Tempus Fugit

Apparently the Qld government has terminated the experiment. I suppose now the 4 dingoes will themselves face early termination.

:)

They did not define what they meant by "coursing dogs", From my understanding a 'coursing dog' for the purposes of the POCTAA would include a dog used for lure coursing, registered as a 'coursing dog' in accordance with the recommended changes to the CAA. I'm surprised the proposed changes to the POCTAA regarding the keeping of bait animals for blooding would only apply to 'coursing dogs'. I would have thought such a provision would include persons keeping hunting dogs as well. Also, if the commission thinks lure coursers blood their dogs, then theoretically the muzzling laws and green collar tests that currently apply to greyhounds should also apply to lure coursing dogs.

It's all about dogs chasing something, enhancing that drive, as I mentioned with my story about the showing and trialling unethical things are done just to satisfy egos. Can you say you know all the lure coursers in your state and how they train. I'm guessing lure coursers don't bait with animals but I suppose it could be a just in case measure. I'm with you it is stupid but unfortunately it is same the kind of sport. Well here are relevant extracts from Vol 1 of the report: (Note CAA = NSW Companion Animals Act; CAR = NSW Companion Animals Regulations; POCTAA = NSW Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act) 8.61 The Commission did not receive any information suggesting that live baiting isoccurring in relation to lure coursing. Those who engage in lure coursing donot do so for financial gain . According to Dogs NSW: Lure coursing aims to preserve and develop the coursing skills inherent insighthounds and to demonstrate that they can perform the functions for which they were originally bred. The hounds chase plastic bags on a course laid out to simulate escaping game. The plastic bags are pulled around on a nylon string course, propelled by a hand controlled motor.666 8.62 The Commission accepts, nevertheless,that, because the lures used in lure coursing are meant to simulate live prey,there is a risk that dogs which participate in the sport may be trained or trialled using small, live animals. However, the trigger point for the lawful keeping of small animals on a property which houses or kennels coursing dogs other than greyhounds cannot be registration under the CAA. Coursing dogs other thangreyhounds are not exempted from registration whilst they are involved in the sport. 8.63 The Commission considers that there should be a mandatory requirement that dogs which engage in the sport of lure coursing are registered as such on the Companion Animals Register, at least during such period or periods of time as they are involved in lure coursing. A failure to register them as coursing dogs should be a criminal offence under the CAA. The penalty should be the same as that which applies in respect of a failure to register a companion animal (discussed below). Because coursing dogs may engage in lure coursing at various times during theirlifecycle, notification under s. 11 of the CAA should be adopted as the meansby which a coursing dog obtains the status of a coursing dog under the CAA. The owner of a coursing dog which no longer engages in lure coursing should also be required to give notice pursuant to s. 11 of the CAA. The CAR will require amendment to make each of these events a "notifiable event" under the CAR. If this recommendation is accepted by Government then it may wish to consult with ANKC Ltd. As the regulator of the sport ANKC Ltd may consider it appropriate to ensure that coursing dogs that are involved in lure coursing do not trial, train, or race unless they have the status of a registered coursing dog . 8.66 The recommended amendments to s. 21(1) to 21(1)(E) of the POCTAA appear below: (1) A person who: … (d) uses an animal, live or dead, as a lure or kill for the purpose of blooding greyhounds or in connection with the trialling, training or racing of any coursing dog, or (e) keeps or is in charge of a live animal at a any place used for the housing or kennelling, trialling, training or racing of any coursing dog, is guilty of an offence . Maximum Penalty: 1,000 penalty units in the case of a corporation or 200 penalty unitsor imprisonment for 2 years, or both , in the case of an individual . (1A)For the purpose of subsection 1(e) coursing dog means: (a) a greyhound which is registered in accordance with the rules made in relation to greyhound racing under the GreyhoundRacing Act 2009; and (b) any other coursing dog which is registered, or should have been registered, as required by (1B) . (1B)A coursing dog, other than a greyhound, must be registered under the [Actgoverning the regulator] prior to any, trialling, training or racing . Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units . (1C)The owner of a coursing dog which fails to register it as required by subsection (1B) is guilty of an offence . Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units . (1D)A person shall not trial, train or race any coursing dog, other than agreyhound, unless it is registered in accordance with the [Act governing the regulator] . Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units . (1E)For the purpose of subsection 1(e) and (2B) animal means an animal which is capable of being used as a bait, quarry, or lure to entice, excite or encouragea coursing dog to chase . 8.67 Section21(2B) of the POCTAA should be amended to read as follows: In any proceedings under subsection 1(d) evidence that the defendant was in charge of a live animal or in possession of a dead animal that appeared to have been used as a lure or kill in the manner referred to in that subsection is prima facieevidence that the defendant used the animal as a lure or kill in that manner . 8.68 Section21(2C) of the POCTAA should be amended to read as follows: 21(2C)In any proceedings under subsection 1(e), evidence that the defendant kept or was in charge of a live animal at any place used for the trialling, training or racing of any coursing dog which animal was capable of being used as a bait,quarry or lure to entice, excite or encourage the coursing dog to chase it is prima facie evidence that the defendant kept or was in charge of an animal for use as a lure or kill for the purpose referred to in that subsection .

