moosmum

My daughter has booked a flight from Townsville to Sydney on the 27th and just found Jetstar wont carry pets. Can anyone recomend transport working from Townsville to sydney that could help with co ordidaning flights etc.?

I asked because you seem to be defending commercial dog farms lately. So its the idea someone is making money you find offensive?

I take offence to that. My work involves speaking with victims on a weekly basis and holding their beloved animals while they are sent to the bridge. No scaremongering, FACT, sadly. Now with the new laws and even more empowerment many of us are in for some horrendous times. Ditto. Ridicule is the last thing these people need to see here after I have recommended them to DOL. They are absolutley heart broken.A little dog who slept in their beds,went with them on every holliday,and was known for her love of children is dead.Likely after spending her last days in a kennel for the 1st time in her short life. I keep picturing her being led out for her needle with her tail wagging and a grin on her face thinking her owners will be there waiting. This was not an irresponsible home.It was not a dangerous dog.It was not a bull breed.Not in Victoria. Its far from an issolated incident and will get worse.You may not see this on DOL very often,but you do.In most cases its resolved easily when people are armed with the CORRECT info. The average Man-on-the-street who doesn't know where to turn doesn't have that help and are easily taken advantage of by dishonest and ignorant officials.

What dogs besides restricted breeds and greyhounds wear a muzzle from puppyhood? Which council is automatically seizing and destroying dogs? It sounds like you are making this up, but if you are not, you need to provide more information. If a dog bites it may be declared dangerous, but it will only be seized and euthanised if it's owner refuses to pay the fines, if they refuse to keep it as required, or if the dog is a repeat offender. The new laws are bad enough without the needless scaremongering. Not scare mongering,bloody terrified after hearing this though. I heard of the above incident in Lithgow. I was told by the owners of the dog she was pt after an incident. The owners mother took her own small dog and this one to the dog park.A smaller dog was annoying her,then moved on to attack her smaller companion.The muzzle came off and she grabbed the SWF when it attacked her smaller companion.The woman grabbed her quickly and freed the smaller dog but said "when Mum got her jaws open and freed the little dog her jaws closed on mums hand. It was reported as a dog bite by the owner of the SWF and they took her away.We tried to fight it but lost" (Having no idea where to turn) When I asked why the dog was muzzled in the 1st place,thinking there were some previous issues,they told me that when they registered their dog they were told that "As a large breed,it must be muzzled at all times in public" The owners did not question this,but abided by it. No excuse for attacking the small dog,she should have had better controll but by the same token, abiding by such a decree IMO is setting the dog up for failure,especialy if dog parks are where they are going to learn their manners. This was a X guardian breed,no resemblance whatso ever to a pitt and matured about the size of a Kepie.No previous indication of aggression or complaints I believe.

Zuri, Thats a common attitude.Sorry to say tho' that because of the hysteria regarding dog attacks,local councills in many area are coming down very hard on any "Large" dog with a complaint against it no matter how minor.Not just in Victoria either. Muzzles to worn in public at all times from puppy hood etc.Dogs automaticaly seized and destroyed for ANY bite reported.Even when that bite is accidental. A dog pt after the muzzle she was forced to wear all her life at the dog park came off and she finaly managed to grab one of those out of controll SWFies. Her jaws closed on her owners hand when it was released and that was enough for council and the (either vindictive or frightened)owner of the SWF.Who incidentaly,HAD attacked 2 other dogs unprovoked. Lots of other incidenst comming to light,not always with such serious out comes,but way too often it is. They may not be ready to ban out right other breeds,buts they can make life very hard and dangerous for them anyway.And they are. The planned rallies are a huge step and can do a lot for all dog owners if we support them.

Zara, BSL is like swallowing a spider to catch the fly.What are we going to swallow to catch the spider? BSL does nothing to encourage responsibility,but takes away our right to choose it. You can decide for yourself that some dogs are just not suited to be a part of society,but whos society are you talking about? There are places for any breed where they can be raised and kept both responsibly and ethicaly.They have the history of centuries of co habitation behind them,all of them.Each to their own place. ANY breed of dog can be corrupted within a very short time in the wrong hands. The responibility as owners is to choose wisely and with knowledge a dog that will fit your needs and you his.Keep to the right place. People need a clearer understanding that different breeds have different needs.Its not one size fits all where dogs are concerned.Any breed/type of dog will have qualities that make it perfectly suited to some homes and horribly unsuited to others.Some owners are able to handle most dogs responsibly and others who should be selecting from a very few breeds or types. Average Joe needs to understand that before they get a dog,but mostly they don't.Society suffers from that basic lack of understanding. The infection in society isn't "bad dogs".Its bad owners and breeders,mostly with a very poor understanding of dog breeds,behaviour,training and ethics.Cut out the bad dogs and the infection will grow back in another spot.You have to takle the infection at its roots. BSL IS in,and attacks are still happening. Ignoring BSL for the moment,the current hysteria needs to be addressed fast and responsibly.All larger breeds ARE being targeted by local state and federal governments who are being pressured to act.All it takes is a vindictive or frightened person to make a report on any large breed for the most minor things and we are at risk of loosing them.Its happening all over,now.

