Mum to Emma

... received by the council. Doesn't mean neighbours weren't driven crazy by the yapping. Some councils are more responsive than others. If you're in Melbourne, compare the dog control information on the Boroondoara website to that on neighbouring Stonnington. The former is proactive regarding the problem, the latter couldn't care less. A few houses from me there is a dog that barks very night from 4pm to 9pm. It's a staccarto-like "arh, arh, arh, arh, arh, arh, arh.....". You can (seriously) hear it 500 metres away over the noise of the Monash Freeway. What's most aggravating is that the owners are home at the time. You can see their lights on. Clearly the barking annoys them, so they put the dog outside the annoy the neighbours. These people neeed to remember that they have neighbours who may work nightshift, or who may have a child who has to study in the afternoons. Perhaps a neighbour is prone to migraines or perhaps just wants to watch TV without this persistent aggravating background noise. Curiously it has been quiet the past couple of nights. Hopefully it's because their owners have watched the news and been alerted to the consequences of the selfishness (both in terms of their dog and their neighbours) of their couldn't-care-less attitude.

There is a chicken shop in Centro Oakleigh that sells them. I can't think of the shop's name, but it's at the opposite end to Woolworths.

I agree with your message - for complex procedures always go to a specialist if there is one available in your area! They do these procedures routinely - your local vet does not.

Hi, can I ask why? If you're not a registered breeder, then why would you need to have a dog that is undesexed? What is the difference for a pound/rescue dog being desexed before it goes home with new owner (which I agree with) and the purebred pet that is purchased from a registered breeder - surely that pup should also be desexed (when old enough) as well. There are just as many purebreeds in the pounds and shelters as crossbreeds. Do you honestly believe that 'pure bred' puppies raised in puppy farms are better pets than x-breeds raised in a family environment?? The Frankston bylaw is horrendous. An extreme breach of civil liberties. If they want to minimise the number of puppies born, increase registration fees for non-desexed dogs to $1,000+. That way people who seriously wanted to keep their animals entire would have an option (albeit and expensive one) and these so-called wonderful registered breeders would be able to tax-deduct the cost of registration (as it's an expense incurred in generating income).

Unfortunately there are some on this board who would blame your dogs if they had barked at the staffy/staffy crosses and subsequently been attacked. BTW, I'm sitting here on a lovely Sunday morning trying to think of a place where I can take my dogs for a walk where they will be safe from being charged at by unleashed dogs. Damned if I can think of such a place ...

None of the reports I have seen suggest the Senator's dogs left her own property. That is the essence of the matter. And if they had any basis to they would have, given her public position. All reports that I have seen say the small dog entered the property uninvited. The only points of difference I have seen are whether it intruded under a gate, under a fence or 'wandered' in. But it definately intruded. The small dog is a victim of it's own behaviour and it's owner failure to keep it at home or on a lead. It's really that simple. And that's a quite barbaric response. I hope Ms Kroger has more sympathy for her neighbour than you would. After all, Ms Krogor's dogs are alive.

Do you have a secure gate and fence? Are your dogs prevented from accessing the footpath if another dog walks past? If so, then yes - any incident occurs (which will only happen if a dog digs its way onto your property) will not be your dog's fault. But I'm talking about owners that don't keep their big dogs appropriately enclosed. That don't believe that their dogs will bolt from an unsecured front yard if another dog walks passed. They DO and they WILL (90% of the time).

Not leave them in the front yard even when supervised [we're not sure whether or not they were fully contained (were her dogs totally enclosed?) - as the reporting differs] because even when they're supervised, "dogs will be dogs" and the smaller dog will be the victim.

