Souff

I dont like your attitude, so it is a "Don't" from me. However, should you choose to re-write your petition wording and start talking about the WIDESPREAD SUBSIDISED DESEXING of crossbred dogs and any dogs that are not going to be used for breeding, then I might be a little bit more interested. But ...... do not for one minute think that there will be a huge reduction of animals given over to pounds and rescue organisations. Humans will still take the easy way out to get rid of a dog they no longer want. Entire or desexed. It doesn't matter to them when they decide the dog has to go. Many think that rescue groups are there to assist them with the easy way out, so they don't have to feel bad about having a dog put down. The dog they no longer want will get another chance somewhere else, they really believe that. Don't believe me? That is your choice. Have another think about it ..... and take a deep breath before you post next time. Souff

Leelaa 77, you have asked the neverending question. Why not just pull up some of the many zillions of threads where RSPCA is mentioned on this site? Souff

It is my understanding that nuisance barking DOES have to be proven. Many owners are surprised just how much their dog does bark when they are not at home. I think communication between neighbours needs to improve, in the early stages of a problem. I have a strong feeling that many of the nuisance barkers are not reported to council until the constant barking has driven the neighbours batty. As with any problem, it first needs to be identified as a problem, and then accepted as a problem, before any correction can be effective. We had a neighbour's large breed (read LOUD) dog bark, day and night, for 3 days straight. They got told when they got home - by several sleep deprived neighbours. They were shocked because the dog is always so quiet when they are at home. They had a friend calling around to feed the dog and had not expected any problems. They now have their dog kennelled when they go away for long weekends, so we all get some sleep, and the dog is not distressed. Yes there are dog haters who will complain to council because they CAN, but I think there are still a lot of barking dogs as well. Souff

Interesting isn't it? As a nation, we pride ourselves on being an advanced society in the western world, and we surely have MORE EDUCATION ABOUT RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERSHIP, and MORE TRAINING CLASSES AVAILABLE FROM PUPPY AGE UPWARDS, we have SPRAY COLLARs and other deterrents available on the market, and MORE LAWS ABOUT DOGS than at any time in our country's history ....... and yet, BARKING DOGS is still apparently the NUMBER ONE COMPLAINT to local councils. I wonder what could be missing? Not enough time spent with the dog perhaps? Or is it that owners don't leave Rover with a dinosaur bone to chew when they go out? Or is it that they leave him in a boring backyard all day, sometimes without adequate water in hot weather, instead of putting him inside before they leave? Frankly, I am not surprised that councils are considering using shock tactics. They must be exasperated too. Souff

http://www.macroevolution.net/diseases-carried-by-mice.html Diseases carried by mice include, but are not limited too, the following: Bubonic plague - Mice are not infected with plague as often as rats, but infections do occur. This disease is spread to humans by fleas. Plague is usually fatal within a few days of infection. It is present in rodents throughout the western United States, and in many other parts of the world (see map >>). Salmonella - Mice and rats are both frequent carriers. Spreads to humans by contact with mouse droppings, especially through consumption of contaminated food. Causes serious, sometimes fatal gastroenteritis. Household pets are also frequently infected with Salmonella by this means and often die as a result. Murine Typhus (typhus transmitted from mice via flea bite) - This disease is treatable with antibiotics, but can cause death in elderly or infirm individuals. Symptoms include vomiting, fever, headache, myalgia, and cough. Leptospirosis - Rats are mice are both carriers of this potentially fatal disease. Rat-bite Fever - Fatal in 10 percent of untreated cases. Usually contracted from rats, but infection can also occur from mice. The bacterium causing this disease enters the body through bites, as its name suggests, or from urine contaminating either food or preexisting skin wounds. Tapeworms - Mice host small tapeworms of the genus Hymenolepis can be spread to humans eating foods contaminated with droppings (or when hands are merely dirtied by droppings and not washed before meals). These parasites hatch out in the gut where they grow and reproduce. Ways that mice transmit disease to humans: By biting; By infecting human food with droppings; By infecting human food with urine; By infecting skin wounds with urine; Indirectly, by blood-sucking insects; Indirectly, by mites; Indirectly, by means of cats and dogs; By dying in a water source drunk by humans. ________________________________________

Then I retract what was said re breeding in the previous post but I do not agree with her thoughts.

Good temperament and intelligence comes from bloodlines, not just from poodles.

