GeckoTree

Thats fantastic!

Oh if its sort of semi perminant yeah I agree, build a fenced in run, Its quite easy.

Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you.

Thanks for the continuing upates on Jed, I check in every chance I get too.

Sorry the cable runs. I'le google an image to post..

I vote the Hilux. No reason.

It might take a while to train them not to worry about the neighbours. It would take time to get used to it if they arnt used to seeing neighbours only hearing them.

The pet store ones are about $20 if my brain recall is correct.

It's called a cable run. pet stores sell runners, but they are pretty poor quality, you are best to make your own up just use the pet store ones as a template. This is what I use when camping.

I know they stilly use 5 differing local laws due to the amalgamation.

* "So what do you do for a living?' ....'well I am a specialist dog crap testing Private Investigator!' 'heres my card.. Magnum Poo Eye' I think a strategic placed cctv camera woud be better in catching whose dog is crapping the condo. Not to mention less messy.

As this applies to purebreed examples of the breed I think they will have a very hard time with all the ID'ing crap.. and when they can't get over that they might add X breeds and well lol thats even harder.

They musnt read microchips hey RIP Syphon.

I know what it's supposed to be btw, but what is supposed to be, and what is are different. This is QLD where it takes years and years for local councils to cotton on.

This is my next door neighbor, as of right now, it is still being upheld as a local law. Subordinate Local Law No.4 (Keeping and Control of Animals) South Burnett shire council The objects of this subordinate local law are to provide the detailed matters called upon by Local Law No.4 (Keeping and Control of Animals) to regulate the keeping of animals— (a) to protect the community against risk of injury and damage; and (b) to ensure that animals do not create a nuisance, or a hazard to health or safety; and © to prevent pollution and other environmental damage resulting from the keeping of animals and to protect the amenity of the local environment; and (d) to ensure that animals are kept and used in a way that is consistent with the rights and expectations of the local community. Definitions 3. (1) In this subordinate local law all terms have the same meaning as those provided for in Local Law No.4 (Keeping and Control of Animals). Local law definitions 4. (1) For the purposes of section 3 of the Local Law, the following breeds or cross breeds of dog are included in the definition of “dangerous dog”:- (a) Alsatian; (b) Bull Terrier; © Doberman; (d) Greyhound; (f) Rhodesian Ridge Back; (g) Rottweiler They also regulate an asortment of barnyard animals.

This would be so heart wrenching. Fingers crossed goldie is found safe and well.

Errrk! I hope you never come across human buscuits left a park in the future, you think cat bikkies are bad well let me tell you they have nothing on humans.

Rubbish its the same local laws that prohibit donkeys from suburban backyards, gladstone council even have a cat breed prohibited.

"Amstaffs without papers are a pitbull" how many time have we had that drummed up? Now we get the "AST is the real APBT" even with papers, far out. So by that everyone with an AST is thug with "thuggies doggies" what a joke The AST's been recognised as a breed here since 1989. In just 21 short years, and this just my observations from Australian websites on the net* the AST has now got to be one of the most BYB'd dogs in Australia, by both registered breeders and non registered breeders. What I find strange is at the exact same time the AST was being recognised in Australia, the Gov't was in the process of prohibiting the imports of APBT. It's just weird to me. I looked into an AST for a possible future dog, all I see are problems, so think I will give them all a wide berth. I dont think anyone here is a "thug" for ever owning either of these dogs. whether its the "Real APBT" AKA Amstaff, or the "real real APBT" the APBT" or even a X of the two. Heck by the comments in this thred the X would make it the really "really really real APBT" lol. Does anyone not see how ludacris this all sounds?

Thats terrible, RIP dog.

Thats exactly what the GCCC did, the problem of ID'ing and making distinctions between them was to great a problem, even when genetic evidence of the parent dogs was shown. It is much easier for council to go this way. So many people on here say if an amstaff aint got papers, then its a pitbull. Then there areeven people saying the AST is the "Real APBT"! Theres even buyer beware messages plastered over the AST club pages saying this. Disassociation isnt going to happen IMO. So they all better try another avenue.

Well we know for certain that the GCCC has suspended registrations for the AST, so any and all breeders who are still selling pups to people residing on the GC are doing so at there pups peril. I havnt found anything on removing AST's unless that is about the now unregisterable dogs?

Staffordshire Bull terriers, this isnt the meeting or the ch10 news segment but the news article prompting it. 17/05/2010 In response to a number of recent dog attacks in the Eastern Suburbs, Waverley Councillors Joy Clayton and Deputy Mayor Kerryn Sloan want to make it compulsory for owners of dangerous dog breeds to take out Liability insurance. Clayton and Sloan are moving a Motion at Waverley Council this week requesting that the NSW Government introduces a liability insurance scheme for owners of dangerous dog breeds. "Rangers should also be enforcing the rules and while we don't want Council to be heavy handed the attacks have got out of hand and we need to take action," said Councillor Joy Clayton. Councillor Clayton believes the reasons why people were buying dangerous breeds of dog, such as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, also needed to be examined but in the meantime she wants an insurance scheme implemented to protect those attacks from financial hardship. Councillors say an insurance scheme is necessary in light of the number of serious dog attacks in the area which are creating financial burden in the form of expensive medical bills in addition to the physical and mental trauma. “Recovering these expenses through the services of lawyers has been a great burden on our communities without an insurance in place for dog owners. In light of the reported 666 attacks on people from January 1st to March 31st 2010 and 456 attacks on other animals, this compulsory insurance for all ‘restricted and dangerous dogs’, which is the state wide classification, would cover the expenses incurred with hospitalisation and veterinary clinic services”. (Extract of Motion) Dogs are prohibited in many of Waverley’s beachfront parks and are only allowed on the coastal walkways if on a leash. Despite this, many dog owners disregard the rules. Council signage is in many cases, not prominent or clear and a surprisingly high number even of locals, are unaware of the parks where dogs are prohibited. “Every dog owner loves their dog and thinks it’s an angel. I told a woman on the Bondi to Bronte path to put her dog on a lead and I copped an earful of abuse. People just don’t get it,” said one local resident, who believes better signage and fines are needed to change people’s behaviour. Councillor Sloan agrees. "Signage needs to be followed up by action. It seems that the dog owners who ignore signage are those with bigger more aggressive dogs. The owners seem to think that their dogs are self sufficient and can look after themselves. This attitude puts at risk all law abiding dog owners that tie their dogs up or have them on leash. Their dogs then become a target for these rogue dogs," said the Deputy Mayor.

Geo have you heard anything more on whats going on?