Joel

True, but whether this is realistically achievable is another thing. The problem with being passionate for a cause (and voicing that passion) is that you will, inevitably, be judged (as I have found out recently on here ). If you are prepared for this, then it makes your argumentative power that much stronger. If you are not, then you will be trampled by the people with whom you are arguing. I want to add, as I think I may have not voiced this part strongly enough and got carried away with other things... I completely applaud you (toy dog) on what you're doing. No change happens without someone bringing the flaws into the spotlight and if everyone fought for animal welfare like you are, then the world would be a much better place. Do take what I have said into consideration though, as these arguments are what you're likely to face while battling with both the council and the people running these puppy farms. They will compare the treatment of their dogs to the treatment of all other animals which are farmed for their offspring. And generally speaking, although the average person doesn't necessary like it, they are content with the fact because they don't like the alternative (which is either dont eat meat, or pay a higher price for the end product to ensure better welfare for the animals before and during slaughter). I don't think you're going to get anywhere the way you're going (through bombarding council members with letters and abuse) while you're arguing that they should treat dogs differently. The likelihood is, they wont. I look at it like this: If I was running one of those puppy farms and coming up against criticism from you, then I would dig deep enough to find out whether you bought free range meat, eggs etc etc. If you didn't, then your argument becomes weightless, because you are supporting the same sort of farming with a different animal and suggesting that I (the puppy farmer) be descriminated against because of the animal which I am farming. You have to PROVE why puppy farming is worse than regular farming, and relying on that because dogs are seen as companion animals will not cut it IMO. EDITED TO ADD: I'd say that someone emailing a councilor that is never going to get their way (because its abusive). Also, just because people dont live on farms does not mean that they can use ignorance as an excuse for not knowing how their food gets on their plate. There is more publicity about it then there is of puppy farms, and yet here we are. Research it. And the fact that they only do it for money makes no difference legally or ethically. Most businesses are run purely for profit. I dont think a cattle farmer farms cattle because they love it... they do it for $$$. The reason that the puppy farmers are on the sides of the people who you want on your side is because they brown-nose them. They kiss their ass, because they need them, just like you need them. They know this, and do whatever they can to keep the people that they need on their side, on their side. Maybe you should take a leaf out of their book on that topic. Also, just because canines haven't been traditionally 'farmed' in an agricultural setting does not mean that they cannot be considered livestock. They are farmed as a commodity, which was the keyword - not labor, sustenance or fibre. Also, canine does not refer to a wild dog. Canine is used to refer to a domesticated dog (it may be used to refer to ANY dog, domesticated or otherwise, but I was under the impression that canine is used to describe a domesticated dog. If someone could clarify, that would be great ).

ahaha That'd drive me bonkers!!

AHAHAHA. I couldn't help but laugh I can just imagine Hugo going (in a crazy evil villain type voice) "Ha, she thinks she's get em all, bout HERES ANOTHER! MUAHAHAH" lol. At least you're already there to pick it up What would be bad is if he waited until you were finished and back inside to do it... rofl. Now THAT would suck!

just because they are bred to feed people does not excuse their poor treatment. Just because somethings offspring is going to be used as a companion doesn't mean that it is any more important than something whos offspring will be used for food. My point is, i dont think you are going to win this argument with council. Although I dont agree with puppy farms in the slightest, they DO reflect animal farming in general, and I dont see why they would impose rules over one and not the other in regards to the treatment of their animals. And to do it over farmed animals in general would be such a huge step that they think its too much trouble to take. Also, the people running these puppy farms are going to bring up that point and that they are being discriminated against because people have a predisposed idea that dogs are more important than other animals. How are you going to argue this? Thought I should clarify on something too... (italics is things i have added) So, this means that any domesticated animal raised on a 'farm' to produce a commodity (which would be the puppies) for subsistence (i would assume not) OR profit (which is the case) is considered livestock. Which then means that these dogs can be considered livestock. These are the arguments you're going to face while trying to fight this battle. I don't think you're quite prepared to argue the point far enough. I don't think puppy farms are going to be banned any time soon (unfortunately). The only thing that might happen (and is in the pipeline if i understand correctly) is that stricter guidelines will be put in place. You're not going to get anywhere by having the local council hate you. You want them on your side. At the moment, the people running the puppy farms are on far better terms with the council members than you are. You're not going to get anywhere by abusing them. But my concern is this (and is the reason I initially posted here): For someone that is so passionate about animal welfare, you are only concerned about one animal (this is a HUGE assumption, but until proven otherwise, ill stick with it). The reason I say this is because there is cruelty going on every day that the average person buys in to (again, I am assuming that you are an 'average person') when they go to the supermarket. Most people dont think about it this way and dont relate their beloved pets to the animals that wind up on their plate. I figured that if I could at least plant a seed of thought in peoples minds through this topic, then maybe I could initiate some change in regards to animal welfare which is not limited to just dogs. I just think its a bit hypocritical for the public to be so up in arms about wrong doing on one part, but to be essentially demanding the same wrongdoings to be done on another.

