melzawelza

Nice analogy, I agree. The only catch may be where it says there was some agreement that the center wouldn't release the dog until it was safe. That agreement may not be binding and may not allow them to refuse the owner if they wanted to collect the dog, but if it did then potentially some blame may lie with the center.

I really, truly hope that you never have any problems and you and your pup spend the rest of his or her life together. If you do make sure you contact Dogs on Trial who will assist you through appeals.

Sorry, but this is why rednecks should not be allowed to own guns or dogs. The saddest thing is that it was completely preventable, if somebody just had half a brain and stopped listening to the "Pit Bulls make wonderful family pets" brigade. I love dogs, but I don't believe that "ALL dogs are wonderful," any more than all animals are "wonderful," or "all people are wonderful." Destroy the dog, stop idiots breeding them, and the problem goes away. It's not a brigade, it's factual studies and empirical evidence. You've shown yourself to value neither.

Sounds like everyone did the wrong thing by not putting this dog to sleep.

Here is a link to Tonka's VCAT decision which describes the manner in which he was seized and the lead up to that. Tonka VCAT decision This excerpt is what I was talking about: They only need a warrant to enter your house. If the dog is in the front or back yard they can just hop the fence and take it. Luckily he won in VCAT and went home.

The police issue the warrant on request of the council to enter your house to take the dog, and then have to attend with the council officers to seize the dog. One of the high profile dogs in Victoria was seized in this manner. The owners were not home, and the council and police entered the house with a warrant and seized the dog. He was so terrified he shat himself Registration as another breed will only stop seizure if the dog existed in Victoria prior to the amnesty ending (which was late 2011). If the dog is younger than that then the council can declare it restricted and therefore destroy it. Of course you can fight any declaration in VCAT and even up to the supreme court as many have, and have succeeded. It's not fun though. Not trying to scare you, but you have a false sense of security on the legislation in your state. You live in the state with the strongest BSL in the country, which gives you almost no rights and relies on you having to prove your dog to be not of a restricted breed. Hopefully the recent huge wins of dogs going home (and councils paying hundreds of thousands of dollars) will mean councils are much more reluctant to enforce.

Unfortunately Blackun if you live in Victoria council officers and police can enter your property (including your house) and take the dog even if you're not there. All they need is a complaint or a suspicion that your dog is a restricted breed. I truly hope it never happens to you.

I hear what you're saying, but stopping people buying dogs full stop means it stops people buying dogs from pounds too, which only makes the pound situation worse. Most people manage their dog/s and kid/s just fine, so to discourage hordes of people from potentially adopting a poundie that needs a home NOW to prevent a small amount from maybe being rehomed (and possibly never entering the pound system anyway) only makes the problem worse. Most of the dogs in the pounds weren't surrendered anyway. They escaped, and the owners either never found them or a lot of them struggle to afford to get them out. Lots of those poundies are wanted, but don't go home unfortunately. I think the article's message is important but needs to be framed in a much less black and white way. This thread is full of people that have both dogs and kids and so is the world. While I won't shame her for the way she feels about her dog, it's wrong for her to imply that anyone with a dog that has kids is going to feel the same way.

Wow. I thought the 'Flat Coat Retrievers don't have enough jaw strength to break the skin' comment was bad enough but this is so much worse. Please don't dispense any dog advice to anyone. To the OP I also agree with going back to the basics with toilet training and he shouled figure it out. Do everything possible to set him up for success to prevent him from cooking inside but if he does and you catch him in the act (never after! ), you can interrupt him with a loud clap and an 'uh uh!' And move him outside to finish. Of course praise galore when he goes outside. Good luck!

