Search the Community

Hi All, New here but I have done significant research regarding the Big Desert dingo population and they are very close to being wiped out. As for the rest of Victoria, the most recent genetic research released last year in May by Dr Kylie Cairns suggests that close to 90% of "wild dogs" in Victoria are actually pure dingo and the remaining are more than 55% dingo (6.5% tested were 93% or over, 6.5% were between 55 and 93% dingo and 87% were pure) People need to remember these animals are a native species at federal level in every mainland state (regardless of whether or not they're a declared pest species). They are also culturally significant to many First Nations peoples. They play an important ecological role as the country's apex predator. This is the first time since colonisation that dingoes have been protected on private land!! Dingoes are responsible for less than 0.5% of livestock losses! With exposure being one if the biggest killers of livestock! While I understand that livestock producers individually can be affected significantly, their trauma is only in the form of losing money, not the actual damage done to their livestock - which is pretty clear to see from their comments in the newspapers. Also, please remember when Greg Mifsud says there's 3.1 million hectares where dingoes are protected in Victoria, majority of that land dingoes have already been locally extinct for decades! There are NO dingoes near Hamilton or Bendigo there are quite litterally the population in the high country/eastern Vic and the population in Big Desert/Wyperfeld National Park. Even Murray-Sunset and Hattah-Kulkyne National Parks in North West Victoria have NO dingoes!

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-16/dingoes-protected-wild-dog-control-ends-in-north-west-victoria/103591516 I have mixed feelings about this. I would hate it if dingoes became extinct but I remember how devastating it was when my sheep were mauled by wild dogs. I chose not to keep sheep any longer but that’s not an option for some farmers whose livelihood depends on their livestock. Here’s an industry article on the topic. https://www.sheepcentral.com/silence-on-research-and-advice-behind-victorian-dingo-decisions/

1-in-5 dogs have been attacked badly enough to need veterinary treatment. 53% of pets in the survey had been acquired in the last 3 years! ABC News

Maybe try calling Dogs Victoria and asking if they know of any. Or if you are on Facebook there is a group called Australian Dog Show Newbies which is good for such questions. I believe that Peter Frost used to run some at Bulla, and I think Ashley Reid used to give lessons somewhere not far from KCC Park. But I am not Victorian and haven’t shown for years, so am a bit out of touch.

Hi breeders, Has anyone experienced a downturn in demand for purebred puppies? I have been a breeder for over 20 years and I find myself with a litter of pups that I haven't been able to sell. I normally have a waitlist, but moved from Victoria to Tasmania in 2021 and wasn't able to provide puppies to those on the waitlist and unfortunately they have gone elsewhere. I don't know if it's the move to Tassie, if it's an economic issue, or if there is no more demand for purebred puppies? Your experience and feedback is appreciated.

i was warning members of the ANKC as early as 1990 that ANKC need to get politicly active to counter the PETA threat. Even more so when an RSPCA member working for jacki Lambi mp. that she had received a letter asking her to get all family and friends to join and vote in coming AGM as the writer was aware the membership was being stacked by PETA members to ensure the next 2000 election would complete the election of sufficient PETA members to the board to complete the control of RSPCA board. It is pretty obvious this was achieved by the changes to becoming RSPCA inc , although the changes were already in progress as PETA members had began being elected at the previous agm's already. Last year was the first time the now DOGS NSW woke up and sent out how to vote info for a state election realising the proliferation of AJP and greens was going to end pet ownership the legislations they has been getting past was just about the point of no return. so much so PETA rep in Victoria had boasted on a radio program she anticipated "the extinction of domestic cats and dog's in this generation" did not elaborate if she meant the human or cat and dog generation? if the election being called before the second vote had not ceased the passage of the proposed legislation that females were allowed only two litters and all males could not be bred from after age 7, it would certainly been extinction within 15 to 20 years