Some American dog owners are resorting to protective clothing for their swfs eg Coyote Vest or Spike Bite vests.

Ok. Thanks for explaining that. At least there are no restrictions on breeds such as the Persian Sarabi, Gull Dong and Bully Kutta.

This does not appear to be entirely accurate: Banned breeds The following four breeds cannot be imported into New Zealand: American Pit Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentino, Brazilian Fila, Japanese Tosa and Perro de Presa Canario. Other breeds or types of dogs can be added to the list of restricted dogs, but only after an Order in Council is agreed by Parliament. Before recommending such an Order, the Minister of Local Government is required to consult with local government, animal welfare organisations, dog clubs and veterinary practices, as appropriate. Menacing dogs A classification of menacing dog was created under the Act. A council may declare a dog menacing if it considers the dog may pose a threat to any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife because of: (i) any observed or reported behaviour of the dog; or (ii) any characteristics typically associated with the dog's breed or type. If a council believes on reasonable grounds that a dog is wholly or predominantly one or more of the banned breeds or types it must classify it as menacing. Menacing dogs must be muzzled in public and the council may require it to be neutered. Dangerous dogs A council must classify as a dangerous dog: (a) any dog in respect of which the owner has been convicted of a rushing offence (the Act sets out what constitutes a rushing offence); (b) any dog which the council has (on the basis of sworn evidence attesting to aggressive behaviour by the dog on one or more occasions) reasonable grounds to believe constitutes a threat to the safety of any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife; © any dog that the owner admits in writing constitutes a threat to the safety of any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife. Dangerous dogs must be leashed and muzzled in public and are also required to be securely fenced on the owner's property without blocking access to any dwelling. So rather than having a separate 'Restricted Breed' category for pit bulls and pitbull crosses, they are apparently automatically classified as 'Menacing Dogs.' Apparently the whole amnesty thing is a reaction to a recent incident in the Auckland Council area where a young boy was bitten by his uncle's pitbull type dog.

Here are two you tube clips showing a police k9 doing a vehicle extraction: and . To the dog that bit Victoria, the helicopter would have been just another vehicle.

I still don't understand the scenario. Was the police dog being sent into the helicopter to extract a 'bad guy' (wearing a bite suit) or Was the dog being sent into the helicopter to practice travelling to a job (in which case SOP should have required the dog to be muzzled)?

'Local government' type law enforcement in the ACT is a joke. Parking on nature strips is supposed to be illegal but walk around any suburb of an evening and there are dozens of cars parked on nature strips. Go to the local shops in the evening or at weekends and there is usually a shopper's car parked in the taxi rank. There are laws about keeping nature strips clear for pedestrians but for many homeowners if their cars are not on the nature strip then they have landscaped it so pedestrians are forced to walk on the road. So if car owners and homeowners don't have to obey the law, why should dog owners have to?

Reading your comment the thought struck me as to what happens on Fraser Island in Qld. The island is a popular tourist destination but it also has a resident population of feral dingoes. Do the rangers pick up the dingo poo or don't people worry about it?

