Howl

Excellent suggestion. Many people supporting the governments action don't understand that the more expensive it is to get, keep and maintain a dog, the fewer people will own one. In the end the real victim of the government was the dog. No it isn't an excellent suggestion, although its sounds fair enough. The reality is that it would cost more to organise and supervise community service work than the fine is worth. Justin, if somebody decides that they cannot afford to properly look after a dog, or to pay a small fine if the dog is found out wandering, then they do not deserve to own a dog. This dog wasn't a victim of the government. It was the victim of the owner that decided to get rid of it. Actually it is an excellent suggestion. Australia continues to be one of the world's few countries that even registers dogs yet still kills them in numbers which defy belief, and creates dangerous dogs through enforced isolation, despite massive rates. The cost arguement is as silly when applied to dogs as it is to children or saying people shouldn't get sick if they can't afford health insurance. It is time that the dog killers were held accounntable for their actions. "just following orders" doesn't cut it any more. I know - we'll just send all the homeless dogs to you. You seem to have all the answers to everything, although where you get your facts and figures (and logic) is beyond me. Australia one of the few countries that registers dogs? Gee, don't tell that to the US, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Germany, France, Switzerland, Ireland, etc. They may feel a bit left out...

What do dingos have to do with BSL and how is it the fault of the RSPCA? It may not be the RSPCA' fault but they support and enact BSL, and with massive government contributions is it any wonder. Support? Well I know Hugh Wirth is a supporter, but I'm not sure if he speaks for the whole of Australia. In fact, the CEO of RSPCA Qld has been outspoken against it. Enact? How? I thought BSL was legislation enacted by local governments? If you mean enact in terms of abiding by the requirements of the legislation, well what do you expect them to do? Break the law?? Massive government contributions? - you just might want to check that out. Qld govt contribution to RSPCA Qld in the last financial year was around $150,000 - around 1.5% of their total operating budget for the year if I remember rightly from their website.

What do dingos have to do with BSL and how is it the fault of the RSPCA? Some states have the dingo on the BSL list. In Victoria you need huge fences, whilst they're banned outright in South Australia IIRC. Not sure what the reference to the RSPCA is about... BSL - or the declared pest list? In Qld dingos have been declared as pests along with other species such as rabbits, feral cats, feral dogs, feral pigs. This has got nothing to do with breed specific legislation - it comes under the Land Protection Act and is more to do with protecting primary industries, farmers, graziers and the like. I guess the trickle effect means that you can't own an animal that is a declared pest - hence ownership of dingoes being prohibited, just like you can't have a rabbit or a ferret in Qld.

What do dingos have to do with BSL and how is it the fault of the RSPCA?

And you make your judgement from a few lines in a newspaper... 23 animals, living in their own faceces and urine, crammed in one car together for weeks on end. Skin scalded from ammonia, infested with ringworm and fleas, dehydrated, getting no light, no fresh air, no room to turn, hardly any food. Oh but the poor woman had lost her money and had nowhere to live - and that makes it all ok I suppose? And remember, the magistrate is the one that makes the decision on whether to impose a penalty and how much. And the magistrate does consider the circumstances of the defendent. And that she has the option to perform community service instead of paying money. The RSPCA has treated the cats, brought them back to health and is trying to rehome them. Can I just ask all the RSPCA bashers out there - if it had been the police that had charged this woman, what would you have said then?

