Tempus Fugit

I don't see any need to spread this video further. European horse welfare activists are well aware of these videos. Go to Heather Clemenceau's web page where you will find more info plus near the bottom of the page is a note that three people in the Netherlands were charged with animal abuse in regard to the video.

I don't see any need to spread this video further. European horse welfare activists are well aware of these videos. Go to Heather Clemenceau's web page where you will find more info plus near the bottom of the page is a note that three people in the Netherlands were charged with animal abuse in regard to the video.

I don't think this is right - not in SA anyway. Depending where you live - you can burn rubbish on your place - or not. Own more than two dogs, or not. Have horses or not. Have chooks or not. Build a granny flat - or not. Put solar panels on your front verandah or not. Park a car in the street - or not. etc etc. This is correct & thank goodness. At least we can choose to live in an area that suits our needs & is suited to them. Awful if it was all the same. Backyard burning is not ok in suburbia but very handy in the country. Keeping 10 dogs is not ok in a suburban house with neighbours close but is fine on acreage & roosters in suburbia would drive everyone crazy. I like SA organised the way it is & hope it doesn't change. It seems sensible to adapt the rules to suit the environment rather than just have a rule regardless of any sense. Local governments can make local laws considered necessary for the good government of their districts. Laws can only be made when authorised by the Local Government Act 1995 or other written laws but cannot be inconsistent with any State or Federal law. Which is why there is a push on to make it all state law, for those who live in shires where there is mandatory desexing and the state laws do not have mandatory desexing do you know of any person who has been fined for not having their dog desexed AND if there were fined for not having their dog desexed and they didnt desex would they be fined over and over again for not having their dog desexed? Would their dog be taken from them because they refuse to desex it etc ? By the way the pending referendum is asking for local councils to be recognised by the constitution because at the moment they are not and Since the Constitution is the basis of our laws and it does not recognise "local government", it means that no local council anywhere in Australia has legal standing. In NSW there was a period where some shires were pushing their right to restrict how many dogs a person can have on their property and that was challenged because under state law there is no restriction. Currently some state laws cover things like vaccinating breeding animals yearly but if they were not state law no council could introduce that and because state law only mentions breeding animals they can never try to make people vaccinate animals which are not used for breeding. The point Im trying to make is where dogs are concerned your council can say anything they want but if it is inconsistent with state or federal law it means nothing - thus the heavy try at making it state law. I thought the Queensland Local Government Act allowed councils to make their own 'local laws' and therefore for example, any council could enact BSL on whatever breeds they liked?

Because the video is one more of a range of similar human - animal BDSM videos circulating on the net produced for the sexual gratification of people with a fetish for seeing fat, ugly women abuse fat ponies. It is animal pornography. Personally I think the OP would be better off trying to get the video deleted from Facebook or getting in touch with a group involved in combating horse abuse. Posting a link on DOL simply gives the people who produce these videos oxygen.

Maybe a rope style collar or one like this from Ruffware?

There was a case in Ireland recently where a teacher allowed her OH to take the family malamute to school for the kids to see and pat 'as a treat'. Result: A child mauled and the dog executed. Allegedly the dog had never shown any sign of aggression in the past. One would hope in the case of the proposed Victorian laws that a 10 year ban would only apply to offences of similar severity to traffic offences meriting a 10 year licence disqualification. Furthermore, while trumpeting harsher laws for dog owners, what is the Victorian Government doing to keep us safe from attacks by other humans? eg recent items: Police have arrested a 28-year-old Reservoir man after a young mum was dragged into a laneway and sexually assaulted in North Melbourne. Expectant mum bashed, robbed : Seven News can reveal police are hunting yet another predatory man who targeted a vulnerable victim as she walked home, Cameron Baud reports.

It might be informative to refer to a previous thread from last month about a husky shot by "hunters".

I bought a Champion restraint system a couple of years ago. It came with two restraint straps that I attached to the child seat anchor points. It seems strong but is very fiddly to attach as you need to clip each strap to both D rings on the harness (the plastic buckles on the harness are non load-bearing). Also I found once that the dog had managed to wriggle out of the harness. There is an interesting crash test video here by what appears to be the German equivalent of our auto orgs (NRMA, RACV etc.). Unfortunately it is in German.

Why do people find it so hard to drive on the road without having accidents? While I agree the dogs should not have been on the street, the issue I have with joggers is their arrogance in putting themselves in greater danger by continuing to run past a dog despite it being common knowledge that running stimulates a dog's prey instinct. Sure people have a right to jog along a public road, just as they have a right to swim at a public beach or drive along a public road. But is it wise to continue to swim if a shark is sighted, or drive through a flooded causeway? How hard is it for a runner to stop and walk past a loose dog?

I don't see why such a big deal is being made of the dog being a husky. It could just as easily have been a cattle dog, border collie etc. Maybe all of us, including dog, need to start wearing high visibility clothing before venturing into Australian bush.

Has anybody got any experience with Rogue Royalty? They claim to have strong collars.

Get real folks. Lots of hunters allow pig etc dogs off lead and out of sight in rural areas. That is why there is a market for GPS tracking collars. IMO shooting the husky was a thrill killing disguised as altruism.

I'm not sure I fully understand what the government should be doing. Laws and regulations regarding animal welfare are already done by governments. However it is quite common for governments to subsidise charities to perform certain functions, e.g. job placements, looking after orphans in childrens' homes etc. where the government believes the charity can do the task better and cheaper. In some cases the charities don't do the tasks society expects of them, which is one reason why there all the child abuse cases coming to light. Why would animal welfare be different?