I just want to state again,this rally is not about BSL. Its about dogs in the community. The issues are responsible and ethical dog ownership to ensure dogs do have a continuing place in the community. BSL is going to come up a lot because its what WE fear most.At least those of us who can see where this attitude leads us and the affects it is already having on far too many innocent dogs and their families.

You are totally missing the point Kirty? Nearly every viscious unprovoked attack causing serious injury and recently death has featured a Pitbull style of dog. Pitbull style I don't mean specifically a pure bred Pitbull but a dog of Pitbull/Mastiff type appearance, definitely not the type of dog that Border Collies, Standard Poodles or GSDs could be mistaken for, they are on the Bull breed platform and the facts are if BSL had eliminated these breeds and style of dog, the offending dogs could not have attacked when non existant. That's actually a fact, if the offending dogs had been eliminated via BSL prior to the attack, the attack from those particular dogs would have been prevented and without BSL the attacks did occur. You mean WITH BSL the attack still occured.Its not working,its driving the breed underground,into the hands of those with no social responsibility. Whether or not the owners of the attacking dogs had a different breed and may still have attacked etc etc, is not fact, it's speculation and guess work. If Pitbull type dogs are eliminated by BSL, it's a fact that a Pitbull type dog will no longer attack anyone, and with no BSL regardless of what programs are in place to guarantee a Pitbull type dog whilst remaining in existance shouldn't re-offend, they can, but they can't re-offend if they are gone? If the community makes a stance to say they no longer want to be subject to attacks from Pitbull type dogs, eliminating them from existance will fix it, fact!!. It won't stop dog attacks, it will stop Pitbull type attacks which people are most scared of. And then they will be most scared of??? Likely staffies,as the next most common breed of dog,followed by any other type that makes headlines.Maybe even Golden retrievers or labs.It only takes a couple of sensational headlines to turn the attention on to another breed. So in the interests of public saftey the debate favouring to abolish BSL over tightening it up an anti BSL campaign can't win having no factual argument to present. I have had several incidents myself with Pittbulls.Do I want to ban them? No,I would rather their owners be made to follow exsisting laws that require them to have their dogs under effective controll and not running loose.And for them to understand just what that means.

I totally agree that any attacks are owner mismanagement and the raising of dogs irresponsibly, but there are plenty of those owners with all different types of dogs and breeds which proves irresponsibility and owner mismanagement doesn't cause every dog and breed to be become prone to serious attacks and killings. What irresponsible ownership and mismanagement highlights are the type of dogs that are most likely to attack in irresponsible hands which seems to be the Pitbull type of dogs subject to the present target more so than anything else? Pitbull type dogs are attractive to irresponsible people who like aggressive dogs which doesn't help the situation, but Rotties, GSD's etc and the various cross breed combinations of those type of dogs are also owned by irresponsible people too for the same reason but don't seem to cause the carnage of the same magnitude, like they are not the Rotty GSD type dogs ripping people apart, killing kids and other dogs on a regular basis is what I mean, the real serious one's seem to be the Pitbull Mastiff style of dog which is the reason they are clamping down on them from what I can see? I don't think they single out the Pitbull Mastiff style of dog without good reason and I am sure it would be the same with any breed who featured regularly in serious attacks, so when the serious incidents keep featuring a particular style of dog, they really have no choice from public outcry to address the situation? Because these types of dogs fit an image for those people.Remove the breed and they will find an alternative untill no dogs are left.Just as the banning of a car wont stop bad drivers being on the roads. We educate road users to have duty of care.Not ban cars.