I agree that our animal welfare legislation should be constantly reviewed and adjusted to meet better practices in animal welfare. The problem arises when politicians react/legislate in response to what they call "community expectations". Most of the pet owning public are completely unaware of the political processes that happen at regular intervals relating to animal related legislation. Consultation processes are not widely advertised generally, and it's usually only those who are politically active that take part in such consultations... and given that the AR (Animal Rights) movement are politically active in large numbers, their agendas are usually the loudest "voice" that is being heard. Statistics: NSW has a pet ownership rate of around 60%. We have a state population of around 8 million, so around 4.8 million of us have a pet. There are around 3 million households in NSW, so around 2 million households have a pet. Take the above statistics in relation to the last couple of NSW government inquiry consultations relating to pet related issues - the vet shortage inquiry, and the pound inquiry - the vet shortage inquiry got a total of 212 submissions, and the pound inquiry got 137 submissions and 379 responses to the online survey. The inquiry into aerial shooting of brumbies in Kosciuszko National Park got 165 full submissions, and around 400 "short" submissions (less than one page). Overall a pretty poor showing from our pet owning population, wouldn't you say? Most of the full submissions were done by organisations and groups with vested interests in the topics at hand - such as various councils reacting to the pound inquiry, and vets responding the the vet shortage inquiry. RSPCA always make submissions to any/all animal related inquiries, and are also included in committees tasked with developing any legislation relating to animal welfare. Each state is different in how they apply information supplied by submissions, inquiry findings, etc. Queensland seems to run the submission process as a "courtesy", then do whatever they wanted anyway. Victoria don't seem to have paid much attention to industry based detailed submissions, and are going with "community expectations" (read myriad cloned individual submissions from AR group callouts to their memberships to make said submissions). NSW seem to be a bit of a mix of Qld/Vic tactics as to how they apply responses from inquiries etc to legislation, and look to be following the Victorian models proposed to date. South Australia not that long ago enacted some animal welfare legislation with NO public consultation at all. When I went about talking to people, vets, etc about the NSW vet inquiry and the pound inquiry, asking them to make submissions... the overwhelming response was "I'm too busy". Well, I'm saying right now, that if you are "too busy" to sit down for a short amount of time to make a submission to a political process that may directly affect you adversely because those with a different agenda found that time to submit en masse, you can't really complain when it happens, can you? Never in our history have pet owners and carers been more directly affected by the political process with regard to animal welfare legislation. Our parliaments have been infiltrated by AR ideologies - not only AJP, but the Greens as well - and these people are looking to change animal ownership in ways that none of us want, so please, please get involved when the opportunity arises, OK? T.

Running out of time to have your say. These amendments intend to declare animals as SENTIENT beings. Don't be fooled, it's a token gesture, real agenda, PETA goal towards extinction of domestic animals. https://engage.vic.gov.au/new-animal-welfare-act-victoria

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-27/boxing-day-weather-victoria-woman-dog-rescue-werribee-river/103267206

i put my hand up to foster a Greyhound for Christmas from GAP Victoria. Picked her up last Saturday and paid for her on the Friday! Meet Rose, a lovely blue girl, 6 1/2. Magnificent ears and a roman nose to boot. She has slotted in seamlessly with Warrior (12 and 1/2 today!) and Phoebe. Jumps in the car, uses the dog door, loves squeaky toys, eats well, not scared of thunder, the list just keeps on going. I'm very happy.

Ummm... not really. For dogs that are microchipped, the data may be somewhere in the registry database, but there doesn't seem to be any function that allows for extraction of that data to track what has happened to any particular animal, not to mention that the various agencies that access that data aren't actually interested in tracking a complete journey for any particular animal, say from pound through rescue to rehoming. This means that for any microchip number, it's impossible to find out whether that number has been through the system more than once (ie. failed adoption resulting in animal surrendered to another pound or rescue). NSW are in the process of redesigning/rebuilding the microchip database, but it has been revealed that tracking what happens to any particular animal is not high on the list of priorities - unless that animal has come from a registered breeder, or is a racing greyhound (Victoria has recently introduced whole of life tracking specifically for racing greyhounds - but it remains to be seen how that is going to work in reality). There is also the issue of those unregistered backyard breeders who don't microchip their animals, and owners who get animals from that source don't always chip them either. The staggeringly high percentage of animals finding themselves in pounds with no microchip indicates this problem, but to date, no effective remedy for the problem has been forthcoming, just more legislation that affects registered breeders who DO do the right thing. Unfortunately, the only way for authorities to actually enforce the legislation regarding microchipping and registration of pets is to go door to door and demand to scan each dog/cat found on a property... something I don't think would be very popular with the general public, and would not be a vote winner for anyone who tried to legislate that sort of action to happen. I must say that there are reports of one Queensland council who were going to actually take that action, but no news yet on how that has been received by the residents in that LGA. Let's also note that as companion animal management is a State function, each state has it's own microchip database, and those databases do NOT "talk" to each other. There are also privately run chip registries as well... including at least one that is supposed to be national. The general public are generally unaware of the fact that they can enter their animal's details on the national register - but again, this register may not necessarily be "consulted" when any chipped animal is found and there are no up to date details on the state register. Say a dog was found wandering in a state border area, and the scan came up with a chip number, but no details were found on the register of the state it was found in - you'd think that it would be par for the course in border areas to check the register from the neighbouring state, yes? Nope! That animal could be listed as "no details on chip", and considered free to be processed as unowned. Just consider the man hours required to manually check a chip number on all of the possible registries in the country, and you'll understand why pounds with relatively high intake numbers can't or won't do it. T.

