Are You Serious Jo

Don't treat me like an idiot please Jo, I didn't say they were the same, I said each to their own. Well, I don't have any children either. If I had to choose between someone elses' children and my dogs, my dogs would get precedence every time. I am responsible for my dogs, I am not responsible for other peoples children. You said this and I asked you to explain what you really meant so I'm trying to make you out to be the bad guy I asked twice if you meant it how it reads and you want to remain cryptic so don't be surprised when people only have your original words to go by. What has the council got to do with it, I asked a question that was nothing to do with council regulations. I understand that people feel the need to protect the things they love but I would like to believe that if it came down to it a person would reach for a child rather than their dog. I guess I better be looking out for number one at dog get togethers then because it seems that it shit goes down the dogs get saved first :laugh:

I value humans over dogs. You are proving my point that some think dogs are equal to humans. A child in danger doesn't have to be there through neglect sometime disasters happen and it's not the parent's fault. I just find it incredible that an adult would watch a child die to save their dog so that's why I'm asking. I can't imagine how I'd feel if somehow one of my kids died because someone chose to save their dog over my child. It would be interesting to hear if people with kids have the same viewpoint. I've never really subscribed to the argument that you can't comment on child issues unless you are a parent but maybe it is true.

So no clarification? You'd see a child die rather than one of your dogs?

Don't treat me like an idiot please Jo, I didn't say they were the same, I said each to their own. Well, I don't have any children either. If I had to choose between someone elses' children and my dogs, my dogs would get precedence every time. I am responsible for my dogs, I am not responsible for other peoples children. See, I don't get this. Are you saying if it was a life or death situation you would let a child die to save your dog? Note I am asking for clarification because I am not sure you really mean what I think you mean. I would do that too. I will first save my dog and then any stranger.....child or adult!!! But I would do all I can to save anyone, human or animal. If you will save a strange child before your own, then and only then you would have the right to question this. Because we always prioritise what we love most. Since you are here are you saying that if a car was coming and there was a child or your dog you'd save your dog and let the child die? Sure I'd save my child if it was between a strange kid and my own, but I'd never let a child die over my dog.

It is only callous if he knew the dog was there but didn't care. It wasn't callousness at all, it was an accident. He forgot the dog was there. If he'd had a history of it then you could crucify the guy but who hasn't made mistakes? Are you saying you have never in your life done something that could have gone very badly? Callousness is a deliberate neglect, if you are going to have a go at people look up the definitions of the words if you don't know them.

It shouldn't have happened and he does have to pay a price because these things have to serve as a reminder of what can happen if we aren't vigilant. I still don't think he should face the same severity of punishment as if it was a child. He could have faced manslaughter charges if it were a child and can't see how that would be appropriate for him. He didn't do this deliberately so his life shouldn't be ruined over it.

Well some seem to be saying the guy should have the same punishment as someone who killed a child. That to me seems to indicate that they put dogs on the same level as children. Nobody here knows the lengths I'm going to right now for my dogs and I love them intensely but if a human child and one of my dogs ere in the path of a car I'd have to save the child. Have you forgotten all the threads that end up with people saying someone who has been cruel to a dog should be killed, we've had plenty of them :laugh: If I went back through this thread I think there are some string him up comments.

Don't treat me like an idiot please Jo, I didn't say they were the same, I said each to their own. Well, I don't have any children either. If I had to choose between someone elses' children and my dogs, my dogs would get precedence every time. I am responsible for my dogs, I am not responsible for other peoples children. See, I don't get this. Are you saying if it was a life or death situation you would let a child die to save your dog? Note I am asking for clarification because I am not sure you really mean what I think you mean.

Don't treat me like an idiot please Jo, I didn't say they were the same, I said each to their own. Each to their own doesn't work when you are talking about what society decides are laws. If you don't want people to think you are in the dogs should be treated like kids camp then why start quoting me when I said they weren't the same? So basically you agree with me but just wanted a potshot?

I guess you don't get it either. Human children are not dogs and dogs are not human children, of course there are going to be different laws and treatment of them. Do you really think they are the same? You can be close to your dogs but they'll never be human.