Of course they are revenue raisers! Don't you understand what revenue is used for? It's used to fund the animal control program. No revenue means a pound cannot be built or maintained, no staff to run it, no food, water or shelter for the stray animals. Yes accidents do happen. Those accidents cost the community money. Go and work in a pound for a week and see how many people come in with the explanation that it was an accident. They may be right, but does that mean they aren't responsible for the cost? I don't believe there is an anti-dog movement. But there is a movement against irresponsible owners. I thought that's what rates were for, Doh! Revenue raising yet dogs are still killed, ACOs still abusing their authority and Councils refusing to supply services our rates pay for. Revenue raising is right. Elect councillors who will fulfill their obligations to ratepayers, not no hopers lining their own pockets. No - check your rates bill - it will tell you what you are paying rates for, usually rubbish, water, and wastewater/sewerage, usually an environmental and fire levy. Any revenue 'raised' is put back into all kinds of local government programs including works, infrastructure, parks and gardens, etc, etc. It is not a Christmas party fund or a black hole for that matter. Most government budgets factor in revenue to help with expenditure costs. I'm not sure what you mean by the connection with "revenue raising yet dogs are still killed"??? You obviously have a gripe with a local government somewhere but it seems a bit harsh to tar the whole country with that view.

Actually, you can only do a U turn if there is a sign saying that you can....Not the other way around. I found that out the hard way So did I!

Of course they are revenue raisers! Don't you understand what revenue is used for? It's used to fund the animal control program. No revenue means a pound cannot be built or maintained, no staff to run it, no food, water or shelter for the stray animals. Yes accidents do happen. Those accidents cost the community money. Go and work in a pound for a week and see how many people come in with the explanation that it was an accident. They may be right, but does that mean they aren't responsible for the cost? I don't believe there is an anti-dog movement. But there is a movement against irresponsible owners.

Actually, you can only do a U turn if there is a sign saying that you can....Not the other way around.

I'm talking about NSW, where the BA's are predominately Dogs NSW judges or breeders. You have claimed for the last however many years that the law is fraudulant, yet no one has challenged it. If that were the case and they'd been successfull, every tom dick and harry with a Pit Bull would follow suit. Now there's talk on a public forum of falsifying papers ( they would have to be ANKC papers ) to prove to rangers that people own a certain breed. Now that really is fraudulant, but for Pit Bull owners, that doesn't seem to matter, it's just a means to an end, that threatens to dump every ANKC Bull Breed in the same basket. It's about time the Pit Bull owners, changed tact because 4 years on, nothing has changed in this state and the threats of " your dogs will be next " is still the number one catch cry. Dogs NSW judges/breeders are not experts, there are no judges in Australia qualified to id an APBT. As for pit bull thats a mixture of breeds so they must be pretty good to id a pit bull. There are know Amstaff judge's in Aus all you have is your all breeds judges, who have never owned the breed,judged the breed as the breed is not recognised. The law is fraudulent, and there documentation is false and has been proven many times. People have challenge the law and they have had there dogs returned the last two cases being NSW and that was this year, l might add. l hardly post any cases on here anymore because there are to many pro BSL people on here!! your comment "your dogs will be next is still the no.1 catch cry" Come on you made a statement that your dogs are safe you made a deal with the ANKC. Yep and lets send the pit bull and apbt to the slaughter. l don't agree with papers been falsified,but like others have said it's to save there breed so be it. Of course it's fraudulent, but so is the law. Tybrax, where has this been proven? You have provided opinions and commentary, but never have I seen a judgement made by the Courts that the law is fraudulent. Dogs may have been returned - was that on the basis that the law was fraudulent? Or some other reason such as weak evidence or procedure not being followed?

Nothing, I just thought it was funny.

Is that like when you called a dogo a "doggo"???

Haven't been to court lately have you? Ever heard of "credible witnesses"? Evidence is just stuff until it is presented and tested.

Actually it does matter. There is word for it - CREDIBILITY.

Take a Bex and have a good lie down.

From what I understand, studies in the US have found that the majority (77%) of child/domestic abusers also abuse the family pet (Ascione, 2005; Ascione & Ackrow, 1999). As part of child or domestic abuse, the abuser often manipulates the victims by harming or threatening to harm the pets. The abuser may also force the child to harm the pet - a "do it or I'll do it to you" threat. And we are not talking trimming the toenails here - its things like torture, killing, dismemberment, even sexual abuse of the animal. I think this may be why the two are linked in the same bill. I understand the intent, but I can also see that the context may need to be tightened up.

