Zhou Xuanyao

Same thing repeats here over and over. People post and say my dog\pup was attacked in some kind of offleash situation, then they receive mixed messages from members. "By rights" you should be able to take your dog there and not have it attacked. Now forget about that. Reality is as follows. An 11 week old pup is way over its head. 95% of the dogs you encounter are capable of hurting or killing him. Dogs are NOT supposed to run around together and socialize. This is a fantasy dreamed up by some in society today. Dogs are said to be social in the sense that in the wild they run in packs, it does not mean strange dogs "socializing". By taking the dog and allowing it to be exposed to an offleash situation with other dogs you are putting it at risk. Now i'm not saying don't do it, i'm just saying do not blame others if there is a problem. In combination with the nature of dogs, we also know that irresponsible owners are frequent, so there should be no ground for complaining if your dog is attacked at an offleash park the risks are clear.

This is your fault to put it bluntly theres no other way to say it. You do not take puppies to offleash parks, period. In my view if you take any dog to an offleash park and there is trouble then look in the mirror for who is to blame, but especially a puppy.

No, if he was some kind of Christian fanatic who turned it into a siege involving half the cities police force and thousands of rounds of machine gun fire, THAT would be only in America Threatening someone with a stanley knife, that happens everywhere.

Oh woah thats a good one. You have proved that accusing other people of having their head up their kolo is merely you projecting. I have to hand it to you though, of all the brilliant statements I have read on this forum that is one of the best. Please, tell me more :D

Ha sucked in Not that cabbies lucky day. Not sure what is the matter with people, from cabbies to store owners and so forth, get it through your heads, assistance dogs are allowed, same thing over and over I found Sydney cabbies to be fine with dogs. I used to use them years ago to get here or there with the dog (a big guy) no problem.

I think I recall your old thread. My dog was like yours. I resorted to an 80kg concrete dish, haven't had a problem since. I will explain how to make it if you want.

Great parent she will be, the kid will probably turn out just like its mother. People should be directing anger toward the government. She is just one of thousands who do this kind of thing, it is the government which sends out the message that animal cruelty is no big deal with these piddly sentences, maybe we would have a reduction in this kind of thing if these people had to face real consequences.

The stuff they do is like something out of a freddy kruger movie. Commenting in this thread today has put those images in my head again, just makes me want to go hug my dog. Its going to take atleast a generation to start changing people and thats if they start now and enforce the rules strictly.

'They' means the dog meat traders, and the dog meat eaters. Not sure what you mean about the authorities turning a blind eye, China has not introduced the laws yet, perhaps your confused with Korea. If you mean with regards to turning a blind eye to the torture, I don't know what their laws are in regard to the torture of cats and dogs, they may not have any. I think they should start there (they, the Chinese government), let that potentially be a stepping stone to banning dog meat, because like I say, the consumption of the meat and the cruelty to the animal are two different topics. Ban dog meat, congratulations, but has that taught anyone anything about cruelty to animals ? The problem has to be addressed at the core first and then they can work their way up. Re dog fighting, I have no clue on China, but in both Japan and Korea it is a widespread practice despite being considered socially unacceptable. In Japan it is legal, in Korea, i'm not sure on the legalities. They conduct it differently to what we are used to from what we see from the USA and Europe, its hard to explain you would have to see it. They (the traders) might not "get their rocks off" but believe me, its not the nicest scene witnessing what they do to them, they have zero conscience regarding the animal, it seems baffling by the standard of Australian society. This is what I'm saying, the attitude toward animals is what needs attention foremost.

They eat all kinds of things, like they say, the Chinese will eat anything with legs, except their dinner table. Its not the act of eating the dog I have the problem with, it's the way they are kept and particularly the way they are killed which is the problem. It's like the guy in the link says, Chinese give an impression of being uncivilized with practices like this. The government tries to prove they care about animal rights with various high profile conservation efforts, but then when you look at this, what message does it send. I think the Chinese government will go through with this simply to benefit their image. Fingers crossed.