@Adrienne- it IS already law in WA... ALL non-breeding dogs MUST be desexed by 2 years of age... at least they've not mandated early age desexing like other states are proposing... *sigh* There is also very strict (and expensive) legislation (and currently proposed regulations) relating to those who wish to keep an entire dog - only restricted to licensed breeders (so attract a licensing fee), or to those with veterinary signed documents stating that desexing is not recommended for individual dogs. Link to the current WA legislation here... https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/law_a147325.html Link to the recently closed consultation relating to the regulations that will accompany the above legislation... https://www.dlgsc.wa.gov.au/local-government/community/cats-and-dogs/stop-puppy-farming Victoria is currently in the process of drafting their new "Animal Care and Protection" laws (note that "animal welfare" is not in the title of the proposed Act) - essentially redrafting virtually ALL animal welfare legislation from it's current state into one compendium Act. Some interesting reading here... https://engage.vic.gov.au/new-animal-welfare-act-victoria - have a read of the submissions, some are quite eye-opening, and a large number of them have been cut/pasted from an Animal Justice Party callout for followers to make submissions, complete with what to include in those submissions. This is "community expectations" at work in it's very worst form, and gives disproportionate credence to the vocal minority with regards to these matters. This whole redraft is contingent upon recognising animal sentience, but it does not specify what their interpretation of "sentience" is, as it does not define the term at all. The NSW Labor government is also looking to "reform" current animal welfare legislation into a similar compendium as Victoria, but may leave a couple of the current Acts in place (like research legislation and other single themed legislation) - and there WILL be a "stop puppy farming" element to their new legislation proposal when it finally gets released for consultation. SA has the following in it's legislation (Dog and Cat Management Regulations 2017)... ... and you can bet that other states/territories have or will propose similar desexing mandates in due course. Just a bit of light reading there... errr! T.

Very astute summation @Adrienne... so glad that you got exactly the same "vibe" from the hearing as I did. My involvement with a political lobby group (Animal Care Australia - ACA) that is trying to counter extremist animal rights groups having undue influence on animal welfare legislation sometimes has me seeing these things with a different eye to most of the general public. Be aware though that the next hearing, scheduled for December 15th, may well be stacked with witnesses sympathetic to Emma's (and Abigail's) causes. Under normal circumstances, my group would be invited to be witnesses in inquiries of this nature, but it is definitely looking very much like we won't be invited to give testimony in this particular inquiry... and if that transpires, then there is a very big question as to why that needs to be asked. ACA represents approximately 400,000 members from the whole spectrum of animal ownership - including breeders and pet owners. We were invited to participate in the vet shortage inquiry recently, and were subject to some rather nasty comment and questioning (by Abigail Boyd) relating to our submission with regards to our interactions with council pounds and their challenges with sourcing vets - all of the pounds we personally rang and asked questions of responded that most of the time they did NOT have issues sourcing vet services, with the exception of the most remote regions who don't have vet services available on a regular basis for even the general public. The fact that Abigail is now Deputy Chair of this pound inquiry which has so far seen fit to NOT invite ACA to testify is telling, wouldn't you think? Interesting to note that desexing of animals as mandatory is NOT legislated in the Companion Animals Act. The Act makes provision for reduced registration costs for desexed animals, but it is NOT mandatory. The Rehoming Amendment Bill passed last year has put an onus on desexing animals released from pounds, but it also doesn't go so far as to mandate that under law, so pounds in areas where it may be hard to source vet services have the option to rehome animals from their pounds undesexed, and generally this is actually the case for those pounds. Emma was most unimpressed with testimony from quite a few witnesses that the "over-supply problem" was NOT related to the activities of reputable registered breeders, but actually the largely unregulated and essentially underground activity of backyard breeders - considering that she has yet to put forward her new Puppy Farming Bill, this salient point would be a spanner in the works for any progress for that Bill. Of greater concern is that Labor have their own plans for rewriting the pertinent areas of animal welfare legislation in NSW - as Victoria is doing right now. The general concensus is that NSW may wait to put their legislation forward until AFTER the federal government has finalised their legislation regarding an Office of Animal Welfare and Live Exports (currently happening), so we aren't expecting anything forthcoming on that front until maybe later in 2024. This means that Labor may well thwart Emma's and Abigail's animal welfare related bills with the vision that they want their own bill(s) to be the one(s) enacted in the future. It may pay to watch the Victorian progress of their new "Animal Care and Protection" Act progress, as NSW seems to have a tendency to think that Victoria is a "leader" in this sphere of legislation... *sigh* Note the subtle change of terminology with regard to these new Acts... "Animal Welfare" has been replaced with "Animal Care and Protection"... which is telling as to the input from the animal rights movement, who have rebranded their policies as "Animal Protection" rather than "Animal Rights" (but the intent and policy stance is EXACTLY the same as it always was). T.

