spottychick

Oh great. Well there's no surprise there. The moronic dog-owner cant even be bothered fixing his fencing etc and looking after his dogs properly. He has done the equivalent of "shoot" the problem and thinks that's all there is to it. And he's right as far as any repercussions go or any council action. The Council think they've fixed the problem and everyone's perfectly happy. Except maybe the pony's owner. They'll get a few weeks of not having to worry about aggressive dogs I guess, but that's about as positive as it gets for them. So now he's free to go get a couple of other dogs and the whole thing starts all over again. Meanwhile those two dogs are being un-deservedly abandoned by their scummy owner and will probably be PTS. He should be banned from owning dogs IMHO Poor dogs. Poor Pony and pony's owner. It's just tragic. The system doesn't work at all.

Watch the video. The centrepiece of Calgary's model is for animal management to develop a relationship with its community that promotes responsible ownership and builds trust - and offers them a service for their $. Rather than see the public as an enemy to be coerced with more laws, more fines and more dranconian pet ownership criteria. Oh that all sounds really good!!! Gotta walk the dogs now so I'll try and watch it when I get back. Hope it works on my slow dial up connection

No, you misunderstand. The community are generally happy NOT having council intervene and would not dream of involving "the authorities" unless it's absolutely necessary. WHy? Because they have no faith in the existing laws or bumbling Council officers and would rather deal with it themselves. They are country folk who have never seen any good come of calling in the authorities - the only time I've seen them do it is when a CHILD was hurt - as I explained in my post. But still, all that happened was that the dog in question had a "dangerous dog" order slapped on him which the owner promptly ignored. Locals were appalled and muttered about what a waste of time it was calling the council as they watched this dog running around the streets doing whatever it liked and it's owner just laughing at them. All of them knew that what was needed was serious action to be taken against the dogs OWNER, otherwise it was all just a joke to him. It's not like he cared one way or the other about what happened to his dog (or to the local kids). A few weeks later, it predictably bit another child so it's owner shot it (it would probably have been shot by a local anyway if the owner hadn't done it). I doubt the council even know. The council and it's lame regulations were seen as a complete waste of time and useless in this whole scenario - especially as now the idiot has another dog. He's probably training it to attack kiddies as I type. People here will not bother calling the council at all next time. They'll just take matters into their own hands.

Absolutely agree!!! It's the owners fault NOT the dogs. Shel - I see your point and thanks for taking the time to understand mine. I think we agree on a lot of things. But the law does need changing. WHile there are no adequate penalties for the owners (ie in the hip pocket or even loss of freedom) and the only real threat is that the dog/s might be punished a lot of irresponsible owners wont give a hoot and nothing will change. Laws can be enacted to have severe on the spot fines that the dog owner then has the onus to take to court and appeal. There is plenty of precedent for this. And this kind of action, instead of just saying we'll slap an order on your dog and take it off you if you don't comply (so what?), is the only way they will take any attempt to intervene seriously. As for compensation, if the law is seen to take the attack seriously, it will be easier for victims to get compensation and the process can be streamlined so that it's easier to do. For example, once it's clear the dog in question did the deed, the owner is automatically assigned responsibility for paying the vet bills and any other clearly defined expenses incurred by the victim. If they can issue a dangerous dog order they can issue an order to pay compensation at the same time, based on the same circumstances with a 7 day appeal built in for the dogs owner. If there's enough evidence to issue the DD order then there's enough to entitle the victim to having basic expenses met. Any question of further expenses or compensation for pain and suffering can then be a matter for civil courts. My point is the existing laws and enforcement processes are clearly inadequate and BOTH need to be reformed. And the emphasis needs to be on the dog OWNER not the dog.