If the media wanted us to seriously believe this story, where are the photos of the underside of the hooves ... or paws?

Just a huge pity that it took 16 long years. The damage done has been immense. One can only hope now that the coalition will work harmoniously with those who breed animals - unlike the muttonheaded occupants of the last few NSW Parliaments who danced to the tune of those who want to get rid of animal breeders. Souff

Yep, that's our PETA ..... but of course, using PETA logic, it is 93.81% of animals that can no longer be "enslaved" by humans. and still far too many people, particularly kids at high school and uni, who get sucked in and embrace their lunatic scenarios and/or give money to them, or worse, break out in a rash after spending time with a crusty old dog breeder and seeing what happy animals really do.

Nature's a bitch.

*bump* for those who want to light a candle for the people and pets of Japan.

Katie, there are 2 laws in New South Wales that speak to the matter of dogs in cars. One law is through the road rules (RTA) and the other law in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Both laws can be enforced by a police officer or by other authorised people. As well as the laws, there are the RECOMMENDATIONS that can be found on the RSPCA's website. A lot of people are not aware of the laws, and some people are aware but don't really think that the POCTA law applied to dogs in cars, only to dogs on utes. Wrong! The first part of this rule does not specify what type of vehicle, it is about pain being caused to an animal. I have been told that this law most definitely applies to dogs in cars if you have transported your dog and caused the dog unnecessary pain (usually impact injuries sustained in an accident, as a result of the dog not being secured in the vehicle and being thrown about). Here are both of the NSW laws, and further down is the RSPCA's recommendations and policies: This is the law that is written into the road rules in NSW: Driver to have proper control of a vehicle A driver must not drive with a person or animal in the driver’s lap. The rider of a motorbike must not ride with an animal on the fuel tank. This does not apply to a person who travels less than 500 metres for the purposes of farming. PENALTY: Three demerit points (four in a school zone) and a $324 fine ($405 in a school zone). ------------------------------------------------- This is the law as written in the NSW Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act: Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 No 200 Current version for 9 July 2010 to date (accessed 19 March 2011 at 14:31) 7 Carriage and conveyance of animals (1) A person shall not: (a) carry or convey an animal, or (b) where the person is a person in charge of an animal—authorise the carriage or conveyance of the animal, in a manner which unreasonably, unnecessarily or unjustifiably inflicts pain upon the animal. Maximum penalty: 250 penalty units in the case of a corporation and 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both, in the case of an individual. (2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), a person shall not: (a) carry or convey a horse on a multi-deck vehicle, or (b) where the person is a person in charge of the horse—authorise the carriage or conveyance of a horse on a multi-deck vehicle. Maximum penalty: 250 penalty units in the case of a corporation and 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both, in the case of an individual. (2A) Without limiting subsection (1), a person must not carry or convey a dog (other than a dog being used to work livestock), on the open back of a moving vehicle on a public street unless the dog is restrained or enclosed in such a way as to prevent the dog falling from the vehicle. Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both. (3) In this section: multi-deck vehicle means a motor vehicle or a trailer drawn by a motor vehicle that: (a) is used to carry or convey animals, and (b) on which animals are carried or conveyed in two or more layered sections. --------------------------------------------- These are the RSPCA’s recommendations and policies: RSPCA Australia knowledgebase / Companion animals / Do I need to restrain my dog when travelling in my car? Do I need to restrain my dog when travelling in my car? Depending on the circumstances, restraining a dog in a car may provide several safety benefits both to the dog and the occupants of the car: • the dog cannot move around within the car and therefore has less potential to distract or disrupt the driver • in a collision, the dog may be less likely to become a projectile thereby potentially decreasing the risk of injury to the driver or passengers • restraint may prevent the dog from jumping out of a moving car’s window which may reduce the risk of injury to the dog and other road users. Vehicle restraints for dogs are widely available and include restraints that either attach to existing seatbelts or have buckles that clip directly into the seatbelt. Generally, restraints may be attached to the dog’s collar or harness. Some groups advocate the use of pet transport containers or crates (appropriately secured within the car). This may reduce the ability of the dog to disrupt or distract the driver and may also reduce the likelihood of a dog becoming a projectile during a collision and/or may prevent the dog from jumping out of the car. While RSPCA Australia does not have a specific policy on the appropriate restraint of dogs in cars we do have a policy regarding containers for transport. The container should enable the animal to lie down flat, turn around, stand erect and stretch with clearance. Another method, for drivers with station wagons, is to put the dog behind a cargo barrier. This may not prevent an injury to the animal in the event of a collision but may help to prevent the animal from harming the human occupants. At this stage, RSPCA Australia considers that further research using non-animal models is needed to determine the safest and most effective way of restraining dogs and other pets in cars in order to reduce the risk of injury to the animal, driver; other occupants in the car and other road users. We recommend that you consult your Road Traffic Authority website to find out about the road rules involving animals in your specific state/territory. In NSW for example, the RTA road user's handbook states ithat: • A driver, motorcycle rider, bicycle rider or passenger must not lead an animal, including by tethering, while the vehicle is moving. Animals should be seated or housed in appropriate areas • A driver must not drive with an animal in the driver’s lap

Um. well, 800 animals could include families of rats, mice, and perhaps even all those crickets that live in little cardboard boxes, waiting to be fed to other creatures. They would not all be large creatures. A few fleas could have been counted too ...... Give a starting figure to a journo ..... never any guarantee of what ends up in print! Perhaps any posts of this nature should be prefaced with: WARNING: This article contains political statements ... accuracy could be a casualty!

I'm sorry, I find that statement offensive, Maybe those 'many breeders' might have put her down from an ethical, humane point of view, based on her expected quality of life, NOT because she wasn't potential ribbon winning or pumping out puppies as their motive. fifi I also find this assumption very offensive and ask that the poster withdraw the statement. Many breeders have people waiting years for a puppy and the most important things to be considered when the puppies are being assessed is to ensure that they are healthy and that they have all of its anatomy in place, so that they can have the best possible chance of a long, healthy life with their new owner. It is very wrong to assume that breeders ONLY think in terms of the pup's future in the show ring or as a breeding animal. Very wrong. There are now many fewer dogs being shown in show rings, and many fewer pups that go on to be stud dogs or breeding bitches. The greater majority of pups go to pet homes and breeders have a responsibility to ensure that the pups are healthy and complete. If they are not, then the breeder could risk legal action - another factor that breeders now need to consider when they decide to breed dogs. Souff

Jed, I just cant comprehend the enormity of it all in Japan. It somehow compares with watching 911 unfold on our TV screens. Numbing. Incomprehensible. There was so little we could do last year, but lighting candles for you all over the place seemed like a good way of getting a message of strength sent around the universe. In cabins and cottages, in clubs, churches and in cathedrals, candles were lit in all sorts of places last year, with a message of strength. The candles are symbolic, but they burn brightly and with sincerity. We can also reflect and hopefully feel grateful for all that we take for granted each day. Souff

There are so many wonderful teams from many organisations and departments over there to help and they also need our support and prayers to get them through this. The candle site is excellent and each candle burns for 48 hours, so you can go back there in a couple of days and light another candle. My lantern candle in the garden only lasted 6 hours so will light another one tonight. Souff

Are you asking if they are evolving into crippled creatures with no forelegs?

Hmmm, so a criminal conviction was added to the original fine. Well, if one drives around allowing a precious innocent dog to become a potential missile when we have to slam on the anchors, then yes, that is criminal. We are supposed to love and protect our dogs and this law is there to protect both dogs and humans. Good work SC Ellis, and well done to both the magistrate and judge for not caving in.

Oh Steve, how I hate to admit that PETA doctrine is right about something !!!! Also, some points made by Greytmate are so very, very true and makes important decisions many times harder to make. "We know that dogs instinctively tend to hide expressions of pain." "We know that a dog's instincts are triggered strongly, when the dog is excited by something, adrenaline will block out pain." Having seen elderly dogs, that are in both severe physical and mental deterioration, think that they can still do zoomies when a certain person arrives to visit ..... an activity that was always associated with that person's previous visits when the dogs were young .... is the worst thing to watch. Their eyes spark up but their physical talents cannot match the spark. The rush of adrenalin does not last for the exercise. So very very sad. Not all dogs in pain have dull cloudy eyes either - some have the clearest most beautiful eyes right up until the last. Many dogs have an innate ability to hide pain and this makes making the tough decisions so very much harder. Particularly when you are looking at a puppy and this is why you must consider the longer term complications. You will never come to the best decision if you dont face up to the dogs long term prospects. As Steve has said, this is OUR RESPONSIBILITY, no matter what role we have with the pup or dog: breeder, owner, rescue worker, vet, carer. If the owner does not have the knowledge then it is up to informed people around them to make sure that the owner knows about the consequences and the options, and that they have a responsibility to make a decision. The litmus test for me is always: "Would this dog/pup survive in a natural pack situation?" Humans domesticated dogs but the instincts are still much the same as those of non-domesticated animals and this is much of what we love about them. A pedigreed pooch of today might not look like a wolf but when natural survival instincts kick in, we are reminded that not a lot has changed. The longer term quality of life for the animal is the most important thing to consider, not the look on the dog's face. If this has not been considered properly and we feel good about having given this dog another chance at life, then yes, PETA are correct. Souff

Yep, that is a dominant dog. Good one too, knows how to get a message through to a nuisance dog, without a vet being needed. If the dog is dominant to the humans, then there is a problem with the human who is supposed to be the dog's master - the human who is supposed to be the leader of the pack for the dominant dog to look up to and to take commands from.

* bump * Light a virtual candle for the people and the pets of Japan. Send the addy to a friend: http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/candle...ng&gi=JAPAN People from 37 countries have already lit theirs on this site of peace - it is the least we can do at this terrible time. Souff

Yes, Catherine he is loved and is being looked after in the short term, but a better love for this young dog would be the type of love that is called "tough love". It is the love given when a human considers the LONG TERM damage being done to the animal and they make the tough decision to save the puppy from a future of suffering. Many people think it is noble to do the very best they can for deformed young animals, and these days they are encouraged in this endeavour by some vets and others. Trolleys are made, special harnesses developed, and people are taught how to help a dog express its faeces through musculature that is not working properly. What happens if somebody forgets to do it each day? Bladder infections, bowel blockages. More pain and suffering for the animal. Laxatives are often given on a regular basis and these have the net effect of stuffing up the animal's system in other ways. Strong anti-inflammatory medications that were designed to be given to old dogs who are becoming crippled with arthritis with the onset of old age, are often given to young animals who have joints and that are not working properly and are causing pain. These medications eat through the gut and other internal organs of dogs who are on them from a young age. I could go on, but I hope you get my drift. Ethical vets and owners do not keep deformed dogs alive. They have to silence their emotions and say goodbye early. Not easy, but it is the better option. Because a young crippled dog is looking happy now, with all the care lavished on it, does not mean that the right thing is being done for the dog, if the dog's future is really being taken into account. The same happy young dog does not have a very good future at all, because of all the consequential complications ahead. Do we have the right to lead him down that path? I don't believe we do. It might give the carers a warm and fuzzy feeling now, but the longer term welfare interest of the dog is not being served at all. Birds toss deformed young out of the nest, and they do this in the best long term interests of the deformed young. They know that that the baby does not have a future. I once took home one of these fledglings on the ground - a lorikeet with no tail. A bird who could never fly. Stumpy lived with us in a cage for about a year and then developed pneumonia and died quickly. He had the best I could give him but it was not enough. He never had a future and I could not give him that. Had I not found him on the ground, he would have been another critter's dinner very soon so I felt some personal satisfaction, but even with good care, he lived only a fraction of the time that a normal parrot lives. He was not meant to live - I probably would have been better spending my time tending to an injured bird to whom I COULD have given a better future. Cats eat their deformed kittens. Bitches will sometimes eat deformed pups, or not feed them and demand that the owner remove them from the litter box. They KNOW that these babies do not have a proper future and they take care of the matter, right there and then. As humans and animal carers, adn as true animal lovers, I now believe we should be looking to nature if we want to really provide what is best for the animals. It is all there for us to learn. The animal kingdom is amazing when you begin to understand how it works, but you must leave your human emotions behind. We should not be putting human values on animals. It is not natural and is not best for the animals. Setting a deformed young pup up with a trolley and other paraphenalia, and later drugs, is little more than doing something that will make us feel good - because we tried. It has all been tried before and most vets and serious animal people know that it is never a good long term solution. In almost every circumstance, it is far kinder to farewell a deformed pup, sooner rather than later. That is the only real caring that will benefit the pup in the longer term. Souff

Totally agree. Nobody likes to lose a dog or puppy - it is never easy. I like to plant something on those occasions so then I know another beautiful living thing has a chance at life. But geez, I would like to find the person who has the entire bitch or dog that is producing whole litters of pups without front legs ... and ensure that both parents are sterilised. Very likely that the parent dogs are still entire and likely to produce another batch.