Thats what the Koreans say. The Koreans were outraged in 2002 (World Cup) when the rest of the world suggested that perhaps they should enforce their own laws. They said exactly that. We don't beat our animals to death with metal bars, hang them (not to break the neck, but to suffocate), boil them alive, ect. Just goes to show their attitude. I dont think they make any real attempts at secrecy regarding those practices, but they just don't think it is relevant.

There are many Chinese now who own pets, and many Chinese are speaking out against dog and cat eating. While there is a market it will continue, but attitudes are changing and if these laws are brought in and the authoroties are strict, the practice will decline. In Korea no body takes any notice they have had a ban on dog meat for 25 years, and yet there are dog meat restaurants and markets openly doing what they like.

She's beautiful. No, my dog will not touch fruit or vegetables.

People get brainwashed over time its all part of a frequently occuring pattern in our society. Its sad to see but its typical. If people get told the same thing over and over enough, they start losing perspective, and soon they start believing it.

In the meantime while your working with him, I would not socialize the dog. Walk the dog, but do not necessarily have any direct contact with people. Definetly no puppy pre-school, they are hit and miss at the best of times, certainly no place for a timid pup. Basically the idea is, you do not want to make the dog worse by putting it in over its head or in situations its not ready for.

Sounds like they don't want complaints. I would have thought the idea is to get rid of the people reflecting badly on the organization and on ethical breeders, not protect them. Having said that obviously there is going to be a problem with frivolous or false accusations but all organizations have that problem. Thanks for the link. I didn't know that. So in a sense (in theory) they are quite strict.

your joking. If the complainants allegations turn out to be accurate, do they get their money back ?

Why would someone making an allegation have to pay penalty units ? Is that what your saying, my bad if I miss your meaning.

NSW. Ok, i'll look it up myself in that case. Just interested in the distinction between optional or "recomended" ethics, and mandatory ones, aswell as the process involved and them revoking registration. A breeder I know was recently telling me that Dogs NSW is "cracking down" on problem breeders but I did not get a chance to ask her to elaborate.

So when you say the state body tables its evidence, is this evidence that they gathered themselves (do they investigate allegations) or evidence which has been handed to them from another source, ie, the person or organization who brought the breeder into question in the first place. So the answer is yes there are mandatory rules ? What are they, link ?

Are there any rules which are mandatory, or are they just optional guidelines ? In the case that a breeder can be struck off, do they need to be provided with evidence, and what is the nature of the evidence, for example, do they require that the person has been convicted of cruelty ?

$4000 !!! Your thinking of contributing $1000 plus, are you crazy ? Dude, a goodwill gesture is one thing and I agreed with you, but I said that when I thought the bill would be 5 or 6 hundred bucks, not $4000. If I where you id think of some other "goodwill" gesture. I can see you feel pressured into it a bit now, having said you would contribute something and now the bill comes to this, but still things change what can you do. $500 is also a very respectable, round kind of figure, I reckon $500 or nothing (in hard cash, doesn't mean you cant be nice in other ways, like going by there, ect). If you do offer cash, don't forget to ask to see the vet bill, and get a receipt off them.

Really interesting post. Maybe I was wrong about what I said re mandatory training. Worth some more thought.

No. Just the fact it was discussed on Sunrise, the chances of me saying "no" are high. Those ignoramuses wouldn't know the first thing about dogs I would not take too much notice of anything they say. I support mandatory training and a few other potential initiatives, but not a "competency test". The idea is to learn, not to prove your "competent" straight away. Dogs are a learning process and it comes with time and experience, not from doing some test which is written to someone else's standards and beliefs about dogs.

Well, no their not. Most APBT's today in this country are bred to be pets and are not game tested. Alot of people will say that as a way of bragging about the merits of the breed, but fact and fantasy are two different things. All the bull breed standards (and standards for any breed) can say whatever they like, but truth is, if a dog is bred as a pet or a show dog, then its going to be what its going to be, far from any guarantee of being tenacious or highly determined.