People are propagandised from a young age to see dogs living semi feral as romantic. Off the top of my head, I remember reading Jack London's 'Call of the Wild' as a youngster. Then there was the TV series 'Littlest Hobo'. Recently there was the movie 'Red Dog'. Then there are the 'cheeky' camp dogs that live around some aboriginal communities and the cute street dogs of Moscow that use the subway trains to travel around the city.

The latest newspaper article on Franklin

The comment I saw is '"A maremma rescue organisation in Victoria had offered to re-homeFranklin should he be caught.' The impression I get is that Franklin's present carers have a genuine fear that if an attempt is made to catch and confine him, especially if catch poles, so beloved by dog catchers, are used, he will either become fearful and aggressive or go completely feral, shunning people and catching and killing wildlife and/ or livestock to survive. Either outcome would probably result in a death sentence. I suppose the Victorian maremma rescue organisation doesn't have the resources to come to Canberra to catch Franklin and transport him back to their facility, while Franklin's present carers have an ordinary suburban backyard, of the kind from which Franklin has previously escaped from, that has resulted in the present stalemate. Even the local dog rescue groups probably don't have the resources to confine a large dog escapist like Franklin. I suppose any local Maremma breeder would have reservations about caring for Franklin, even temporarily until he went to rescue, due to health and quarantine concerns Another issue is the length of time that he has been allowed to go semi-feral. Most LGDs are conditioned from a young age to bond with stock they guard. If Franklin were re-homed to an acreage paddock with livestock would he stay or would he seek out a hollow log in a neighbor's paddock? Realistically, as with the border collie mentioned in a previous post, there needs to be a coordinated approach to capturing and re-homing Franklin. I'm not putting my hand up as I don't have a suitable premises, nor do I have any contacts with Maremma people or even dog rescue in general. When I started this thread I was hoping to elicit some constructive suggestions from Maremma associated DOLers. As to statements that that the community is happy for Franklin to be at large, here is a comment someone sent to the local newspaper: 'My work colleague lives in Bonner on a street that Franklin appears to like to frequent. She is terrified of dogs after a bad experience as a child. Even though Franklin minds his own business and has never acted aggressively towards her family she does not let her children play out the front of the house (in yard) because of him. '

This case is weird.

yes!! That's often an easy one to make mistakes with ... Typical vexatious law of a nanny state. If there is no sport being played on the oval what necessity exists for a short leash? Makes it hard to practice recalls.

It isn't the medical research aspect that worries me. It is that once the technique of breeding GM dogs with strengthened hindquarters is perfected, is it going to proliferate and are we going to see these GM dogs being used for draught (weight pulling, dog sledding etc) and wouldn't the dog fighting fraternity love more powerful fighting dogs.

Chinese engineer super strong myostatin deficient beagles.

No I haven't forgotten. It is always at the back of my mind. Why do you ask? My comment wasn't directed at you specifically. It was to meant to remind some other posters that the Canberra incident wasn't the first time a dog has forced its way into a house to kill its prey. I think also with summer coming on people might leave their normal front door open for ventilation but they should be aware that if their own pooch sees a cat or small dog walking past a flyscreen door might not stop their dog getting out and attacking. P.S. It seems there has been another dog attack in Canberra.

So, you've all forgotten the case of Ayen Chol?

Apparently these are going to be sold through Petbarn from this month.

The OP reads much like stuff I have read before. Sorry but this smells like a troll post to me.

Like many animal abuse cases we are talking about dysfunctional people with mental health issues. How we deal with such people is moot, given society's attitude towards human rights for the mentally ill in general.

Although not wanting to endorse or promote the charity, here is Some encouraging news from HSI re the anti Yulin festival campaign..

If you read the article you will see the smuggling happened about 10 years ago. It received wide publicity at the time. If I remember correctly there were similar incidences of implanting drugs in dogs into Europe. The puppies were killed to remove the drugs since once they had reached their destination they were of no further use. There was also an incidence of drug mule-dogs forced to ingest bags of cocaine - similar to human 'mules'. There was actually a notorious anti-narcotics video circulating featuring a drug-mule dog. If you google on dogs & drug smuggling you will probably find lots of articles.