I am not defending puppy farming. What I am saying is that it is very tunnel-visioned to think that this treatment is not ok for dogs, but overlook the fact that it happens to other animals every day, and is being supported (through purchase of animal product) by the same people arguing that puppy farms are the most horrible idea on the planet. The fact is, it is PUPPY FARMS being discussed here, not chicken, pig or other livestock farms. No, I don't like the way some animals are treated but what's the point of dragging in a red herring? The flip side of your argument is, that if it's ok to raise chickens, pigs etc in these condition, it's ok to raise dogs in these condition. This is a PUREBREED DOG FORUM - we are talking about DOGS, not any other animals If you look at it like that, this topic has no place in this forum. If it is a PUREBREED DOG FORUM in its entirety, then puppy farms (which produce cross breeds for the most part) have no place here. Although this forum is designed to be about purebred dogs, it also encompasses a lot of other topics. Apart from that, other animals ARE part of what is being discussed here. How is a dog different to any other farmed creature? Its not. You are exactly right about the flipside of my argument, which is why I pointed it out. I am against all types of farming in this way, and I think that others should be too. I think it is extremely hypocritical to get your shorts in a bunch about one animal being mistreated, while others are suffering the same fates (and sometimes worse) and do nothing. I'm not even talking about lobbying to stop this type of farming, but even not purchasing products which originate from it would change things. I love ALL animals, not just dogs. Perhaps you should look at it that way.

A chicken, pig, cow etc are all livestock, dogs are canines and the two cannot be compared they are very much different types of animals. I do not think that MOST ppl condone the mistreatment of any animal livestock or other, BUT this is a dog site ppl are here because they love dogs, most ppl unless they live on a farm or a country town have prob never even seen a chicken close up let alone a pig and though ignorance is not an excuse they prob do not know of the conditions that some of these other animals are kept in, look at how many ppl who own dogs didnt or still do not know of brb and puppy mills? or how many dogs die in shelters everyday? they own this type of animal and are still or were un informed about all these things. I am prob going to get flamed for this too but.... it is not ok to treat any animal with neglect or cruelty BUT i believe it is worse to do it to a dog, DOG= MANS BEST FRIEND. PIG=BACON. Ducks for cover..... You putting pigs, chickens and cattle in the same basket is like putting dogs, cats, lizards, spiders, snakes, rats etc in the same basket. People keep rats as pets, yet more people trap and kill them as vermin. I'll take a snippet from wikipedia here... That means that canines can be included in the term livestock, especially when being produced by a 'puppy farm'. Although not for food, it is definitely for profit. Does this then make them less important than a dog that someone can buy as a pet? Of course not. Why is it worse to treat a dog poorly than any other animal? Because we have been conditioned to think that dogs are seperate from other animals and because we don't use them for food they, as a species, are somehow more important? I think this argument is used only to justify people eating meat which they know has probably been treated in a manor that they wouldn't allow for their beloved pet. Pig = Bacon is true for most people, but in some places of the world, Dog = meat on a stick. Does this make the statement true? That dog = mans best friend and pig = bacon - No. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't eat my dog, but nor would I eat a pet pig. I just get sick of people fighting for one justice while supporting an injustice of the same kind. EDIT: spelling