Here! Here! Your comments are so true and I agree wholeheartedly, although not sure of the long term benifits of life-time rego as this fails to assist local councils properly govern or manage their animal population effectively without effecting the bottom-line (therefore increasing burdon on other ratepayers). Interesting though. And why shouldn't the animal management service be borne by the whole community? After all, it is a service to the community - not just dog and cat owners no matter how much people would say "oh but it's a user pays system". Some of my rates go towards funding libraries and the public pools in my city - but I don't use them. Shouldn't they then be user pays facilities? Animal management is not a single service product. To quote Dr Dick Murray at last years Australian Institute of Animal Management conference, it is a complex package of different components and these separate components tend to have different customer groupings. The entire community expects a skilled complaint management service to respond to their problems, a visible regulatory presence to maintain public safety and amenity, sound public education about responsible pet ownership, a pound service for straying animals, a prompt public danger incident response for dog attacks or loose livestock, and to provide a pest and feral animal control service. Pet owners specifically expect a sound information service, a pet owner register to link them with their animals, an animal pound in case their pet gets lost and community amenities such as leash free areas. To say it is a user pays system begs the question - who is paying for the response to livestock issues? Who is paying for wild dog control or control of other feral animals? Who is paying for response to complaints about noisy birds? I understand that these issues are a minority compared to the issues generated by dogs, but if we are talking user pays then why are dog (and now cat) owners also footing the bill for livestock, bird, and feral animal control? Any user pays, ie: registration system, is only as good as its compliance. Poor registration compliance obviously results in revenue deficit, introducing a significant inequity factor into the funding process. In a registraton system that delivers less thant 100% compliance, system inequity is a critical issue for 3 reasons - some owners are paying whilst others are not, the pet owners who do pay have to pay extra to carry the ones that don't, and those that don't pay are perhaps more likely to be overrepresented in other aspects of regulatory noncompliance. Under such circumstances, the term "user pays - pet registration" as a funding description struggles to have credibility. Without 100% compliance it is more "loser pays" than "user pays". I think it's about time that councils really thought about how they fund animal management activities - activities that exist for the whole community, not just the pet owners.

One of those big pump action water pistols. Put a little vinegar in with the water.

Actually Jed the recent bust you refer to was led by Biosecurity Qld, not the RSPCA, although RSPCA assisted. RSPCA Qld operations do not cover the whole of Queensland - it is a shared responsibility between Biosecurity and RSPCA. The location of the puppy farm made it the responsibility of Biosecurity Qld and not the RSPCA. And how did you know that it took 'them' (Bio. Qld) six years to do anything? For all you know investigations may have been conducted, maybe an educational approach was attempted first??? Who knows??? I know. I don't write things unless they are true. And I know about BioSecurity aka DPI and non metro areas. Do you think I should have given BS some of the kudos for the bust? I said "RSPCA" because that is where the complaints were lodged. Do you have a problem? Inspector for the RSCPA now? Do I have a problem? Apart from you going off half cocked that is? Wow, you really can be mean. As soon as someone tries to correct or look at something from another point you just dig the boot in. You know, people can have different opinions about things, or see things from another side. The point I was trying to make is that you appeared to be slamming the RSPCA for not acting on the puppy farm for 6 years, but reality was that it was not their position to act. Now you say that you said RSPCA because that's where the complaints were lodged. So what are you trying to say? That they didn't pass the complaints on? And please, save the sarcasm. If you can't answer politely then don't bother at all. I dislike you asserting I am lying. I don't need correcting. This is the THIRD time I am telling you that complaints were lodged with the RSPCA over 6 years. I have no idea what happened to them after that. I know of other people who say they have complained about this or that, but I don't have proof, so I shut up about it. In this case, I do know that complaints were lodged. And by whom, and when. A business has diary entries about the letters (and copies of the letters) and calls made. I believe they gave up after 2 years. It was all too hard. If DPI should have acted, the complaints should have been passed to DPI. As far as I am aware, complaints in rural areas have been handled by RSPCA until recently. And the public has been led to believe that they should report cruelty to the RSPCA. Maybe they need to change the advertising? After I gave up after the nth complaint about a dog locked in a windowless garden shed 23.5/7. And that was an RSPCA matter. If you are an RSPCA inspector, I suggest you check the files for written complaints. I can't believe Australia post lost ALL them. You tell me why RSPCA asking for discussions on yet more laws on puppy farms when they take 6 years to act on complaints about puppy farms, and the existing laws are strong enough for them to gain convictions? And I realise that people have different opinions. That's why I only argue in the threads that are important to me. And I don't like being called a liar. Never have I said or inferred that you are lying. You seem to misunderstand what I am trying to get at. I understand from what you have said that complaints were made to the RSPCA about the puppy farm. I am not disputing that. What I was trying to say is that it's a bit hard to sledge the RSPCA for not investigating those complaints when the RSPCA wasn't responsible for managing that location. It's a bit like a local council being blamed for the poor condition of a state managed road. The council cops a pasting from the public, but at the end of the day, it's not their road to maintain or fix. If the RSPCA didn't pass the complaints on to Biosecurity then yes, that is shameful, but is that what happened? It looks like you have had a run around from the RSPCA, so I can understand why you are cranky about them. As for me, I personally haven't had a bad experience with them and I have worked in government long enough to appreciate that there are at least 10 different sides to a story. I will reiterate - I did not accuse you, nor think, you are lying. If you believe I inferred it, I am sorry.