That is heartbreaking. I can only imagine how this family felt. I'm so glad the fees were paid so the family didn't lose their dog as well. Sars, I'm not aware of any Sydney/NSW pounds running any kind of organised pet retention/pound prevention program, although I do know that both Sydney Dogs and Cats Home and Sutherland Shire animal shelter have reduced fees to allow people to be able to reclaim their pets in individual cases As far as I know we (Team Dog) are the only group in Australia running a dedicated pound prevention program. I hope more start up in other states, as the results in the USA are showing how important this sort of work is to keep pets out of shelters and increase live release rates. And another very interesting outcome will be what they have actually done with the millions of dollars they rake in as a charity - wasn't it supposed to be about helping the animals?? That's the most sickening part about them - the insane amounts of money they have from genuine animal lovers that would be beside themselves to know how their money is (not) being spent on the animals.

We wondered the same thing so we did some research and saw how well it worked in the States so decided to bring similar programs here to Oz :) It's super rewarding and eye opening to see just how much love so many people have for their pets, and how badly they want to do the right thing by them. Unfortunately a lot of these same people have been judged or called irresponsible or worse by others in the animal welfare world and are sometimes cautious in asking for help for that reason.

Great post Aphra. Really great. Agree on both your points - that if people are 'irresponsible' with their pets then that doesn't give the shelter the right to treat them badly and kill them en masse. But I also strongly agree with your point that overwhelmingly people do a bloody fantastic job with their pets. Shel at Saving Pets has run the NSW stats and from memory between 5-10% of pets actually need the services of a pound in any given year, and only around 2-4% of pets actually aren't reclaimed and need to be found a new home. People are overwhelmingly either keeping their pets out of the shelter altogether or reclaiming them if they do end up there. I'd also like to add that those that don't reclaim are not automatically irresponsible and bad pet owners. People can fall on hard times and really struggle to pay what are often extremely high reclaim fees. In NSW, a dog must be lifetime registered before it is released from a pound. If the dog isn't desexed the cost of registration alone is $188. If you add in impound fee (up to $80) and a daily maintenance rate (between $30-$50) this can mean that someone trying to reclaim their pet on the same day it entered the shelter often needs to come up with close to $300 on the spot. If they have two dogs, they're looking at $600. Part of what we at Team Dog do is assist these people get their pets home. What we are seeing is people being up for, say, $300. They might have $200 or $250 to pay but that isn't enough, so they start calling around to friends and family. After a couple of days they've found the $300, but by this point with a $40 maintenance fee they're now up for $380.... it basically spirals out of control and before we know it the fees are at $800 and there is absolutely no way for them to get their pet back. These people aren't callous, they aren't 'dumping' their dogs. They desperately want their pet home and the fees are preventing them from being able to do so. People call is in tears thinking their pet is going to be killed, when it has a home (and at the LDH there's a 50% chance it WILL be killed). Some pounds waive fees or allow payment plans, others don't. Some Sydney pounds are now referring people to us which is great. When it comes to surrenders, pet retention programs in the states are showing that a LOT of people coming to shelters to surrender their pets are, again, not 'irresponsible', callous or uncaring. They love their pets and don't want to give them up, but something in their life is making them feel that this is necessary. Downtown Dog rescue work out of an LA shelter and their intervention program kept over 2,000 pets out of the shelter in their first year of operation. Just being non judgemental and offering a helping hand kept those pets at home. http://www.downtowndogrescue.org/2013-shelter-intervention-program-stats/ Are there some people that are shitty pet owners, don't care about them, don't bother to do the basics with them and 'dump' them? Sure. But they truly are the minority. As Aphra's stats show, almost all pets go home and as Shel @ Saving Pets stats show, extremely few pets ever need a new home through a shelter. And as Downtown Dog Rescue shows (and our work with Team Dog has shown), many of the people who surrender or don't reclaim their pets really wanted them back home or didn't want to surrender but didn't see any other option. Stopping the judgmental 'asshole owners' stuff and just lending a helping hand has a huge positive effect not only for the pets but for their people, too. ^^ All of that should actually be irrelevant in this discussion, anyway. How the pets got there does not matter. The LDH is supposed to be an animal welfare organisation, and killing 50% of the animals that need their help is not meeting their welfare or doing their jobs by any stretch. ETA: Here's what Team Dog achieved in our first year of operation. Not as impressive as DDR, but I can tell you we weren't limited by the amount of people who wanted our help to keep their pets, we were limited by the amount of hours we can put in to it while working full time and resources. We've got volunteers now and much more resources at our disposal so we should be able to prevent a lot more surrenders this year. http://www.teamdog.com.au/2014-reflection/

Long overdue.