I am not defending puppy farming. What I am saying is that it is very tunnel-visioned to think that this treatment is not ok for dogs, but overlook the fact that it happens to other animals every day, and is being supported (through purchase of animal product) by the same people arguing that puppy farms are the most horrible idea on the planet.

lol. then try to remember and repost

Couldn't agree more. Blaming dogs for what they are seems wrong-headed to me. The bottom line for me is that we have a responsibility to manage the animals we own so that not only are their needs met but no-one else gets put at risk. It's not a matter of what a dog deserves or misses out on, it's just responsible animal management. There are lots of ways to exercise a dog. It's just that some are more effort for the owner. Of course all dogs can be agressive to some degree, at some time, in the face of some sort of provocation. Aggression is a natural part of behaviour. But if a dog has a known DA problem, it doesn't belong in a public dog park that I can see without the control of the handler being 100%. +1 **Words in the quote that are italics are where I've added my opinion

Why is a chicken any different than a dog? Intelligence? Maybe a dog is smarter, but chickens definately have a personality (which, because you have chickens you already know ) A dog on its own would suffer for sure, but so would a chicken. If you put a chicken in a cage by itself, it will suffer. What about pigs? Pigs are extremely intelligent - just as much as dogs (and some argue more than). They are also very good companion animals as anyone who has owned pigs would attest to. Perhaps not in the same way that a dog is because they are more motivated by food than an eagerness to please. With all that said, I think people get caught up in the romance of a dog being different than any other animal and somehow closer to a human. The same goes for cats. It just frustrates me when people get raging mad over the welfare of one animal, while others are in just as bad, if not worse conditions because they feel a connection to the animal that they are fighting for. And while doing so, are even SUPPORTING the treatment of these other species by creating demand with their wallet.

I hate to be the one who says this (and im sure ill get flamed for it), but I don't see it as any different than someone farming pigs, sheep, cattle, chickens etc. Now, before everyone gets their shorts in a bunch, I don't condone puppy farms. I ALSO dont condone that treatment of other animals. Most people that argue about puppy farms dont buy free range organic meat, farm it themselves or even do without. No, they're there down at Coles or Woolies buying their budget bacon and cheap chicken breasts. How do you think these animals get treated? How many of them do you think get re-homed after they are past their best age for breeding? How many people buy mayonnaise and ice cream without wondering where the eggs come from... BATTERY CHICKENS. Where is your bleeding heart for these animals? With all that said, it sounds like these animals are being kept quite poorly, but no more poorly than a lot of other animals that are farmed. However I think it is a bit rediculous that the council refuses to do anything after all the complaints and just wipes their hands of it saying that they can't do anything - thats councils for you Keep up the letters. Keep up the protesting. *starts getting prepared to be burnt at the stake*

I think it depends on a few factors. The first being the park. If the park is small and fenced like the one greytmate talks about, then so long as there is time for the owner to put a leash on the dog before anyone comes in, then sure, no problem. But (from my experience) many people aren't lucky enough to have a park like that. There are a lot of dog parks near my house and none of them are. Also, it must be kept in mind that a dog may be alert to the presence of another dog well before you are. If a DA dog is aware of another dog before you see them, theres a good chance that its too late. I think the general concensus is: if a dog is under complete control (i mean, if you can call your dog back no matter the situation or temptation and have them do nothing if you tell them to) then you are well within your right to take your dog to a dog park if you choose. The problem is, most people don't have this level of control with their dogs (DA or not). Most dogs at the dog parks that ive been to are out of their minds with excitement and a lot of them show dominance towards other dogs. I personally think they're a recipe for disaster unless you can be there when nobody else is or are there with people and dogs that both you and your dog are familiar and comfortable with. In a perfect world, everyone would have complete control over their dogs and it wouldn't be an issue (well, i guess in a perfect world there wouldnt be any DA dogs - YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN ). In this world, unless you have your dogs aggression completely under control, I don't think a dog park is a place for a DA dog unless you can be certain that either you can warn people or leash the dog and move on before its too late. EDIT to add: Woooooah. A dog doesn't understand that because its aggressive towards other dogs that it misses out. All it understands is that it doesn't get to go anywhere. I do agree however that there are plenty of places to exercise a dog if you're determined to find them. Hell, if I had no option, I would be walking around knocking on peoples doors asking if we could use their yard. Even if I had to pay them. If someone who has a DA dog is determined to find a place that they can exercise it off leash without the worry of running into another dog, then they will. I think it was a bit unfair to say that a dog should know that if its DA it doesn't get to play. (I kinda understand what you meant, but I don't think it really works that way)

