The laws in NSW certainly involve increasingly serious penalties once your dog is involved in any 'attack' and the attack doesnt have to involve any contact, it just has to involve a person feeling intimidated by a dogs behaviour. Once a dog of any breed gets declared dangerous in NSW, restrictions on how they must be housed and managed in public apply, and the death sentence comes in pretty quickly if they are involved in further misdemeanors. What a shame more people with snappy snarly little fluffers arnt as responsible as Sascha's owner.

have a talk to the ranger about what it means. Most rangers are very reasonable people who dont want to make life difficult for you if you are genuinely doing your best to fix the problem. They see a lot worse that people like yourself. I think nuisance orders are temporary too - so if the order stands, you may just need to keep your dogs out of trouble for 6 months (check that with the ranger though).

No doubt some will disagree, but I would register the dog as a staffy x (which it is) and raise it well so that it stays out of trouble. Desex it early too. There is no reason for this dog to grow up any more aggressive than if it was another breed equally well raised. There is also no reason that he wont be able to take the dog to a vet should it be necessary, and he should certainly take it to training and socialise it as much as possible. if he saw the parents and they seemed nice enough for him to want one of their pups, chances are the pup will grow up just as nice or nicer, if he puts the work in. Pitbulls are not another species, they are just a breed of dog that is often owned by deadsh*ts and attracts sesnationalist media attention. Please dont believe all the sensationalist stuff you can read about pitbulls - they can actually make lovely family pets.

With respect Labsrule, the definition of 'attack' that is contained in the NSW Companion Animals Act, is grounded in public amenity, not dog behaviour.

I have to agree... the pack mentality that kicks in at dogs parks often means lots of bullying goes on but I rarely see serious fights with injuries. I've even seen the meekest dog in the dog park go and join in on biting/mouthing the face, ears, neck, legs, etc. of a dog that others are picking on. Anyway, I agree that it's frightening and horrible even if there are no injuries. But I saw the footage on TV that I'm assuming the OP is talking about and it was just something else Agree here too. Bull breeds have a particular style of play that is much more physical (and sometimes noisy) than some other breeds use - it can be unnerving for people seeing it, and also scary for a dog subjected to it. I can see how bull breed play could sometimes be interpereted as an attack, and while it could certainly often be described as dominant, that doesnt make it an attack.

It seems the best advice in this thread is the 'wheelbarrow drag/lift them by the back legs technique, and having used it, it really works even on large dogs. Im kind of horrified by some of the other suggestions made here, especially given the human propensity for panic-driven decisions. I havnt seen any of the qualified trainers on the thread mentioning anything about weapons, killing, or endangering your own life....so Ill leave those techniques alone thanks.

I really cant see any evidence in that footage that there was a 'sustained attack'. The child appears to have relatively minor injuries to her face and I couldnt see any injuries to the arm in that footage. Iv had my lip cut by an enthusiastic dog bouncing up as I bent over - with much more swelling and broken skin than this child appears to have. I would think that a dog that meant business would have done a LOT worse than that footage suggests occurred. Dont get me wrong, im sure it was awful for the child, and it certainly shouldnt have happened, but lets not do the media's work of over sensationalising anything to do with dog aggression, for them. They do a great job of creating beat-up attack/mauling stories all on their own. In fact Ill bet if the breed hadnt been so easily recognisable, the story would have included the word 'pitbull'.

Thank you Aiden - you obviously know your stuff. I have found this to work for getting even powerful dogs off other dogs. If more than one dog is willingly participating in a fight, this technique needs to be applied on all dogs at the same time, by as many people as there are dogs. And then you need to keep them apart. Thankfully, most dog fights have only one or two willing participants. The usual panicked human responses of making a lot of noise and attacking dogs yourself in this situation will often make it worse. Aiden, I have heard that throwing a blanket over the fighters will often cause them to detach. is this true?

I suspect the owner got more lenient treatment by claiming he couldnt afford vet care, and thats why the dog was in such appalling condition. Its a glaring lie though. You dont need to go to a vet to get food for a dog, nor to treat a dog for fleas. Its not clear what the other 'skin condition' was or whether it could only be treated by a vet, but just feeding the dog and dealing with the fleas would have improved the dog's quality of life significantly.

As a landlord with tenants that have a dog that's allowed outside only comments like that make me VERY cranky. You have been given leeway to have them in the first place. Why abuse the trust? If we had carpets that were close to needing replacement maybe I would have said yes to inside but they're not and if they move out in 6 months I dint want to advertise my house with a 'please don't apply if allergic to dogs' coz they've lived in it. There's a much bigger picture. I don't see any problem with them letting the dog in the house when they are home as long as they make sure there's no damage. That 'allergic to dogs' stuff is a crock, floors are steam cleaned when the tenant leaves as per the rental agreement and the house is cleaned. We moved in to our place with new carpet and haven't treated it like it's glass but we know that if it's damaged in any way other than normal wear that we'd need to replace it when we left. It comes down to picking tenants that will respect your property. We have flighted birds, dogs and wear shoes inside but when we leave this house will look as it was when we moved in. Clearly you haven't dealt with a severe allergy, a few hairs get missed somewhere and there's trouble. Geez, if you manage a rental property in order to provide for potential future renters who might be devestatingly affected by a few hairs, youre a real specialist. I would imagine that there are a lot more responsible pet owners around, who will treat your properly well, than there are people who will have a severe allergic reaction to a 'few hairs left behind', and while its thoughtful of you to factor into your rental arrangements the specific needs of the catastrophically allergic, youre probably shutting a whole lot more people out of access to your property, than you are facilitating. This of course is your perogative, but its a stretch to infer that the needs of potential renters who may be severely affected by a few hairs left behind, is the justification used by the majority of landlords who do prohibit pets. Seems to me a lot of property managers arbitrarily discrimminate against pet owners on the flimsiest of reasons. In some states now bodies corporate are not allowed to have a blanket ban on pets, but must rather consider each case seperately. The result is the same in many cases but at least its a step in the right direction.

Does this work on really old stains too? After many years of many dogs, some of our carpets are extensively stained, and cleaning hasnt changed their blotched appearance. Im just about ready to rip the lot up and replace them with non-absorbent tiles, but if there is a less drastic solution, Im keen to try it.

I would no sooner leave a puppy outside on its own for long stretches, than I would a toddler. Babies are not designed for independent living. Some breeds are better suited than others for an outside, only dog life. Dachshund is not among the breeds I would ever consider suitable as 'outside only' dogs. Apart from the physical and temperamental reasons, this is a breed with a big voice that likes to use it. A lonely, bored dachshund is very likely to become a problem barker. ETA. I am also a landlord and always encourage pet owners as I think they get a hard deal. I allow them to have their pets inside and have never had a problem with lasting damage to the property. Maybe I have just been lucky, but I suspect not. In my experience, (including as a pet owner and a mother), kids are much more destructive than dogs, but you rarely see a 'no kids' caveat on rental properties.

Admittedly I couldnt see the arm injuries described in a previous post, but if the supplied footage is anything to go by, either the medico who treated the injuries to the girls face is a virtual magician, or the use of the word 'mauling' is a gross exaggeration. Very unfortunate for the poor child, who sadly, might have a less charitable attitude to stray dogs in future, but I do get sooo sick of the way the media pimps up stories of dog attacks.