"A 2021 consultation put forward by the NSW Department of Primary Industry recommended the introduction of a private dog breeder licensing scheme. The following year, the Companion Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms) Bill was passed in parliament allowing pet shops to sell from approved breeders." Ummm... actually the Puppy Farms Bill did NOT get passed in 2022... it passed in the Legislative Council, but it missed the rise of parliament time cutoff before being debated and assented to by the Legislative Assembly, and is still on Emma Hurst's list of Bills to be presented in this current term of parliament. Funnily enough, she has been focusing on other Bills lower on her list so far and hasn't even tabled her latest run at the Puppy Farms Bill. The bill IS high on the list of Private Members Bills yet to be presented, but so far she's been avoiding tabling it... not sure why... One thing to note is that Labor have their own plans to completely overhaul all animal welfare legislation in NSW in a similar fashion to what is being proposed in Victoria - and reading the discussion paper of what is being proposed there raises some major concerns that will affect all animal owners. It looks like NSW are waiting to see what happens with the Victorian proposal before going ahead with their take on matters in this state. As for the over-representation of bull breeds and their crosses in pounds and shelters, and calls to ban breeding of any dogs (and or cats) until those animals are adopted is flawed. Most people do NOT want to take on an adolescent or adult larger breed powerfully built dog that has had little to no socialisation or basic training and is of an age where quite frankly, a lot of work needs to be done to make that dog a decent canine citizen. People want a puppy that is wired to learn what is expected of them easily, not a dog that has already formed habits that will be very hard to rehabilitate to a level that is fully acceptable to polite society. Then there are those who use "it's a rescue" as some sort of justification for not addressing certain behavioural issues in their dogs... and that needs to stop now IMHO. T.