+1 Just to add though... I think one of the biggest problems with your situation is that Razor probably should have had his dominance issues sorted out before Boss came along and IMO that is of the utmost priority. It seems that up until now, dominance has been allowed and even encouraged. But now that Boss is starting to pick up on this too, they're going to fight about it. This worried me, as I think you're asking for trouble eventually. Maybe it hasn't been any yet, maybe it never will, but its a big risk. This also means that he > you. Again, may be a problem in the future and it may never be an issue, but its something to keep in mind while you're talking to a behaviourist (if thats the road you decide to take) Whichever way you decide to tackle it, I hope it all works out and they stay buddies EDIT: Also, I want to +1 to whats been already said about keeping in mind that because of their breed, there is no way you will separate them if they really want to fight.

Wow. That kind of thing REALLY annoys me. How can people be so easy going about their dog being a trouble maker and shrugging off other peoples concerns...? With a situation like that, I just wish that I could put people like him in a cage with a lion or a bear that wouldn't eat them, but just jump on them -_- I doubt he'd find it enjoyable. Grrrr

I have to agree... to an extent. I do believe that aggressive dogs have as much right as any to be exercised, and that if they are muzzled and under control then a dog park is just as good a place to get exercise as any. The issue is that most aggressive dogs are not under control and their owners unable to control them. I am also of the opinion that most people at dog parks aren't in control of their dogs anyway, aggressive or not. In an ideal world, yes, you could possibly exercise an aggressive dog at a dog park, but i don't think its realistic at most parks. A dog doesn't have to go to a park to exercise. Yes, its great if they can, but if they can't, then the owners should probably think of something else. Honey is DA (although it seems to be only while she's on a leash) so we don't take her to dog parks (which is unfortunate because we live across the road from one). We play with her in the backyard and take her to the school oval that my partner and her sisters went to as kids to let her off leash. Obviously we only do it after hours when nobody is there. The only way to get to the oval is through a gate running past some tennis courts or through the school, so we can watch out for people coming (not that anyone goes there because people dont really know about it ). If this wasn't an option, and we had a small yard, then I would put her on a treadmill to burn most of her energy (shes a working breed, so she has a lot (sometimes, lol)) and then walk her.

You're right, people SHOULD feel that taking a dog to the pound is the right thing to do, but the fact is, pounds aren't necessarily what they should be. Even some people who work in pounds wouldn't want their animals going there. They SHOULD be better, they SHOULD be a place where you can feel confident about you're dog being looked after if they end up there, but most arent. A lot of them are horrible. I never disagreed with you about going through proper procedure, in fact, I totally agree. Nobody on here has disagreed with you with regards to that. I know that there have been recent changes made in QLD. Not only am I not in QLD, but I think that changes need to be made everywhere. I don't believe that our government (in my experience anyway) cares too much about what anybody has to say unless there are A LOT of people demanding the same thing (and even then something doesn't always get done). Unless it is in their best interest, a lot of it seems to be too much trouble to bother with for them. I don't really want to get into a political debate here, but I just dont think that what I say will change any legislation at all (no matter how good an idea is).