Being in the military, the dogs probably get to eat better than the local peasantry.

Reading this thread brings to mind an issue which has intrigued me for some time. Normally on DOL and similar forums, any suggestion of piercing the ears of a dog or cat brings forth howls of condemnation eg the 'gothic kittens' affair. However if you do some research on the web, you will find that some animal welfare agencies operating in eastern Europe commonly pierce the ears of stray (urban feral) dogs with ear tags to signify the animals have been de sexed and vaccinated. In Australia, the Queensland government mandates the ear piercing of Fraser Island's dingoes with ear tags to identify them. So are we being hypocritical in not condemning these agencies for animal cruelty or is ear piercing of dogs really ok? Incidentally, I believe freeze branding of hunting hounds is practised in the US.

Silly me. I thought lifetime registration was brought in as a rational economic measure because the administrative burden and cost of collecting annual fees plus chasing up non-payers exceeded revenue from the fees. It is tough enough for councils to get people to pay their parking fines. Still, I suppose farmers will remain exempt for their 'working' dogs, so people will still be able to buy cheap puppies at the farm gate or through shop window ads in country towns.

The weird thing is that in NSW, council registration is not the same as the NSW microchip registration database, which is separate to other states' microchip registration databases. Although I bought my dog in Victoria, he is on the NSW microchip database for life because he was born in that state (when I checked he was still 'owned' by his breeder) yet I haven't registered him with any council in NSW (since I don't live in NSW).

According to the NSW Road Users Handbook(p134) when parked: If you are more than three metres away from your vehicle you must: • Remove the key out of the ignition. • Lock all doors and windows if there is no one in the vehicle.

I don't know if this story is for real or not.

Can we clarify what this forum is about and what it is not about, given that this forum's heading is: Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) A forum to discuss all matters associated with BSL and breed bans including events that can influence BSL (eg dog attacks etc)

Shame the moderator(s) haven't moved this thread to the General forum by now. An issue is that if LPDs are actually doing the job they are supposed to do, they will be out in the paddocks guarding sheep, where fences are easily damaged, allowing stock and dogs to escape. Perhaps instead of pursuing LPD owners through courts, because people don't know how to behave around an LPD, state governments could educate people about how to behave around LPDs such as this comic strip issued by the French government You can find a link to the parent website here . It is in french but you can get the gist of the material if you have a web browser with a facility to translate french into english.

Sounds like two women more intent on gossiping rather than watching their dogs' body language.

Interesting how these dog attack threads seem to go from maudlin expressions of grief to cat fights. It appears some DOLers seem to have a romantic notion that dogs should have the characteristics of stuffed teddy bears, rather than being predatory carnivores. The incident is simply another example of the ease with which behaviour e.g. body language can cause a dog to go into a prey killing mode. The dog that killed Ayen Chol was reported as having played with the people across the street from the Chol house just before the attack. Then there are the neighbourhood barbies, with Blue, the family pet, who has never shown any aggression, and a bunch of kids playing. As kids are wont to do in play, they begin to yell and scream, suddenly Sally fromdown the road is being rushed to hospital to get a bite stitched while Blue is off to the vet for a green needle. Out in the country there is Shep, the faithful working sheepdog, the kids' best friend. One night he gets out of his pen or slips his chain and comes across the neighbours wussy flock of merinos, unsuited to defending themselves. Result: multiple dead and dying sheep. If shep is lucky he might even get to join the feral pack in the nearby national park, using his innate prey hunting skills to survive. If after thousands of years of domestication we still have humans attacking other humans, then we can hardly expect a domestic animal, inherently a predatory carnivore, to behave better. The pity about 'dangerous dog' declarations is that probably at least half the dogs in the country would, at some point in their lives, do something that would violate the 'dangerous dog' criteria. Similar with temperament testing. Push the right buttons and you would probably elicit a 'dangerous'response such as prey hunting or defensive aggression from most dogs. If they are so successful, why don't we have temperament testing for humans, e.g. to reduce school bullying, and 'dangerous person' declarations for those found guilty of assaults and similar crimes? For those who have seen the movie, "Life of Pi" orread the book, I think the romantics are those who would rather believe Pi's first version of events rather than the more plausible second. They should go and read William Golding's "Lord of the Flies", especially where the choir boys slip into cannibalism. By the way, if Bullbreedlover's post of last Friday is correct, in respect of the dogs' owner's fence being vandalised, then I sympathise with her. I too have had panels in my backyard fence (where the dogs are) kicked in. Of course if I had millions of dollars swindled from NSW taxpayers like that dickhead now before ICAC, who brought in the stupid NSW dangerous dog laws when he was local government minister, then I might have been able to afford a thick masonry fence, complete with a topping of broken glass or razor wire.

Sigh. More nanny state bureaucracy. Probably because, according to the newspaper article, there was an incease in attacks in 2011, the D&C Board has not met one onf their Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and risks losing funding or, shock horror, being abolished altogether by a government looking for savings - at the very least a black mark on the Chairman's Performance Review. So someone has found out about the Russian siberian fox experiments and wants to extrapolate them to dogs. I'm suprised the Board didn't recommend the uni project to produce genetic hybrids between dogs and sheep to produce a woosy dog-sheep

Are you referring to this item?