This is advice to potential puppy buyers, after my 2 bad experiences, over 2 dogs, from same breeder. I would like to offer some advice based on what I have experienced, and what I would do next time if I had to choose another breeder, if at all. I am offering this in the hope that other potential puppy buyers avoid large financial costs re health problems. 1...Check out your potential breeder on Facebook. If they DO NOT have a FB page, ask yourself whyyyyyyy. Just do not go by their website or advertising on different sites like this one. Absolutely no disrepect meant to this site. There are some very honest, and ethical breeders to be found here I have found out since. Trust me, as good as the breeder looks, sounds on the phone or how good their dog's look, that can also hold dishonest information. Unfortunately there are breeders out there, that give the honest and ethical breeders a very bad name. Quite often breeders are not in your state and you cannot view litter. In my case, 1st litter in my state, not far from home, but still was not allowed to view. 2...Always ask for a contract or something in writing with signature, re refund of deposits should something go wrong at either end. EG If for some reason you cannot go through with your purchase due to a valid reason, Not simply because you changed your mind. EG At breeders end, a timeframe of supplying pup to you, whether that pup is what you originally asked for. Eg, you specified a Long Coat , you know exactly what typical balls of fluff look like in that breed, but what they are trying to sell you, does not fit that description. 3... If you have heard on the grapevine, bad reviews or reports about this breeder, LISTEN carefully and heed advice. The breeder I have dealt with has been very deceitful involving a number of buyers. There is actual evidence of that. You could even contact the State bodies in your state, eg Dogs Victoria and ask has there been any reports / breaches re your selected breeder. 4...If your pup is confirmed with a defect within the 1st year, any genuine ethical breeder, should provide a replacement pup. But the problem there is, most owners will be attached to their new family member, so the likes of the following, should state similar in writing. EG, Any inherited /Genetic defects, Hip Dysplasia, heart murmurs, jaw defects the breeder should be more than happy to cover the financial costs of treatment, should there be any. Especially if that breeder is known to breed a large number of litters regularly, and there is confirmation of a defect already at 14 wks. Yes pups can grow out of some defects, but unfortunately some get worse with time, and the quality of life of that pup is greatly affected as a few of us have experienced. 5...If your breeder becomes defensive Eg you are asking for a refund, you know that breeder has had problems before. In my case, as much we did not want to lose a $1000 of our hard earned money, we would have been $9000 better off. And that is to date only, and does not include purchase price. 6...If you request pedigree papers from parents, Hip and Elbow scores etc, pictures of parents or other progeny, they should be able provide that immediately, or at least within a week. Beware,..........if they are not, and continual excuses of delays. Yes I understand on the odd occasion, breeder may not be able to, but not on a regular basis. 7... A breeder should not ask for balance of payment 2 mths before puppy due to arrive in your family. I was told I would lose my place in a litter (already had placed a $1000 deposit 6 mths before), if I did not pay in full(another $3000, 2 mths prior. Both payments had to be paid within a 24 hr period. 8... Ask the time frame for receiving pedigree papers. With 1st dog took 15mths to transfer into my name and receive pedigree papers. 2nd pup is now 12 mths old and still no papers sighted. Conclusion, be very mindful of which breeder you choose, do your homework exceptionally well. Just because they sound honest, does not necessarily mean that they are. A breeder should always be very transparent in their bloodlines with lot's of pictures, information, reports etc and reply to calls, texts, emails in a timely manor also. Not in a few weeks time. CONCLUSION: dealing with this breeder has been an exceptionally bad experience, never before have I been through this with any other breeder in my time. It has been most stressful emotionally and financially, most challenging, and been a significant amount of intimidation by them, to add to the drama. This is not just a one person experience either. Several people have made a complaint re this breeder to the state body in our states, re the codes they breached. We are then having to take the matter further. Wishing you all the very best of luck with all your future puppy purchases and hope they are healthy and happy and able to live out their full lives. The vast majority will be healthy puppies, but there unfortunately is a minority that will not be, and breeders should be responsible financially for/or replace those. I cannot expose the name of breeder for obvious reasons.

And I thought that Victoria was backward when it came to it's dog laws

The classic answer of someone who actually has no clue about State regulations or liability . What you may think & what is legal requirements is a big difference . Maybe read this section which applies to Victoria for example & please tell us your view ??This is just a small part of varying state laws (govt) that breeders also have to understand & inform prior to sale based on DNA results . Being a breeder & selling pups is more than just a person saying shouldnt dictate . H Code of Practice for the Breeding of Animals with Heritable Defects that Cause Disease | Codes of Practice | Domestic Animals Act | Animal Welfare Victoria | Livestock and animals | Agriculture Victoria

Could you please remove my name as a contact person for the Agility Dog Club of Victoria due to an unresolved issue relating to bullying in this club? Thank you

American Pit Bulls have been on the restricted list in Victoria since about 2005. It is illegal to buy or breed them. I suggest you read this - https://agriculture.vic.gov.au/livestock-and-animals/animal-welfare-victoria/dogs/restricted-breed-dogs/owning-a-restricted-breed-dog

I'm in Victoria and my vet used Global to microchip my last litter nearly 6 years ago. I hadn't heard of them either. Haven't lost any of my dogs so can't say how any registry reacts. You don't search each registry, the chip should take you right there. Except for NSW and, in Vic, all retired Greyhounds who now have their own registry. I believe they are not linked to any other, like NSW. Stupid idea in my opinion.