You can't be serious? All dogs owners have the same responsibility regardless of the size of their dogs. Also the article clearly states that the intruder dog came "under the fence". Poor woman, hope her body and mind heal quickly, what a terrible ordeal to go through. Hopefully if the neighbour decides to get another dog they'll keep it contained. Well I suppose it depends what paper you read. The Herald Sun says - a neighbours small pet that had wandered into the front yard of her Hawthorn home. and The Age - her neighbour's fox terrier ran under the fence to play with her two dogs. But putting aside Ms Kroger's story, I'm just sick to death of reading about small dogs being mauled to death by big dogs that are loose either in public parks or in their own front yards. I know of 2 cases in parks near to me where small ON LEASH dogs have been attacked and killed by big OFF LEASH dogs, and in both cases the owners of the big dogs have taken off leaving a fatally injured animals and traumatised owners. And some of you might remember the italian greyhound that was torn to pieces by two greyhounds let loose on a Melbourne beach. Yes, small dogs are just as likely to (or perhaps even more likely to, given some have terrier temperaments) to induce a fight, but such a fight is far less likely to have fatal consequences for the bigger animal. I have an elderly mother who is afraid to walk her small dog in the streets surrounding her home because of the number big dogs that are allowed into unsecured front yards. Yes, with supervision - but we all know that 90% of dogs will ignore you if another dog is around - particularly if they perceive that another dog is entering their territory, which includes the pavement in front of their home. I personally have been charged by a neighbour's Labrador that bolted from their front porch, across the street to have a go at my (on leash) dog as I was returning home. Around the corner to me a young man often plays plays ball in the front yard with his young and beautiful (but hyperactive) GSD ... behind a 2 foot fence. Do you seriously believe that if I walked my dog past their home that the GSD wouldn't react and come charging towards my dog? My blind dog doesn't perceive "charging" as a friendly gesture! I'm sure you're all perfect dog owners who have perfectly trained dogs, but the majority of dogs and owners are not and will never be the same. BTW, the sweetest dog presently in my life is an elderly German Shepherd, and the narkiest a mini schnauzer. So, NO, I'm not big dog prejudiced. I just appreciate that BIG animals are more likely to cause BIG injuries, and their owners have a responsibility to take appropriate care.

"Her right leg also has a seven-centimetre gash that may require a skin graft during surgery this evening." (a) Doesn't sound like the bite of a small dog; (b) She was holding the Foxy in her arms, from which it bit her face and fingers. How did it bite her leg? BTW, when was the last time a big dog was mauled to death by 2 small dogs? Not the dog's fault, of course. Big and little dogs have no concept of size when it comes to fighting. However, big dog owners have a greater responsibility to prevent this sort of situation from occurring as the consequences (ie the death of an animal) are so much greater. ;) No, big dog owners dont have a greater responsibility than small dog owners to keep their dogs contained ALL dog owners should be responsible for their dogs welfare and wellbeing. What part of this incident dont you understand Mum to Emma-the small dog dug under the fence into the other dogs yard, nothing to do with the size of the dogs involved at all. You are coming across in your posts as a dog racist and wont look past breeds and sizes please try to educate yourself that size is not the issue here. No where did it say the dog dug under the fence. It was loose - yes, that's inexcusable too. And probably wandered up an open driveway. Yes, all dogs should take responsibility for their dog's actions. BUT if a big dog attacks a little dog, it will most likely kill it. If a little dog attacks a big dog, bites that will heal are the result. Can you not see the difference? If you can't, you're obviously one of those big dog owners who rests confident with the knowledge that nothing with kill THEIR beloved pet. Small dog owners don't have that security.

"Her right leg also has a seven-centimetre gash that may require a skin graft during surgery this evening." (a) Doesn't sound like the bite of a small dog; (b) She was holding the Foxy in her arms, from which it bit her face and fingers. How did it bite her leg? BTW, when was the last time a big dog was mauled to death by 2 small dogs? Not the dog's fault, of course. Big and little dogs have no concept of size when it comes to fighting. However, big dog owners have a greater responsibility to prevent this sort of situation from occurring as the consequences (ie the death of an animal) are so much greater.

What was a Rotty and RB cross doing loose in her front yard anyway? What if a child had come past and tried to swing on her fence? Would the dogs have lunged at that intruder too? At the end of the day it's not how DA some breeds are, it's the damage certain breeds are capable of doing if something provokes them. And before you ask: She described her first dog as an "an RSPCA special" that she had owned for 10 years. "It's meant to be a Rhodesian Ridgeback-cross but it's got lots of different varieties in it. The other is a rotty (Rottweiler)," she said. The dogs attacked another dog that invaded their yard, that does not mean they will bite a child, how many times does it have to be said. Every time a dog fight or DA thread appears we have the same comments. It matters not what breed the dogs were, another dog entered their yard. I'm not sure what the point is mentioning the breeds in your post. My small dogs wouldn't take kindly to a strange dog crawling under my fence, they certainly are not child eaters, same goes for my 40 kg boy. On neutral ground or supervised it could have been a very different story. At the end of the day it's not how DA some breeds are, it's the damage certain breeds are capable of doing if something provokes them. Big dogs - if provoked - are capable of doing more damage than little dogs. It's that simple. And that's why I mentioned it. The owners of big dogs (irrespective of breed) should appreciate this and take appropriate care to avoid a situation as happened today (ie the small dog died). BTW "Her other injuries [aside from the scratches on her face] included crushed fingers on both hands and a deep gouge to her leg." The last of these would no doubt have been the result of her own dogs' actions. But she's not going to admit to that, is she?

