~Anne~

None and all of the items you listed prove ownership. If there is documented history showing the dog was stolen then this could be used in court to prove ownership of the animal by the person who had it when it was stolen. Like any item where ownership is in dispute, you need to show enough proof that you own it for it to be determined that it is yours. It is the body of evidence that determines ownership, not a single document or even a collection of documents. Also, I believe possession is '9/10ths' of the law in this kind of ownership query. For example, neighbour gives dog to neighbour to mind while they go interstate. Initially the time is only for a few weeks. Payment is made for care for the first few weeks only. Several years pass and the original owner hasn't made contact and then turns up out of the blue asking for the dog. I think if this was taken to court, they wouldn't get their dog back regardless of what paperwork was in their name.

Meh, you have your thoughts, I have mine. I will however, for the sake of defining my position on crates, repost my original post. Take note where I follow the use of the word routinely with "they are totally appropriate to use during training, for restraining young pups or for illness or injury...." and so on.

Obviously you're hung up on the definition of 'routinely' and how I've used it. If you put that word in context of the other statements I've made, you'll see what I am referring to. If you still can't understand that then I can't explain it any further without a verbal conversation because these days I don't bother typing long winded responses. Mainly because people take what they like and ignore the rest from posts. Crates are bad news and the increasing popularity of them is scary. Dogs are not meant to be caged.

That implies there is no benefit to the dog to being crate trained. Crating benefits dogs, it's not just convenience for people. Dogs that suffer stress and anxiety often love having the option of going to a crate, it makes the dog feel safe and secure and gives them a safe place to escape to if they are feeling stressed or anxious. Our husky seeks out his crate if there is a thunderstorm, he's sensitive to noise and being in his crate helps keep him calm and his anxiety levels lower. Containment (crating, pens etc) allows us to prevent pups from getting into trouble and learning bad behavior when you can't directly supervise them. That isn't convenience, it's responsible management. It also takes time and effort to properly crate train a dog, lazy people just after something for convenience often won't put the effort in to properly crate train the dog. When you meet a dog that has never been taught to relax or self settle this is a problem that crate training could have prevented. Crating can be convenient but there is also a lot of benefit to the dog. Huski, you don't need to tell me all of this. I know. We are talking opposite ends of the scale. Surely you know that. I've crated dogs before. I've crated for short periods of time however. You are also focussing one one statement and taking it out of context.

Statements such as "on the days this has to happen, I'll try to take him for a run at some point...... " don't sound like a once off occurrence only. There are dog owners who lock dogs in crates while they're at work and is a common and acceptable practice. I was even once banned from a US based dog forum after getting into a very heated debate with people about this very practice. Ask I said earlier, as we become more accepting of crating dogs, this routine and daily crating will occur more often. I think it's very poor management if you can't secure your dog in a room, yard or elsewhere where they're safe. Crating is a convenience for the human at the expense of the dog.

So your dog can sometimes be crated for up to 17 hours. A prime example illustrating my concerns about them being overused.

Agree although I'd emphasise that they *are* misused and as people become more accepting of them, they're misused more often.

I think the references to dogs preferring crates is a bit like saying that animals, like bears, who are caged for years on end from babyhood and are conditioned to cages, prefer cages. Of course they do, they feel safe. It's what they know. I don't imagine that anyone here talking about crating their dogs at length does it quite as absuively as this obviously, but the reasoning behind their preference is flawed in my opinion when you look at scenarios such as caged bears.

I hate crates when they are used routinely. To me they are totally appropriate to use during training, for restraining young pups or for illness and injury or when there is no other option for a short term solution. I hate the thought that as time goes by we become more accepting of crating dogs for extended periods.

RIP little Abbie. Abbie was a silky cross and a rescue who was adopted by my mother in law a few years ago from Paws. It seems we will never know why, but she suddenly took ill and died within hours, on Tuesday. She was only around 4-5 years old and perfectly healthy until then. It was a dreadful and sudden shock for my MiL. Abbie and her were inseparable. She was a teeny, tiny little thing who loved her owner. When we entered the house she always came up wagging her tail with a toy in her mouth. When she visited us she was allowed on the lounge and loved looking down at the pugs on the floor. We didn't really allow her, there was just no stopping her! :D Once, when she stayed with us while my MIL went away for a week, she dug a hole under the gate and escaped! Thankfully, we live in a small little community and someone saw her, rang the number on her tag and left a message for us to collect her. Abbie will be greatly missed. My poor MIL is devastated. She hasn't been able to sleep as little Abbie would sleep with her normally.

