~Anne~

I am sure it is all ok. Sway is possibly just upset. Steve did this earlier in another thread and I thought the same thing but it wasn't.

I think people should look at by-passing the person who has left him in this predicament and just contact the pound directly. You should put the pound's contact details up for people to do this.

The MDBA PACERS have apage, just link it and send it to all your FB friends.

The dogs all look so bewildered. I hope they find the missing fellow.

Good news. - edited - I mean good news about the dogs being released.

But the word seized implies they were taken with an order, not taken in because they needed care while a woman's life hangs in the balance!??

Sorry, I don;t understand this bit?? RSPCA Queensland spokesman Michael Beatty said it seemed most of the dogs had been living inside the Ellwood Drive property and they appeared to be in good condition. They have been seized on animal welfare grounds Seized?? Please tell me that it is just poorly worded???

OMG. What a courageous thing for her to do. I hope she pulls through. What a devstating and incomprehensible tragedy.

If Sway had not have posted about this in OT I would never have even come in this section of the forum. I hope she recovers both physcially and emotionally. What tragedy. She has an obvious love for her animals and this is clearly shown in her posts. Please keep us updated on her condition.

Second part G056v06_1__5_Part2.pdf

I still think it may not be a breach of copyright. Here is a pdf regarding copyright in Australia that may help explain if it is. (I've split the original doc into 2 docs and downgraded the res to attach here so I hope it is still printable if needed). If what they have done really upsets you, I'd contact The Copyright Council of Australia. Copyright law is very difficult and detailed and all is not always as you assume. http://www.copyright.org.au/ G056v06_1__5_Part1.pdf

I agree with Clyde. A smaller and calmer breed would have been a more suitable choice. I also really believe your daughters needs to see someone about her phobia or she will never overcome it. Before deciding on what to do with the puppy, I would look at professional help for your daughter. It may very well be that part of the therapy to help her overcome her irrational behaviour is to be in close proximity to a dog.

Is it though? Not saying it isn't, but copyright is a large area and I am not so sure you can claim copyright on website text in this way :D

OMG - what pathetic service. The fact that they held you to ransom was bad enough in the beginning with a dying dog and demanding to swipe your credit card first!!! WTF!! Who was the vet? I would be writing a very, VERY, strong letter to the everyone I could think of, including the local papers to highlight this pathetic callous and uncaring attitude.

I use the roll from the paper towels. One look at me picking up the roll and they all behave. The same happens when I pick up the water spray bottle.

I saw this on anther forum I visit and thought others here might like it; A rolled up newspaper can be an effective pet training tool when used properly. For instance, use the rolled-up newspaper if your dog chews up something inappropriate or has a housebreaking accident. Bring the dog over to the destroyed object (or mess), then take the rolled-up newspaper and hit yourself over the head as you repeat the phrase, "I forgot to watch my dog! I forgot to watch my dog!" Just a little giggle for the day.

I have 3 dogs, all desexed and a moggy who is also desexed.

I have mine still for sale if anyone is interested and they are far less than the advertised price in your link. i would be interested...what size are they, both width and length please? they need to fit a Boston Terrier See here for details; http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=195404

I have mine still for sale if anyone is interested and they are far less than the advertised price in your link.

Ok - pardon my dumbness. I never equate "benign" with the word "cancer". I have always thought that if a lump/growth was "benign" it meant abnormal tissue/cells, but not cancerous. I understand about cancerous growths being "encapsulated", but never thought of those as "benign". So I'm wondering how you can have "benign cancer" . Both are cancer Erny, benign and malignant.

Read away: http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/medical/canine-allergies.html http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?show...p;#entry4520753

Actually, that is not correct. It is a fallacy and one used to support raw and barf feeding. Anne, I am always willing to learn. The connection between skin problems & dry food came from my own experiences with dogs over the past 40 years. If you know of studies that show this to be a fallacy, I'd be interested to read them. The skin problems are normally allergy related when put into association with food. The most common allergens are beef and chicken, not grains. All kibbles contain these ingredients, and are at the very least 'sprayed' with chicken or beef derived flavouring. Protein sources are what set of the greater majority of allergy related diet/skin conditions. A bad diet is bad for any dog, but skin issues are not normally related to grains, but to almost any ingredient. I believe the grain fallacy came about with people pushing raw and natural diets in my personal view. Interestingly, millions of dogs have gorgeous coats and great health and live solely on kibbles and those that do have issues and are properly tested, it is shown that grains are not what is causing their problems. I am sure that there will be dogs who don't do well on kibble, just as there are dogs who don't do well on raw, but to say that 'most' skin and digestive kibbles are caused by grains is wrong and very misleading.

Jackie - can I send you on a little research. For arguments sake, go to the bureau of stats site and look at the population figures for Australia over the last 20 years. Then look at the same site for pet ownership figures for the same time period, and back this up by looking at the Pet Advisory website also. You will note that while the population of Australia has increased by a large amount, animal ownership has risen by only a tiny amount.

Actually, that is not correct. It is a fallacy and one used to support raw and barf feeding.

There is no such thing as overbreeding causing welfare issue in Australia. How can anyone throw this statement out there where there is adequate evidence to show unequivocably that the number of animals per capita is on a downward trend. Overpopulation would suggest a trend in the opposite direction.