NO immediate substantial fine issued to the owner. NO order given or action taken to ensure that the dogs owner pay all costs incurred by the pony owner. NO seizing of dogs until the owner shows that they have installed proper fencing to keep the dogs in and have taken whatever actions the Council deems necessary for the safety of other animals and people living in the area. The dangerous dog order should be an additional condition imposed on the dog owners but by itself it's pointless. As I have said a MILLION times, this isn't about wanting harsher punishment against the dogs - they are just doing what (some) dogs do, particularly if they've been badly raised and handled. This is about not penalising the dogs owners or doing anything to make them do the right thing and not doing anything to compensate the pony's owners for these horrific events. There's no point in putting the dogs to sleep if you do nothing to the owners. They will just get other dogs and do the same thing all over again. There's no point in simply issuing "dangerous dog" orders and doing nothing else. The owners will just get rid of the dogs and get some new ones or completely ignore the orders and then the dogs get out and do it again and THEN get seized and PTS (like I've seen happen here). And still the pony owners get no recompense for their suffering and expenses and no sense of security knowing the idiot dog owners are still sitting there letting their dogs do whatever they like - especially while the council fart-arses about getting their act together to issue a notice of intention, then waiting for the appeal to be lodged, going through the appeal process yadda yadda yadda. Meanwhile, the dogs are still THERE, nothing has changed and the pony owners are under seige. The non-action described in your post does nothing for anyone, least of all the owners of the pony or the dogs themselves. Several of the dogs that roam freely around our town have dangerous dog orders on them, BIG DEAL. Everyone ignores that because they are fine with people, horses and other dogs (mostly). ANd yes they keep killing sheep (and local cats, chickens, wildlife and rabbits), the owners of the sheep haven't yet caught them in the act so they don't know which dogs they are. So they will just shoot the next dog/s they see anywhere near their property - which is likely to be the nice golden retriever from down the road who wouldn't hurt a fly but does tend to roam a bit. Most recently the Council was on the verge of seizing one declared dog (who had attacked children - hence the whole town demanded action) so the owner shot it, pretended it had simply "disappeared" during the fireworks and now he's got a brand new kelpie puppy. That dog is destined to be as vicious as it's predecessor and that's a tragedy. NOthing has changed, the owner hasn't learnt a thing and the local people will be at risk again in a few months time.

ROFLMAO at that last pic. I'll take Charlotte tho. Seriously, I've fallen in love at first sight.

Seems the owner of the pony will be best served to keep her rifle handy and take matters into her own hands next time the dogs are on her property. Hopefully she's around when they return and gets them before they kill anything else. That is the only option left to people at the moment. Can't help thinking there should be a better one, you know, like penalising owners properly, but what would I know.

At the moment Easy Walk harness Walking belt Cute ceramic bowl I bought at Evandale markets (has a gorgeous spotty dog painted inside and "Psycho dog" written on the outside. LOL Perfect for Tango

It's Hilda Hermes brand. 50g for $6.25. I don't use much in a pot of tea. Also I always do a big order with Vitaminme so I get free postage and lots of discounted items. Calendula flower Sounds like yours is probably a lot more so probably cheaper.

Along with the owner/s.

That's a lovely offer Erny! And yes it is darn good stuff. I get it online from Vitaminme. And yes, chicken could be the problem. Maybe next time just try some rice and cooked veggies and see what happens. Altho if you've always fed her chicken that would seem unlikely.

Just thought I'd add that I'm also having a real battle with my dogs itchiness and sore ears atm and my usual treatments don't seem to be helping. In fact, like Loraine said, she seems to be reacting to the Malaseb itself. So today I bathed her with Neem soap and I'm using a spray mixture of CS and calendula tea to soothe her skin and ears. It seems to be helping. Plus she likes the tea mix and drinks some off my hand LOL

yes rat - its what they use for bait that tells you what animals are targetted. For example, around here it's put in things like corn and oats. But all animals are at risk. For example, it is retained in the dying animals vomit, which many animals are likely to come into contact with in one way or another eg if its on the grass that a wallaby is eating.

No of course that's not what people would "rather" happened - no-one suggested it was. But killing in retaliation - well, like I said - that already happens. That's the issue and the problem. I am talking about making OWNERS accountable when they fail to keep dogs on their own proeprty and/or under control. Especially dogs that are dangerous and have just killed someones animal. Just like all owners are responsible for their dogs doing stupid things whether in their own home or in someone elses backyard. The point was that because very little is done in situations like this, people around here don't bother calling the authorities anymore and instead feel that their only option for keeping their farm animals safe is to KILL EVERY DOG on their property (and sometimes just NEAR it) on sight. So impounding and PTS etc isn't even on the horizon. They just grab a gun and shoot em. Sometimes they'll then call the dogs owner up and tell em they just shot their dog and to "come and take the dead dog off my property". The law is NOT adequate - not in the slightest. Have you ever tried to launch a civil suit? It's no picnic. Most people don't bother - it's just more stress and financial risk and people just want to get on with things. It's even less likely that people will bother when they can see that the authorities don't take the events seriously enough - so they wonder - why would a magistrate??!!! "Dangerous dog" notices are pretty useless around here too. No-body from the council bothers to enforce anything - our town isn't on their preferred travel route LOL So these sorts of measures are a joke. Tough penalties for the owners are needed which involve money and possibly jail sentences - and those penalties need to be ROUTINELY enforced. ANd I would be thrilled to see "dangerous/moronic OWNER" notices implemented. Much more appropriate IMHO

I would imagine if it's used to kill wallabies, brushtail possums etc in Tasmania it would also kill wallabies, possums and similar animals in WA. It may be derived from a nice safe plant but that's completely different from what results after it's processed into a chemical poison. It effects all animals the same way.