Yes it would be a different story due to dogs not being the same as children. I just don't get the comparison between kids and dogs all the time, of course it's a different story! No, it's not a different story. If you could forgive and empathise with a person who left your child to die this way, then come back and say that people should not be blaming this person. I don't know how much you care for your dogs. But my dogs are like any other family member to me. My dogs are my family too but I don't think they are furry children. There is no comparison and as much as I love them if it came down to choosing between the dogs and the kids the kids would win hands down. But please point out where I said this guy wasn't to blame? I was commenting on the post claiming the treatment of dogs should be the same as treatment of children. Of course he is to blame, he left the dog in the car

I've never forgotten to feed them dinner, I said I feel pretty bad if I forgot to feed them dinner, not if I 'forget' to feed them dinner. Thus implying you forgot to feed them...whoops no, of course not, YOU are perfect...lucky you, what a lovely view you must have from your ivory tower! " Feel pretty bad if I forget" not "I would feel bad if I had forgotten"..... :) Worded badly, I have never forgotten to feed my dogs dinner. This is aided by the fact that they have dry biccies down 24/7 so food is always available breakfast/morning tea/lunch/afternoon tea/dinner/midnight snack Let me put this one to you: A babysitter, comes with high credentials, looking after 2 kids under 3. A sudden lapse of memory and one of them drowns in the bath. It was a genuine accident, all the investigations prove this. Still okay? What if that were your children? Just a human error? You don't f*ck with life. You just don't mess with it. That one is easy. You are within arms reach of children in water at all times. That's not a tragic mistake, that is deliberate neglect....very different What about if it was a child in the car not a dog? Would it still be an accident or neglect? Is it okay just because its a dog to be an accident? If it were a child this would be a different story. Yes it would be a different story due to dogs not being the same as children. I just don't get the comparison between kids and dogs all the time, of course it's a different story!

It's a worm that is getting into everyone's email and I think it happens to those who are using yahoo email addresses. They need to change their password. Just delete without opening the messages.

I've got an old manual 50 that I love, if you go here http://www.flickr.com/photos/81363891@N04/ and look in animals I have a few up that I used the 50 for (the fog shots). I really love it for animal portraits (as long as they aren't moving fast).

It looks like they are working from a list of factors that are correlated. There are a set of owner variables that are common across a lot of dog attacks, I know because I was part of a dog and cat management board funded project looking at just this. Dogs not being desexed are one of these, but I fear they are confusing correlation with causation. I can't comment too much because I was collecting the data, I'm just hoping that it is used effectively.

That was my point, he IS a dog person so I'm hoping he does the right thing.

Ben shows dogs so I'm hoping he has just omitted registered breeders being exempt accidently.

But that is one dog, you can't say that because your dog does this all dogs do that, especially since your dog is not a traditionally docked breed.

Because if the dog has injured the tail once then it is likely the dog will injure it again so why put the dog through repeated operations?

This isn't about being pro or anti docking at all. It's about an official trying to get a motion through without consultation with members and also about restricting the use of dogs in Australia that are legally docked. There are no laws here that say a person can't own or import a legally docked dog so why the ANKC push to rule against them? It will essentially kill the import of some breeds and if they go that step further and try to stop breeding with legally docked dogs shrinking gene pools will be even smaller. No wonder people are giving up.

I was going to use a cuddle of shih tzus, not strictly following the rules but very apt!

I think I only heard about this on Friday and I think some of the states have already voted. How can you lobby to your state organisation when you are given no time to do so?

It was a scary letter and I don't think people realise the ramifications. They want legally docked dogs banned so it's far more than just enforcing existing laws. I am starting to think the ANKC has been infiltrated by PETA because when those higher up take steps to destroy the show world they are doing exactly what the animal rights people want.

There are people who breed two registered dogs together and either can't or won't register the puppies and they are usually called BYBers. If we accept this breeder as being legit then why not those I've just described. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

But coolies and mini foxies have their own registry, these poodles don't and that is the difference. If it was a discussion about breeds in other countries that can't be registered here I don't think it would be deleted. But the OP came here with her litter of puppies that cannot be registered anywhere in Australia. We wouldn't tolerate a BYBer doing the same, and these dogs unfortunately fall into the BYBer category now.