But how do you convince someone who has been attacked or effected by a restricted breed attacked that BSL doesn't prevent attacks when it would have prevented the attack they suffered if the offending dog didn't exist?. You can't say to them "if it wasn't the Pitbull who got you another breed would have anyway so at the end of the day, BSL wouldn't have prevented you suffering a dog attack"? No,you can't say that.But you can say that if you ban 1 type of car because you were hit by that model,its not going to stop people getting hit by cars. If you are in the wrong place at the right time when there is a lapse in duty of care,there are accidents.In all areas of life. We have to improve duty of care,not just as owners,but as a community.The more dogs are"Outlawed" the harder it becomes to give them any place in the community.

Just want to bump this up.This concerns every one who has a dog.Please support!!

I hope this event gets the coverage and suport it deserves and love that its aimed at dogs in the community rather thsn BSL out right...getting to the real roots of the problems we are facing. A story I recently heard illustrates so well that this isn't just about BSL as it stands now,and that no dogs are safe,anywhere. A local coucills rules stated that a new pup,as a "large breed "being registered must wear a muzzle in public.A rule acepted by the owners.This dog was smaller than a kelpie mature,selected specificaly for her good nature.She went on hollidays with her family,slept on the bed (under the blankets)She was a clown.Popular with the kids at the park for playing with them on the slippery dip.Dogs trying to dominate her would have her running in circles around them,keeping just out of reach asking to play instead.Friendly and not suspicious of anyone unless there was a GENUINE threat.Then she would defend those close to her. A trip to the dog park with Mum and her SWF saw another SWF annoying this dog,who was muzzled.The off lead SWF then turned its attention to the other SWF on lead and attacked it."Monkey" as I will call her then snaped and managed to get the muzzle off and grabbed the SWF.Owner imediately grabbed Monkey and opened her jaws releasing the SWF but got her hand bitten in the process(Owner said not a bite as such,jaws closed breifly on hand as SWF released).Thought nothing of it,a disaster averted and no harm done. A complaint was made to councill by the owner of the SWF and Monkey was taken and PT on the grounds that a person was bitten..Owners tried to fight it but unfortunatly did not know where to turn and lost. So much wrong with this story its hard to know where to start but the bottom line is that a highly intelligent,good natured little dog who was the light of her young owners life was killed needlessly just before her 3rd birthday.She was NOT a dangerous dog. This is in N.S.W. This dog was not a bull breed. We need better education and plans that are effective now.

Dobermann

Such examples may not be found readily with in the K.Cs,but is happening with out.The results often very well recieved. I know of one cross breed competing with Dogs N.S.W who has been held up by them as a wonderful example of his "breed".I'm not sure if his pedigree status is known so won't elaborate. Unfortunatly there are disgruntled breeders leaving the K.Cs to do their own thing, and being well recieved for their results.

I have seen people here using horses as examples of inbreeding.Race horses tracing back to 4 known sires. You forget that tho' 4 sires may be in all pedigrees,mares have come from else where and there is an enormous gene pool where horses not up to scratch in testing performance conditions are discarded. Likewise,arabian horses are said according to ledgend to have decended from 5 blue mares.Grey is pretty dominant colour in horses yet all arabs are not grey, outside horses have been used (unless these 5 mares were cloned)and purity can't be guaranteed any further than pedigrees can be traced.

I hope this works!I just got it myself and haven't even had the sound.Love it. My link

I tried that with Lou when she was younger.She treated it like a big joke and ran for her blanket and tried to spread it out on me. She and the kids would repeat that game often.

The idea shouldn't be dismissed either. I believe North American wolves are less human aversive than the european wolves.Interesting that North americans had a more acepting attitude to their wolves untill white sttlement. 40 years ago in Canada,living in a small rural village our G.S.D had a litter of 1st cross puppies.I had seen the wolf 200 yards from our back door. 2 years later the last of the pack was shot in our neighbours back yard(he was the local sheriff) A shame,because as far as I know they were never threatening or actualy causing any damage.

