~Anne~

And so he should have ensured the safe rescue of the dog. It should have had a life jacket on! The owner was a stupid fool. Who in their right mind takes a dog, that has only three legs, out in a dinghy in rough weather! Even if the dog had 4 legs it still should have been left behind or at the very least had a life jacket on.

:laugh: I have a pug that does the same thing. She isn't allowed on the lounge and I can always tell when she's been up there because she rolls around just like the dog in the video and she knocks all of the cushions to the floor.

I'm so sorry Maeby. I just posted in the other thread in Health. There isnt much I can say that hasn't already been said. He joins many special little pugs already at the bridge. I know it hurts like hell. Be kind to yourself. Talk about him and share you stories here. I never knew his name until now and I loved seeing pics of him. I'd love to see more. He was obviously very much loved. Rip little man.

Who is Grover? Is that Maeby's pug? I'd think given you've posted in here it must be. I never knew his name. Rest in peace little boy. You've got good company ready to welcome you at the bridge with the many beautiful pugs and others who have passed before. Maeby, I'm sorry. I know how hard it is. He's now at peace and those tumours have left him. Hugs to you.

Happy to donate $50 towards the surgery direct to the vet who does it.

Not sure which if any do rescue but I have found over the years that most vets are willing to help out when there is a legitimate need. I'd give a couple of these a call and explain the situation and see what they will do. Surry Hills Vet 419 Cleveland St Redfern, NSW, 2016 (02) 9699 3951 Pyrmont Vet Clinic 3 Union St Pyrmont, NSW, 2009 (02) 8203 0355 Sydney Animal Hopsital 69 Erskineville Rd Erskineville, NSW, 2043 (02) 9519 4111

So sad but it certainly sounded like the right decision. I've followed the story through both threads. You have handled such a difficult situation with a balance of sensitivity, compassion and logic. I'm sorry it didn't end in a way that made you smile.

This. I think the op is judgemental. They've met a stranger once at the dog park, had a conversation, and judged the stranger on their care of the dog based on their own beliefs. Not only did they judge the owner, they also negatively judged an unknown vet.

That doesn't sound good. I'd be calling the vet ASAP and not waiting. Has he had anything to drink? Fluids will help flush the anaesthetic out of his system.

Oh, sorry. Your post isn't very clear. You mentioned that you couldn't believe the Vet would advocate such a diet etc. I understand your issue with not treating a dog like a dog though. It's a growing problem and I can't see it getting any better. It's better than treating them like they're backyard ornaments though I guess.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with cooked meat, just that she was taken aback that dogs can actually eat raw. I feed my boys twice a day too. Then why do you feel 'sorry for the dog'? I took it that you felt the dog was being fed incorrectly?

Sorry I read it wrongly. I read the terms 'lunch' and 'dinner' and added breakfast to it in my brain when answering. It doesn't actually say that though so perhaps she is only feeding twice a day. Mine also are fed twice a day.

The biggest issue I see with it's diet is that it is being fed so often. In having said that, it may need small meals often. What's wrong with cooked meat. Some dogs simply can't digest it raw.

Distemper! I've never seen or heard of a dog with it for many years. I watched a few of our dogs die of distemper when I was a young girl. It was awful.

This thread might be better moved to the rescue forum or general. It will be more targeted there and you will get more responses that will be of help.

Wait till you've spoken to your vet. He/she may be able to give you some perspective on what is happening. It's never easy. It's the only reason I hate owning pets. I have a million more reasons why I love owning them but that is the ultimate pain for me. It's a decision that rips my heart out. I know people say you know when it's time but that to me makes it sound like the signs are easy to see. It certainly doesn't seem easy to see when you're living it.

If she goes to the pound she will possibly have more chance of rescue if it is a pound that rescues work with. The pound won't want to keep her there if she is about to drop. She will go to someone under duty of care.

I fail to see how anyone can equate desexing to tattooing. Desexing is done for a purpose to prevent pregnancy. The purpose, just like docking, can be clearly argued. The success of intended outcomes for such a procedure is not so clear cut though and still argued by both sides. The purpose of the tattoo is purely for the owners enjoyment. Surely there is no argument there. The welfare and health of the dog does not benefit in any way.

I can understand what you are saying however, to my knowledge, off lead areas do not normally have large signs saying this is what they are. In fact, you generally find out about off lead areas by looking for a list or definition on your local council website. So a shared area could very well have people walking through it without being aware of regulations about dog control. If it was purely a dog park and not a public sporting field then you could say that anyone within its boundaries should be aware it was an area for dogs. Still, in having said that, the person in this case knew it was a dog off lead area as they had their own dog didn't they?

The op described the area as: It was a shared area and not specifically an off leash dog area.

It doesn't sound like a dedicated dog park either. The op states it was an off leash/sports oval area. Members of the public playing sport and off leash dogs? Sounds a bit like a recipe for problems anyway; ball chasers and similar.

Thanks zeebie. I suspected that there would be cases that had already occurred and the owner of the dogs deemed at fault. I find it interesting that most people have also just assumed I am one that supports unnecessary litigation. I understand the concept of accident quite clearly. I am not so sure I understand the complete definition of negligence though and have been very surprised over the years about what the reasons people instigate litigation. The tree branch falling and killing is an interesting one that was mentioned. There was a recent publicised case about this very thing occurring. A young child tragically died as a result. There is now an enquiry as I understand. It appears it was an accident of nature. But is that the way it will be viewed legally? Time will tell.

I'd like to see someone move out of the way of two large dogs playing, particularly when they are running at you and do not realise you are there. For that matter, I'd like to know how anyone is expected to see behind them. When I walk, I walk looking ahead, not behind.

What happens if she had permanent injuries that prevented her from working and was forced to live on social security for 25 years? Would it then be deemed appropriate to determine who was responsible?

They ran into her from behind is what the op said: