Souff

Yes, the duty of care extends to all who enter premises that are open to the public. Souff

AND the owners of the dogs can also use their brains and prevent these situations occurring! The owner of the dog in this case has a duty of care towards the customers who come into the salon and has taken a risk by having a dog in the salon, a risk that can have a very high cost for the dog, for the customers or for the owner. This risk to all would not have been there if the dog had not been there. That my friend is the bottom line. Souff

Yes, some are quite large toys but at least they dont have SM. Souff

Did you actually see this toddler running rampant?

And that we allow all hairdressing salons to be dog minding centres ...... And just for the record, none of the child's critics were there and saw what happened. Souff

It's an anomaly, one of many. Would be good to see somebody take a fresh look at things in 2010. Souff

Not WA. This happened in NSW. The cheques for their RENEWAL of RSPCA membership were returned to both the chief of the ANKC and the chief of DogsNSW. Fact.

No, I don't see it as this at all. It is because those who make the law lost the plot some years back. In earlier years there was a law that was called the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It was pretty general in its wording and it still had to be policed. When cases came to court, a magistrate LISTENED to the case put before him/her by the prosecution, and then they LISTENED to the defendant's side of the story. Then the magistrate made formed a JUDGEMENT, did the sentencing etc. What is wrong with the present law is that those who are given the roles of constables under the law are forming the JUDGEMENT long before the case ever gets to court. The current system is putting the cart before the horse. The role of the inspector should be to inspect and educate, and then to warn if things are not improving, and then if that doesn't work, then do the prosecuting ..... BUT FOR GOODNESS SAKE, LET THE MAGISTRATE DO THE JUDGING! If a film crew comes along for the ride, fine, but that footage should ONLY be used for the court case. It is not to be used a publicity material - it is merely recording a job that people are paid to do. This is not about heroics and publicity stunts. It is supposed to be about animal welfare. Souff

They don't go looking for them cos they don't know they are missing y'see - if they cant recognise that a gate is open the rest is immaterial. Another one of Australia's many many hopeless dog owners. Couldn't look after mosquitoes in a swamp. Souff

And if I can simply add, all of the above did not happen in Somalia; it didn't happen in Chinese dominated Tibet; and it wasn't a raid carried out by the Taliban in the remote villages of Afghanistan. It all happened - with full approval of the Victorian Government - in our once democratic country, in a sleepy Victorian town not too far from the great city of Melbourne that was home to our first democratically elected Federal parliament. How far we have strayed from the democratic principles laid down then! Every politician in Victoria should hang their head in shame, for allowing the democratic rights of Australians to be ripped away and replaced with legislation that reads like something Robert Gabriel Mogabe had put together and is policed in a style that he would have been proud of. Souff

Primary Industries hasn't disappeared, WH. It's carried all its present reponsibilties, including animal welfare law enforcement, under a 'master' dpt. It still has its own Minister. As in: The State of Queensland (Primary Industries and Fisheries within the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation) 1995-2009. Same in Victoria, animals welfare law is the responsibility of the Dpt of Agriculture & Forestry (is Fisheries in there, too?)....which is under the 'master' Dpt of Primary Industries. It's not a case of being hard to fit 'pets in'. It's their responsiblitly under the law. But they get off the hook because most of the community don't know that.....& think that it's the reponsibility of the RSPCAs. No....they're only agents. Your federal idea is interesting. I'll think about that. Frankly, I think the RSPCAs should walk away from law enforcement. The world is too sophisticated & the laws too all- encompassing now, to be left to a charity with handfuls of inspectors. No way can expectations be met. Anyway there's present conflict of interest, for RSPCAs, between advocacy (wanting new laws or laws to change) & enforcing current law. I have looked into the idea of animal welfare being administered federally but unfortunately it would take a re-write of the Australian constitution for that to happen. It has to be administered by the states. However that is not to say that there cannot be a Federal advisory body that ensured that all states were operating with the same instruments. At the moment they are not. NCCAW is the federal body that we currently have, unless it has been re-named again, but in itself is not accessible to breeders. The charity cannot continue to play policeman, and the state governments MUST talk directly to dog breeders again. Pre 1999, they used to do this. No more blanket legislation for our varied creatures who have such a variety of needs. The tide will turn, but dog breeders per se must take their turn at the oars, in the form of speaking up and demanding proper consultation with their state governments. Nobody else is going to do it for you. As a result of one breeders pain, some very good work has been done in the last week and this can be built on. Keep that momentum. Souff