Thirding Ruthless Leather. My collar and lead are gorgeous to look at and amazing quality. They will easily last her whole life.

The strictest BSL in the country is working well then.

It's a good one isn't it! They actually repealed the legislation after this.

Glad it looks like things are working out SG - these sorts of things can be so stressful.

This wasn't because of the breed of dog that bit you, it was because the dog had bite inhibition and/or only wanted to warn you to go away, not injure you. These things are due to training and the temperament of that individual dog, not because the dog has some kind of physically weak jaw because of its breed. Small dogs can easily cause serious, lasting damage to people's hands - people losing fingers, permanent nerve damage etc. A dog the size of a Flatcoat can also do serious damage if it wants to. That dog chose not to injure you severely, it wasn't limited by its jaw. You weren't there and you have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't have to be there, it's absolutely ludicrous (and dangerous) to suggest that a medium sized dog is physically inapable of doing severe damage to a hand.

This is super helpful, thank you!

Yes, because Americans believe that being a ____wit is their God-given (and constitutional) right. Most states also allow any halfwit to own assault rifles, excuse violent pornography as "freedom of speech," have active chapters of the KKK, and armed militia dedicated to the destruction of the Federal government. Yeah, not really a valid comparison. The USA started BSL, and had it on the books in some form in most states for many, many years. They weren't averse to the idea of controlling or banning breeds to try and reduce dog attacks, and believed it would work, and championed the approach. It is now being repealed with lightning speed because lawmakers looked at the evidence in their areas and around the world which unequivocally shows that this approach does absolutely zero dog reduce dog attacks - in most areas it actually increases them. It costs unbelievable amounts of taxpayer dollars to implement for no measurable gain in public safety, and it results in the deaths of many lovely dogs and breaks families apart. There have been people who have committed suicide after having their friendly dog seized and killed. Now less than 2% of the country has it on the books, and the evidence is so strong as to what a public safety failure these laws are that 18 states now have a pre-emption which prevents any of the counties within from enacting BSL. The most recent being Utah as of 1 January 2015. http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/blog/south-dakota-and-utah-to-be-the-17th-and-18th-states-to-preempt-breed-specific-legislation/ Seeing as it has been repealed in SO many communities, you would think that if it was keeping the public safe we'd now see a big increase in dog attacks, but that just hasn't happened - again showing that the legislation was costing (often) hundreds of thousands of dollars with no effect (actually a negative effect) on public safety. ETA and if, despite all of the above you still aren't keen on anything the USA does, check out the study which caused Lower Saxony in Germany to repeal their BSL: Link

What a weird thing to say on a purebred dog forum, do you say that to anyone wanting to obtain a pedigree dog?

This wasn't because of the breed of dog that bit you, it was because the dog had bite inhibition and/or only wanted to warn you to go away, not injure you. These things are due to training and the temperament of that individual dog, not because the dog has some kind of physically weak jaw because of its breed. Small dogs can easily cause serious, lasting damage to people's hands - people losing fingers, permanent nerve damage etc. A dog the size of a Flatcoat can also do serious damage if it wants to. That dog chose not to injure you severely, it wasn't limited by its jaw.

See below: ^^ That post is why I linked the section from the PetPlan website stating there are no breed specific exclusions, as it seems clear the OP believes the exclusions are because of the dog's breed - not preexisting conditions.

But they do exclude pet existing conditions - they all do. Yes, but the OP is that they have excluded specific things because of his/her dogs breed, rather than them being pre-existing.

On this page: http://www.petplan.com.au/general-enquires