I am happily and proudly an irresponsible dog owner. I think I will start a club for IDO's. I don't have collars on any of my dogs and I never will (other than walking obviously). I've read way way too my horror stories of accidents occurring with them - does that make me irresponsible? Any dog found needs to go to a pound - how the heck are owners supposed to find them otherwise? *Sigh* This argument has gone over and beyond the length that it should have. What I Think is irresponsible is when people dont put collars on their dogs when there is the SLIGHTEST chance that their dog can get out. If your dog is 100% secure, then this doesn't apply to you. The same people who argue on here that their dogs dont wear collars are (on this thread anyway) the ones also arguing that microchips aren't reliable enough due to their tendency to move about the body. If that is the case, that means then that you are risking that if your dog DID ever get out, then there is no way to identify them. If you're worried about your dog hanging itself, then perhaps you should look at ways to eliminate the things that it could hang itself on. Usually peoples dogs get hanged from their fence when they're trying to get over it. Get a better fence, or even just put a flat top plate on there - problem solved. If there are other risks in your yard, then get rid of them. Its not really that hard. If you're still worried, get a breakaway collar so then if they ever DO get snagged on something, then it will come off. This gives a better chance if they ever do get out because they may not get caught on anything and keep the collar on, which means that as soon as someone finds your dog, you'll get a phone call straight away telling you where to pick them up. ANYWAY, moving on from that argument (as I seem to be repeating myself to everyone, and nobody comes back with anything new)... I don't lobby local government because I don't believe that it would make a difference. If I had the slightest faith that it would instigate change, then I'd be down at my local council drilling them to change. But, the simple matter is, it takes a lot of pressure from a lot of people to make change, and even though there are a lot of people who dont agree with current legislation, there aren't many who are willing to stand up and demand change. On your second note, i'm not whinging on here, im stating my opinion. Also, I'm assuming that by "experienced" people that you are including yourself... even though you gave INCORRECT information in the beginning, saying that it was LAW to take any lost animal to a pound, which, in QLD apparently, it is not. Seeing as how you are from QLD, having been involved in rescue yourself, I would think that you would have known this. I think this argument is just going around in circles and is quickly drifting off topic again, so perhaps we should just agree to disagree. Start a new thread if you like and by all means I'll come over and we can discuss it all again, but this probably isn't the place.

I'm glad to hear that not everyone thinks that I'm crazy for thinking that an animal could be better off NOT going to the pound I and my family have looked after lost animals on many an occasion and would do so again (they all got picked up by their owners btw). A lost animal is scared - the last thing I think they need is to be put into a tiny, cold cage with stressed out animals all around them. what the hell would that do to their mental state? people wouldn't let that happen to a lost child... it would be unimaginable for someone to even suggest it. with that said, i do believe that laws are in place for a reason, and not everybody is as good at looking after lost animals and going through the right channels to help the owner find them, but that doesn't necesarilly mean that I don't think that the laws need changing. Anyway, I hope the girl is either reunited with the owner (and hopefully they are responsible and were just unlucky this time around), or gets the proper care she needs and that her and her pups make it through whelping ok.

Far out I wish I could get my hands on people like this sometimes and that the eye of the law would look away for a couple of minutes. I dont understand how someone can do this. I feel a little bad just telling my dog she's not allowed to put her dirty paws on me let alone get to any kind of condition REMOTELY resembling this! This is why it should be harder for people to get the privilege of owning dogs (and animals in general I think). RIP poor old girl. Our hearts go out to you.

not that i would say that anyone needs to apologize, i do agree that it SEEMED like certain people were being accused of stealing this dog, which does not seem to be the case to me and was therefore unfair to say that (whether it was meant that way is another thing entirely, im just saying that it READ that way). I think everyone here (apart from those that believe that it should be dropped at the pound full stop) believe that of course details need to be left with the pound(s) so the owner has a CHANCE to recover their dog. Whether they do or not is another story. Really, I think that if someone wants to find their dog who is LOST (not stolen or killed by a car or something similar) then they will most likely find them. I think that the stories of people who search for months are of those who've had their dogs stolen or killed (as sad as it is (which is very. I know when my dogs have gotten out they've been some of the most traumatic and scary times in my life)). I think that the waiting period should be longer than a week, probably two, and that 3 days is a bit ridiculous. My partner had a dog when she was younger that ran more than 50 minutes drive way. I mean, thats a bit further than the local council's area. It takes time to find a dog that has potentially gone that far.

funny how now that nobody has found any legal requirement to hand over a dog to a pound that you do a backflip when you once said that IT WAS THE LAW. I'm not saying (and never have (nor has anyone else I might add)) that the dog should be transferred to anyone before legal ownership has been sorted out. With that said, placing a dog in the pound (IMO) is just as, if not more dangerous than not. If the proper (and again, these are not legislation, but my opinion on what is right) procedures are followed (ie. pictures of the dog given/sent to the pounds in the area with a phone call/email saying that a dog has been found, include a description and of course contact details) then I see no reason why someone who makes it as far as the pound wont find their dog.