You are going away for a holiday. Your dogs are going away for a holiday. When they come back home you will all be happy to be back together again. Stop fretting and let them enjoy their time away, enjoy their homecoming once again. I am sure you have faith in what is organised for your holiday, so have faith in the people you are leaving your dogs with. And have faith in your ability to cope with any small changes that might occur Souff

It is most definitely not worth the risk to the dog. And it is not worth the risk to children either. I love my dogs but there are areas of my life that will always remain dog free and this is because I know that things can go pearshaped very quickly when you are busy with other things. None of us can predict every situation and we have a duty to protect our dogs and little children from themselves. Souff

Different dogs will react differently. I will leave this one squarely in the "unpredictability" tray.

And if a very small toddler not known to your dog stood on their tail or fell on your dog ?

Diablo, in here pls. I am interested in seeing that legislation that you have quoted from. Souff

If the kid fell onto the dog, he could have reacted out of pain/surprise. Why should he have a DD order on him if that was the situation? Under SA legislation, it would be clear cut case of provocation. It makes no difference if the child fell onto the dog or intentionally pulled it's tail, the dog was mistreated and reacted. The dog has the right to sit in peace without being hurt or startled by misadventure. Because the victim was a defenceless child, doesn't make the dog anymore at fault in the circumstances. Could you post that section of the legislation please Diablo? Or post a link to it? I am interested. Souff

If that news gets out next thing you know the RSPAADTA will be asking for laws to prove that dog breeders are sane! Cant have that ...

Not your decision to make. End of story. RottyLover01 Is my opinion. I am entitled to make it, and I am keeping it. End of story. Souff

OMG! :D and to think that somebody wanted one for their handbag! It's a good thing us consoomers have got the RSPAADTA to look out for us. Looks like that Deshonko Kennels person has done the too .... :D Souff

Oh, how did that happen :D Hey, how much do you reckon the RSPAADTA would want for one of the seized Jungle Rockwheelers then?

Dog should not have been there. End of story. Souff

Baggins, Were you actually there in the salon? There was an account posted here by a family member and the location of the dog is different to what you give. Also, what is your description of "mauling" ? I am interested to know. Souff

As a dog owner, I find some of the attitudes in this thread appallingly selfish. We have to live in a world where there are rules of safety and as far as I can see some very basic rules of safety have been ignored here. I didn't think any of us had the right to be that selfish, but clearly I am mistaken. It is a privilege to own dogs and often we must protect them from their own instincts, and from other people, if we are able to all live in society happily and safely with our dogs. Well that is the code that I have always lived by as a dog owner and a dog breeder and I have always had that approach in other canine activities. Until I read of this attack, I had never thought of a hairdressing salon as being where you could be bitten by animals. Never. I think the majority of the Australians also think this way. Nicked by scissors? Yes. Burned by a hairdryer? Maybe. Chemical reactions? Also maybe. But bitten by a dog at the hairdressers? Before I read this thread it would never have occurred to me that it could happen. I have asked my hairdresser who runs a busy unisex salon (a European gentleman who loves dogs) and he said he would never have a dog there because of the added responsibility of protecting his valued customers and his staff from a dog attack, and besides, centre management would only allow animals to be in the pet shop - not in any of the other shops because of health regulations and insurance issues. He also raised the matter that staff could possibly complain to their union (one angle I hadn't thought of). It would be very interesting to know what the health regulations state on this matter and also whether the relevant union has any policy re dogs being taken into hairdressing salons (other than guide dogs/therapy dogs). If anyone knows what the regs state, or what the unions stance is, I would love to see it posted here. Souff

Soooo relieved that you have good sound policies in place PF The price is charged in full at time of first contact of course?