@jemappelle you're correct. Other states have absolutely zero access to the NSW Pet Registry and when travelling interstate, if you were to scan your pet's microchip, it would come up as "not found". I'm in a similar situation to yourself in that I'm often travelling interstate with my dogs so I personally added mine to Central Animal Records (CAR). They are also linked to Pet Address (http://www.petaddress.com.au/) a microchip database search site and have one of their own too. I've not heard of Global Micro and it seems a fairly new registry. There are some grammatical errors on their website that personally put me off (professional businesses that require their clients to pay for their services should be utilising editors etc. to ensure there are no spelling/grammatical errors) and I also preferred to go with a registry that had been around for longer than 10 years. Another thing to note with Global Micro is that they're located within NSW. What would be the odds the other states have heard of them and therefore think to run a search? CAR from my understanding is utilised by both Queensland and Victoria so for me it was a no brainer to choose them as I'm often frequenting these two states and one would assume people, vets etc. would be checking the CAR database as first port of call in the event they locate a wandering animal. Hope this helps

None of the proposed legislation being put forward by AJP in Victoria suggests that rescued ex-racing greyhounds will be exempt from the export ban in relation to whole-of-life tracking, as once an animal leaves Australian jurisdiction, it is not subject to Australian laws any more, so the tracking may cease once the dog leaves the country. T.

Yet the whole of life tracking being introduced in Victoria will preclude ex-racing greyhounds from being exported... food for thought... ... and AJP are looking to get the same whole of life tracking bill in here in NSW too... T.

It doesn't help that most councils have some stupid clause in their rules that require members of the public to contain strays before rangers will come pick them up @Little Gifts - at least that's how it seems to work here in Sydney. It's very rare that you'll convince a ranger to come out and catch a stray wandering dog nowadays... apparently it's some OHS thing... *sigh*... so it's OK for a member of the public to possibly endanger themselves or their pets (by containing strays on their own properties), but dog forbid someone who is supposedly trained in, and being paid for, handling animals should be doing the same. The case of the meter reader was a bit different though. The dogs on that property were known to be dangerous, and were supposed to be locked behind some barrier when the owners had been notified that their meter was to be read. There are conflicting stories as to whether the owners had been notified that the reader guy was going to attend that day, or that the meter reader had been informed that the dogs had been contained. The main cause of that incident was a communication issue and/or complacency that all prior arrangements had been completed before the reader attended the property. As for education about animal owner responsibilities, it seems that all parties that could or should be performing that function are having difficulties in actually following through with delivery. Councils (and RSPCA) will point to their websites as containing that information, but it will not always be very easy to find... and let's not get into how bloody hard it is to find the actual local by-laws regarding animals on any council websites... trust me, I have tried as part of my duties with Animal Care Australia, and it's almost as though they don't actually want you to find them... grrr! I have been through all council websites in SA (69 councils), NT (17 councils), Tasmania (27 councils), ACT (1 site), and WA (139 councils) so far, looking for and at their local by-laws regarding animals and when they are all up for review/changes. I still have to go through NSW (128 councils), Qld (77 councils), and Victoria (79 councils), but it's hard slog, and I'd love some help if anyone would like to join Animal Care Australia's STAT group. We are trying to proactively be aware of when those local laws are reviewed and monitoring for changes that may be detrimental to pet ownership getting passed through when the public aren't usually aware that any consultation process is happening regarding those local laws. Generally, every council is required to review and/or amend those local laws every 4-5 years, so if the public are blissfully unaware of when that is happening, then we end up with stupid rules being enacted that no-one is actually aware of until they are caught out by them. Same goes for state based legislation... generally the public isn't actually aware of any changes being proposed until AFTER such changes are enacted and media releases occur... and by then it's too late to have a say... The animal rights movement has a very slick and well-oiled media/"education" machine, which means that they are gaining more and more traction with regards to influencing local laws, and state/federal legislation regarding animal ownership... and I think it's time that we ALL step up and become more aware of how we can be involved in shaping animal related laws - or we are soon going to find ourselves so restricted that it's impossible to actually have animals in our lives at all. T.

Having been involved with Rottweilers for over 20 years, and owned 6 of them of varying temperaments, Freya is not "chilled", and the only reason that Penny is not being attacked is the fact that she is timid, very uncomfortable and diffusing the situation. If Freya was with a more confident, assertive dog, or a dog that was able to run away, there would be a massive reaction from her. Regarding the Dangerous Dog declaration, in Victoria declared dogs can't be rehomed, given away or sold. It's illegal. If they move from one council area to another, the declaration follows them. I also understand that this is now a national law. Under the dangerous dog laws it's also the legal responsibility of the registered owners to euthanase Freya, not yours as they need to notify the council. No vet will treat the dog on your say so, as you are not the registered owner. Freya is a huge liability, but she is not your responsibility. The owners need to step up and do what's best for Freya in a humane way. They owe her that much.