I know that people get it wrong (and that cant be helped), but if people were advised about a dog that was being kept on another premises which matches or even slightly RESEMBLES what their dog looks like then you would think that the owner has the same opportunity to find their dog, even if they have to travel a little bit (they would probably have to travel less though because pounds are usually further away than where dogs are found). so are you suggesting that the person holding the dogs have strangers come to their door to check whether the dog they are holding belongs to the strangers? the pound is where most people know to go to to check for their dogs not someones back yard. and i thought that pound staff were really busy so how will they have the time to send people to the holders home? Yes, thats what I'm suggesting. If they aren't prepared for that, then they aren't prepared to house the dog at their home instead of at the pound. I think that matching a dog EXACTLY to a description is impossible in most cases, even if two people were both looking at the same picture their descriptions would probably come out different. There would however be similarities. The similarities are where the search gets narrowed down until there is only at most a handful of possibilities. Also, you can joke about being an irresponsible dog owner because you dont put collars on your dogs all you like, but if you ever lost one of your dogs, then those two together make you one (an irresponsible owner, not a dog). If you keep your dogs without a collar and they are 100% secure and never get out, then you are responsible, but if there is a CHANCE that they will (and everyone here seems to think that there is always a chance) and you DONT have a collar on your dog with the appropriate tags, then that makes you irresponsible. The same as you would be if you had an aggressive dog and walked it through a dog park without a muzzle on... With muzzle on aggressive dog = responsible owner, without muzzle on aggressive dog = irresponsible idiot :D I bet this sparks a whole other series of arguments about whether or not people should put collars on their dogs *sigh*

I know that people get it wrong (and that cant be helped), but if people were advised about a dog that was being kept on another premises which matches or even slightly RESEMBLES what their dog looks like then you would think that the owner has the same opportunity to find their dog, even if they have to travel a little bit (they would probably have to travel less though because pounds are usually further away than where dogs are found).

your kidding right? have you any idea how just changing the colours around on a dog can be confusing? I have a desexing certificate here for a white and fawn dog, colour the vets put down - tan and white, huge difference. They saw the dog, they operated on him, and still put the colour down wrong. I worked at a shelter and the people who rang up looking for a black and white dog when the dog was really white and black was huge. I quickly learnt to pin them down to the correct colour and description, cause when you're looking for a lost foxie X, for example, correct colour and description helps to find them. *Sigh* You're arguing with me about the difference between describing a dog as 'black and white' or 'white and black'... are you kidding me?! As soon as someone calls up going "Hey, I lost a black and white Fox Terrier cross, with a black dot on his head" would you not automatically go "Well, we dont have anything here by that description, but you're welcome to come and have a look. Also, we've had a call from someone from your area with a dog that sounds like it might match your description. Why don't you give them a call too"? The issue could then be that someone could call up, go to this persons house and take the dog whether it was theirs or not. Having said that, with a dog with no collar, no tags and no findable chip, this could happen anyway.

I know the subject of the law you're talking about, but I haven't heard before (and it may be ignorance on my part, dont get me wrong) that you MUST hand dogs over to the pound. Thats why I wanna read it What my main concern was actually not whether the dog went to the pound or not. My concern was that people were being victimized for trying to help, WITHOUT any mention (on their part) of breaking any laws. Whether or not it was said clearly enough is another matter entirely and things may have been misunderstood or communicated, but that does not change how it made me feel. It seemed to me that the thread went from looking for ways to help the dog to attacking people who were trying to help to the best of their ability. Then it went on a tangent to whether dogs should be/are allowed to be housed in places other than a pound, so long as the pound is aware of it. Anyway, if anyone knows the specific law regarding lost and found dogs, post it up