Had to laugh when "Replying to this might annoy people" came up. I love the mix of dogs and kids we have always had with out incident,up to 3 dogs and 3 kids.The dogs have mostly been Dobermanns with a terrier X thrown in. They have always been best of mates and looked out for each other. We taught the kids how to behave with the dogs,the dogs how to behave with kids with mutual repect. There are many baby pics taken with a dog there keeping an eye on things,or toddler pulling the dobermann after them by the collar with kittens nearby. When the kids left home they took their dogs. Some visiting kids would need a very close eye on them.(Shudders at the memories)

I never said you called all big dog owners idiots, just that all sizes and breeds of dogs can have idiot owners. We need to concentrate on the problem and instead of banning breeds which just makes them more attractive to the people who want tough, illegal dogs deal with the owners. Make it compulsory to do obedience courses, make it so instead of registration, dog owners have to go through a course and get a license. Regulate owners not dogs. And then if your dog attacks a human or another animal unprovoked you get charged and your license suspended until further notice. We need to be hard with the people who allow their dogs to do these things. Sorry,but I disagree. You are asking ALL dog owners to pay the price for those who are irresponsible and instead of BSL,we end up with all dogs ownership being restricted. and the "black market" extending to all dogs. Education in dog ownership and responsibilities is badly needed now.This is partly because dog and their care are already marginalised here in Aus. Peoples experiences with dogs is limited.Further restrictions on ownership would only be a self perpetuating cycle. The current laws should be enough if they were enforced properly.If thats not working,why would more legislation work. So can you tell me why RB owners are the only ones who have to pay the price for Irresponsible owners? bare In mind Irresponsible owners come attached with many 'other' dog breeds not affected by BSL Another case of I really don't care about RB owners as I don't own one and It doesn't concern me! Exactly. I am sick and tired of owners of other breeds brushing the issue off or coming up with answers like "why should I have to....." (mind you I know there are many people here who have nothing to do with RB breeds who are very against BSL, so please don't take offence if you are one of them ) It is all well and dandy when it isn't affecting you or your dogs right. I don't see where you get that I am a BSL supporter,but if every one who wanted a dog had learned something of their origins and breed development as a a co-dependent of man,studied basic breeding concepts,needs,specific breed characteristics and our responsibilities and the law just maybe BSL would not be needed and future breeds won't need to suffer the same fate. If dogs are to continue to have a place in society,society in turn needs to recognise their place and make room for dogs to keep evolving along side us.Education and peer pressure is the only way that will happen. Legislation will continue to marginalise and reduce contact preventing oportunities for people to learn.A manual is not going to make every one who has one an instant expert,but that will be the claim while even more knowledge is lost. The changes I see in dogs and dog ownership in the last 40 years is pretty disturbing.

I never said you called all big dog owners idiots, just that all sizes and breeds of dogs can have idiot owners. We need to concentrate on the problem and instead of banning breeds which just makes them more attractive to the people who want tough, illegal dogs deal with the owners. Make it compulsory to do obedience courses, make it so instead of registration, dog owners have to go through a course and get a license. Regulate owners not dogs. And then if your dog attacks a human or another animal unprovoked you get charged and your license suspended until further notice. We need to be hard with the people who allow their dogs to do these things. Sorry,but I disagree. You are asking ALL dog owners to pay the price for those who are irresponsible and instead of BSL,we end up with all dogs ownership being restricted. and the "black market" extending to all dogs. Education in dog ownership and responsibilities is badly needed now.This is partly because dog and their care are already marginalised here in Aus. Peoples experiences with dogs is limited.Further restrictions on ownership would only be a self perpetuating cycle. The current laws should be enough if they were enforced properly.If thats not working,why would more legislation work.

This. This is how I see neutralisation too.The dog is most definitely socialised,but with the handler always ready to step in and enforce rules that guide any interaction so it goes as smoothly as possible for all concerned.If controll is lost,so is the interaction.You walk away. The dog learns interaction is on your terms. I have seen it as you are not actively trying to "neutralise" the dog,but thats the desired end result of correct and responsible socialization. And I agree with Joe.In a dog park situation theres little controll.An "in your face" dog is not my responsibility.Controll of my dog and myself is.Though I would not let my dog attack,I would certainly allow her to defend herself.

Wuffles,I read it that Neutralization and socialisation aren't mutualy excluse.More a different approach to a well adjusted dog. A dogs not discouraged so much it doesn't want to interact when free to do so.He can still be a dog,but learns interaction (and the positive mental stimulation it provides) depends on restraint,manners and attention to his handler. More inanimate experience earlier,then progress to more controlled introduction to animate subjects,with more freedom to interact as restraint and controll are demonstrated in each new situation. Someone correct me if thats wrong..Seems to well work for me. eited for sp.

There are quite a few Dobes in our area now,but 10 years ago that wasn't the case. We had a large male that was obviously a very poor example of the breed and was retarded to boot.(realy) We had many people asking to use him for service and it realy got to us that even when we said no,he was not going to sire any pups,ever,peeps still tried to say it didn't bother them that he was reatrded,the pups would sell. Unbelievable!