Well this is probably why farmers around here will just simply shoot first and ask questions later if they see a stray dog on their property. So this kind of pathetic legislation benefits no-one, not even dogs in the long run.

Poor doggy - poor YOU!! I'd be freaking out too. Have you tried calling a new vet and talking with them about it. Maybe someone on DOL knows a good one in your area who will help you on the phone and/or bring you in for a different treatment if needed. Otherwise, you might try giving these guys a call - Robert mcDowells Their phone number is 02 6331 3937 and I've always found them really helpful. You could also direct them to your photos online or email them to their office. Even if you don't go with their remedies (I do and they have always been very good) they explained things to me very clearly and helped me a lot when I contacted them with various ills relating to my dogs. Especially the cancer my boy had. They also suggested some useful things for my dad when he was battling lung cancer - many of which I could buy cheaply at a supermarket or already had on hand. ETA for you and the Manson-eyed one!!

Just when you think you've heard the worst that people are capable of...... Poor little bloke.

Awwwww the poor wee thing!!!! Sorry you didn't really get much help from the vet! jeeez I'd be a bit upset as I'd have to drive a couple a hundred ks to see one so I'd have hoped for more help. Still I guess if there's nothing else they can think of to do you cant do much about it. It does look like a European wasp sting or similar. Have you got them around your place? Is it possible she came across them? I have treated wasp stings successfully with natural remedies such as ACV but that's immediately after they've been stung. And I wouldn't use that right near an eye like that. That's a very tricky spot to treat!! Perhaps try applying a cold compress to the eye - that can help with swelling and can also be soothing. Also chamomile tea applied to the swelling could be good but I'd make sure she's not allergic to it first (rare but does happen). It's also good for her eye. I'm successfully using chamomile and calendula tea for my dogs skin allergy.

OMG THey are so CUTE

When you are posting you will see a button under the text window with "browse" and another button with "upload" - this allows you to upload some pics from your pc and then you choose where you want to place them in your post. Once you have uploaded an image it appears in a drop down box with a bit where you can click on to paste the image into the post. Hope you can follow that explanation And I agree with the idea of teaching loose lead walking, but in addition to heeling. There are so many things I wouldn't be able to do with my dogs without the ability to bring them right in next to me. But my dogs are usually walking to my left or slightly ahead on loose leads (or off lead) but not right by my side. But if I tell them they are "free" by giving them a signal and saying "off you go" (usually when we get to the river or the forest track) they will run off wherever they feel like going (but keep me generally in sight). They walk well off lead (except my new boy but he's still learning) and will come to my side if I call them to heel - which has proved to be a life saver at times!!! PS I don't use the word 'heel' tho LOL I say "slowly" - and they will immediately stop running etc and walk next to me. Don't ask me why - it just sort of evolved.

I've had 3 dogs (dalmatians) walk on my left to heel all at the same time. I attached two of them to my dog-walking belt via a double ended lead and had the other on a single lead. So yes it's possible to train them to do that. I've also had 2 dogs on leads run next to me while I was riding my bike. It just seems to me that your lovely GR was being extremely well behaved by not wanting to go ahead of you But yes I've walked dogs and pushed trolleys, prams, bicycles or carried several bags of groceries etc. Not an easy task but they can be trained to do it if they've all been trained to walk to heel well.

PS My dog Pepper ate all raw food etc from when she was 6 weeks old. She first encountered "kibble" when someone gave her some at about 3 years old. She thought they were some kind of strange toy and batted them around the floor. She tried chomping on one and wasn't impressed. She just spat it out. So yes, it's possible they have no idea that this wierd dry stuff is thought of as "food" by humans. Dogs are smart like that.

or mix it with chicken stock to make it smell. I seem to remember reading somewhere that making kibble soft and mushy isn't a good thing to do. Cant remember why LOL So just pouring some warmish stock over it should be good. But I agree with others here - why move to kibble??? Just add some more variety to their home made food. My experience with vets is they tend to rely heavily on commercial dog food - especially kibble without really giving the alternatives any thought. Some pulped raw veggies would be good to add to their food and some supplements. And maybe try raw chicken necks or wings (warmed up by pouring some warm water or stock over them if necessary).

I'm not sure I understand your post but it seems to me you're saying you don't want to teach your dogs to heel. Whether you are simply going to walk your dogs round the streets or to a park or trial them and have them in agility etc they need to know how to walk to heel regardless. It's a really basic command and needed by all dog owners and especially if you want a dog that is socialised!! Why don't you want to do it? What do you mean "it wouldn't lead out ahead of me" and why did it annoy you? Was "it" a he or a she?? ETA I think I'm probably misunderstanding your question