I didn't have a 16D. I would have paid for the registration even if I did, when they were rehomed. I wouldn't be obligated to, but I included this in the adoption fee regardless.

I submitted all of my own paperwork but still ended up with dogs remaining in my name that should have been transferred. Paperwork often goes astray. I rang my local council every 6 months or so to check on what dogs were still registered to me. I also paid the lifetime registration of all dogs I rehomed.

I can tell you now that if I did apply for, and was granted, an exemption I would never have shared it. I am happy in the beleif that many don't share it Inappropriately. I recall one Christmas Eve wanting to collect an aged pug from Blacktown. I was desperate to grab him as he was old, unwell, not desexed and we were heading into a period of extended public holidays and I was sure he would die there. In desperation I rang Narelle and Paul from Paws'n'Hooves to see if they could get him released as I didn't have the funds being the day before Xmas and with the dog an entire male and not registered. I expected to be fostering him for them and to my relief and absolute delight, they insisted he was released under their care and I would only be a foster carer for him. I had always held them in high esteem and this strict compliance with their clause reinforced my respect. I only wish all rescues acted with such integrity.

That's correct. However, I never used anyone else's exemption. I purchased dogs from pounds or negotiated their release.

I offered a 3 week trial period which meant I was 'technically' doing the wrong thing. However I felt very strongly that a 3 week trial period was better than 2. All paperwork was signed by the adopter at the time but I did not fax the change of ownership form to my my local council until the three weeks had elapsed. My routine may have differed from others though as I operated my rescue without an exemption clause.

I knew a little pug that chased off all other dogs at pug meetups. She barked and carried on at them but only if they were another breed. She definitely recognised pugs and reacted differently to other breeds.

Great news!

Fingers crossed it is just a lipoma. Did they do a needles aspirate?

How handsome was he j! I wanted to ask you to post a pic of him and you have. He is as gorgeous as I thought he might be. I know you must miss him terribly. How lucky was Ginger puss to have you as his owner. A very lucky Ginger puss indeed.

The reference was specific to deducting 'administration fees' from refunds, not on refusing refund a after 30 days, Wildthing. None of us know really what the legalities are. We are all only assuming and guessing based on our varied experiences and our layman's knowledge. It's pleasing (to me personally) though to see most think the idea of deducting a fee doesn't sit well. If you place a dog or cat in a home on trial, it is on T R I A L. Trial meaning a period after which a final decision on will be made. It is a temporary placement to ensure a match before the deal is finalised. Adopters are not buying a product that is a defined and specific item because it is a living thing that breathes and has a personality. We cannot ever guarantee anything 100% with a match between a home and a rescue so we offer a trial. It is of immense benefit to the animal being rehomed and to those who may adopt. If it doesn't work out, we take the animal back into our fold and we continue to find the perfect match. I hope that a fee free trial period remains the norm in rescue and for breeders.

Answering an email takes time and we don't charge to respond to numerous questions.

Hmm, I'm not so sure. I can recall reading somewhere where an administration fee was charged by a company and it was deemed illegal because there was no cost associated with the refund. If you offer a refund because the product (in this case a dog that is on trial and on trial for a purpose) is not suitable, can you legitimately deduct a fee?

I never did and I also saw this for the first time the other day. I highly doubt it is legal to withhold fees for such a reason.

You know I am going to call you on this. I believe this is your pup. You bought it from another state and it was flown? to you. It now has something and you are trying to see if the transport could have caused damage (HD?) "Owner" chose to buy a pup and get it transported, by car, rail, plane. Only "owners" word that pup has been correctly cared for since. Strange first post if pup is not yours and there have been plenty of stories about "what if" where it turned out the poster was talking about their very own dog. It seems, from later posts, you are wrong. You are too sensitive to breeder bashing and you have jumped a gun perhaps in this thread. I don't see any breeder bashing. Quite the opposite, I took it that the op may have been a breeder talking about an issue that another breeder was experiencing. I too, it seems, am wrong. It goes to show how assumptions are pretty useless sometimes.

Who cares if they do own it or if they even are the breeder. They're just asking a question and are allowed to be as anonymous as anyone on this forum.