What was a Rotty and RB cross doing loose in her front yard anyway? What if a child had come past and tried to swing on her fence? Would the dogs have lunged at that intruder too? At the end of the day it's not how DA some breeds are, it's the damage certain breeds are capable of doing if something provokes them. And before you ask: She described her first dog as an "an RSPCA special" that she had owned for 10 years. "It's meant to be a Rhodesian Ridgeback-cross but it's got lots of different varieties in it. The other is a rotty (Rottweiler)," she said.

It can be controlled to an extent but there is the issue of - if you take away the DA then you're taking away a large part of what makes the dog an APBT. A lot of hardcore fanciers of the breed don't want a dog that only looks like an APBT they want a dog that looks & acts like an APBT and DA is a part of that they're willing to deal with. Too true re: we need breeding legalised. The wheat would be separated from the chaff and the public would start seeing the APBT as it's meant to be. A smart, hard-working, stable dog. Not a bloody-minded child-eating weapon of mass destruction like the public now sees them. There are of course breeders doing the right thing at the moment but they're unable to reap the rewards of their work (that is, public recognition) because then they'd have to admit to owning & breeding a RB. They're doing some hard work and it's a darn thankless task. Why on earth would anyone WANT a DA dog? Purposefully bred DA dogs certainly don't belong in an urban environment.

I'd rather be attacked by a chihuahua than an APBT. Me too !!

Hi Cr Andrew Antoniolli Are you able to reference the scientific study council bases its stratefy on wrt desexed dogs being less aggressive and roaming less. Thankyou I don't think any responsible, informed breeder would argue with him on this point. Unneutered dogs, if unsecured, will wander in search of a mate. And if they encounter any competition in the process (ie another unneutered dog) they will fight for the 'right' to mate with a bitch that is in season.

We're talking about lost animals here, not those knowingly dumped by, for example, foreign students returning home (a big problem in Melbourne). I agree that there's no substitute for responsible pet ownership, but saying that it's unrealistic for Councils to provide animal welfare services is like saying that it's unreasonable to expect Councils to provide public libraries. It's all part of the service they provide in exchange for collecting rates.

What would you like to them to do with all the dogs? Take a more proactive approach to animal welfare, for one. For example * link with an animal rescue/rehoming organisation * retain a list of breed welfare groups who will immediately collect and foster unclaimed strays In Melbourne, the Stonnington Council Pound is Save-A-Dog Scheme, which has a no-kill policy. Some dogs have been listed on their site for adoption for months. So clearly not all councils take the brutal approach of Ipswich.

Actually, the more I think about it ... I think there is a very good chance that someone from the council decided to keep the puppy and claim that it was destroyed. She was a pure bred border collie puppy. The story doesn't say how old, but you can assume well under 6 months. It just doesn't make sense that she was destroyed - unless the people who work at this pound are totally barbaric. IMO, there is a very good chance she was taken by a council worker either to keep as a pet or to on sell for hundreds of dollars.

From the Ipswich Council website: "Cats and dogs are held at the Pound for three working days, while livestock is held for seven working days. " It doesn't say what happens to them after that. Don't they offer (or outsource) an adoption service? Or are they automatically destroyed after 3 days. That's criminal! And why on earth is the holding period more than double for livestock (which typically owners are not as emotionally attached to as they are family pets)??

Yes, I think that's what the writer is saying - that there is a current generation of dog owners who think they're special and above the law. That leash laws and 'dogs must be on leash' signs don't apply to them. Sundays I sit overlooking one of Stonnington's most well known, manicured gardens and despite being a on-leash area, only 1 in 10 dogs is actually walked on a leash. And this is in a park that has been the scene of a number of dog attacks (one where a small dog was literally torn limb-from-limb by a big black OFF LEASH dog) AND is within 500 metres of the home of a local city councillor. I have a dog who is nearly blind and who freaks out if charged by another dog. I think I have a right to have a safe place to walk her (such as an on-leash park) where we are both safe from being charged at by another dog. Stonnington is very generous with off leash parks - why do dog owners think they have a right to run riot in ON leash parks as well?? As for the writer's comment about owners keeping their dogs safe ... often I see a man running ahead of his two jack russells - in peak hour - along a very busy feeder road in Melbourne which has a very narrow footpath and very narrow naturestrip. Does he seriously believe that a driver backing from one of the houses would even be aware that these dogs were there? Or that the dogs would be alert that a car was about to cross their path? Sheer lunacy.