Actually Jed the recent bust you refer to was led by Biosecurity Qld, not the RSPCA, although RSPCA assisted. RSPCA Qld operations do not cover the whole of Queensland - it is a shared responsibility between Biosecurity and RSPCA. The location of the puppy farm made it the responsibility of Biosecurity Qld and not the RSPCA. And how did you know that it took 'them' (Bio. Qld) six years to do anything? For all you know investigations may have been conducted, maybe an educational approach was attempted first??? Who knows??? I know. I don't write things unless they are true. And I know about BioSecurity aka DPI and non metro areas. Do you think I should have given BS some of the kudos for the bust? I said "RSPCA" because that is where the complaints were lodged. Do you have a problem? Inspector for the RSCPA now? Do I have a problem? Apart from you going off half cocked that is? Wow, you really can be mean. As soon as someone tries to correct or look at something from another point you just dig the boot in. You know, people can have different opinions about things, or see things from another side. The point I was trying to make is that you appeared to be slamming the RSPCA for not acting on the puppy farm for 6 years, but reality was that it was not their position to act. Now you say that you said RSPCA because that's where the complaints were lodged. So what are you trying to say? That they didn't pass the complaints on? And please, save the sarcasm. If you can't answer politely then don't bother at all.

You can get a snake catcher out - ring your parks and wildlife department for further information. As an short term solution you can try hosing it to get it away.

Actually Jed the recent bust you refer to was led by Biosecurity Qld, not the RSPCA, although RSPCA assisted. RSPCA Qld operations do not cover the whole of Queensland - it is a shared responsibility between Biosecurity and RSPCA. The location of the puppy farm made it the responsibility of Biosecurity Qld and not the RSPCA. And how did you know that it took 'them' (Bio. Qld) six years to do anything? For all you know investigations may have been conducted, maybe an educational approach was attempted first??? Who knows???

Maybe the note signing was under duress? The guy was armed with a .22 and a shotgun after all...

NO. Check 84M of the Domestic Animal Act 1994.

Need to have signs and ad hoc patrols by rangers. Patrols definitely, but I find it amusing that people always expect signs. The law is that dogs must be under effective control in a public place. That means when you leave private property and go out in public your dog should be leashed. Simple. We don't just pop our seat belt off because the road we are driving on does not have a sign on it saying 'wear your seatbelt'.