Let's start by getting one thing straight. I don't hate dogs - it's just the current breed of dog owners I can't stand. The other day we were enjoying a morning stroll down a busy shopping strip. Suddenly, like a crazed bat out of hell, a border collie came hurtling down the footpath, seemingly unaccompanied by any sane or responsible owner. Credit where credit's due, the dog did stop at the pedestrian lights, drawing a look of surprise from some people and a smug smile of adoration from its owners who were cycling down the street. That's right, riding their bikes on a parallel, but completely separate, path some three or four metres away. The lights eventually changed, the owners gave those around them a self-satisfied smile and, with a whistle, they were off again. The dog had to run pretty fast to keep up with its masters, zig-zagging along the busy pavement, brushing past prams containing sleeping babies, pushing its way around the odd wheelchair, its desperation to keep up with its owners paramount in its mind. Having your dog off its lead seems to be an emerging trend around our neighbourhood. Oh no, the owners are saying to us, you can't oppress my dog with all your rules and your leads. It would seem that letting your dog run free is secret code for ''look at how special I am - my dog totally idolises me''. It is as if, by way of extension, we, too, should realise these people's amazing leadership qualities and general greatness, as if they had been democratically voted into this position of power by a vast audience of intelligent people, rather than exalted to this spot by one, flea-infested and, let's face it, smelly canine. What I don't get about having your dog off-lead is why, if you love your dog as much as you purport to do, you would put it at increased risk of being hit by a car or getting lost. Research last year from the University of British Columbia put the intelligence of dogs on par with the average two-year-old child. This is in itself pretty impressive, but I don't let my two-year-old wander the streets, trusting that they have a full grasp of the complexities of our road rules. As I love and want to protect my children, I tend to hold their hand as we cross roads or confine them to the safety of a pram. Letting them have free rein amid unpredictable traffic would probably have people questioning my capacity as a parent, not marvelling at how relaxed and casual I am. Our little brush with the canine running of the Stawell Gift was just one of many occasions recently when we have been bothered by rogue dogs. Lately, it seems that every time we are picnicking in the park or playing in the playground some exuberant mutt comes to spoil the party, trampling over the food and pushing over the children. Invariably, rather than apologise to us or chastise the animal, the owner will look at the cowering children and answer my glare with a ''Don't worry, she's very friendly'', the subtext of which is ''Stop being an uptight cow and foisting your fears on to your children''. The thing is, though, I actually want my children to have a mistrust of dogs. A bit of healthy apprehension is well founded. Earlier this week, a report from the Dog Attack Register revealed an average of eight reported dog attacks each day in NSW alone. In Victoria, it is estimated that there are about nine attacks a day. And that's the reported attacks, not the odd nip here or there. And guess what? Almost all the owners of those dogs said that their dogs were friendly too. Yes, I know. The dogs are not to blame and not all dog owners are selfish. But some are and I'm sick of being made to feel like it's my problem if I'm not overjoyed by the overly affectionate attention of your dog. ''Oh he likes you,'' the owner will say as their dog jumps up, licks your face and makes the occasional dive for your crotch. As an experiment, let's try replacing the word ''dog'' with the word ''uncle'' in that last sentence and see how you'd feel about it if I just shrugged my shoulders and said, ''Oh Uncle Chester, you rascal''. So to all you dog owners I say, enough of the crap - and I'm not talking about what you leave on the footpath. Letting your dog roam the streets unrestrained isn't a mark of how brilliantly obedient they are or how great you must be. Instead, it is a threat to public safety, your dog's wellbeing and my personal space. As Ann Landers implored: "Don't accept your dog's admiration as conclusive evidence that you are wonderful." Sarah McKenzie is a freelance writer. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-a...00130-n4fz.html [The readers comments - accessible at above link - illustrate typical 'me generation' selfishness from both sides of the argument.]

If you want it filled (and you'll have to see a vet dental specialist for this) make sure your vet puts her on antibiotics immediately as being the weekend, there will obviously be a delay and infection is a major risk where the tooth is broken and the pulp exposed. My whippet had a premolar broken whilst caged at the vet. Fortunately she was on antibiotics at the time so the tooth was filled and saved. She hasn't had a problem with it since, and can still have bones (at least the softer ones such as lamb flaps and chicken wings).

Would that be safe to put directly on the skin (which is what you're doing with dogs with very short hair like a Staffy). Staffy's can also have very sensitive skin. So I think I'd be doing a bit of research before I applied either to your dog.

Our family has been going to Monash Vet for over 20 years now, but unfortunately I sense we only continue going there on a "better the devil you know" basis. It's hard to know what's gone wrong. I guess it's sort of like a family doctor who you've been consulting for years, but suddenly you come to the realisation that they just aren't as quite on-the ball-as they once were. If I can't get an appointment with one particular vet there (Stuart), I'll go to Nick Ashby at East Malvern Veterinary Clinic. He's very sweet with the animals (he'll talk directly to the animals i.e. "aren't you a good boy" which - bizzarely - is something they never do a Monash) and really respects the owners and their opinions/experience.