~Anne~

We have the pathology results and I am cautiously optimistic. The tumour was a fibrosarcoma. Splenic fibrosarcoma are more common in large breeds apparently. They're malignant but don't often metastasise which is the good news although they are often secondary cancers which is why I'm feeling cautiously optimistic. Thank you again for your messages and thoughts. He is healing well and it's hard to believe he's undergone major surgery only a week ago. All is good! :)

For me personally yes, it's made me aware of the latest on the issue. However it's turned me off being involved with any groups or people linked to the thread. In the same way that rescuer nutters and animal rights crazies have turned many off wanting to help them. I still support the cause. I don't support the particular way some people/groups support the cause though.

That report is fascinating. I haven't looked at LGA bite stats for some years. Hopefully the previous reports are still up. I'd like to see the change over the years.

RSPCA here never supported it. RSPCA nationally don't support it now. Neither do the AVA. Neither do the ANKC. Seems to me that the best way forward is to start mustering opposition from the key organisations, rather than scaring the shite out of individual pet owners. We also need intel as to what breeds might be being "considered". Well said PF, your previous post as well was exactly what I was trying to convey. Here you've given a 'suggestion for a moving forward' strategy which the discussion needs. It doesn't need panic and threats. If the recommendations are actually broken down and considered carefully it shows that while there is some cause for concern, we are not being burnt at the stake yet. The title of the thread needs to be changed to something that actually reflects what the OP would like the discussion to be about and the reality of the situation. All this thread is doing so far is turning the average pet owner further away from supporting any anti BSL movements.

You deserve a medal Melzawelza for your dedication.

Thank you. I knew you just needed some encouragement to do it Melzawelza.

Just on the above post - the Taskforce recommendations contained in their report is very broad on this. While they don't mention expanding the list of breeds, they talk about a recommending a new category almost indiscriminately. To me the Government's recommendation is not exactly conclusive and could also mean that existing restricted breeds might also be considered for the lesser 'dangerous' category of 'menacing' dogs.

The next section of the first post states; Again, I assume the Group is the Taskforce? It doesn't fit with your statement though they didn't make the recommendation so I'm not sure until you clarify. The Taskforce recommendation was: As per my previous post. The government's response is: As for my previous post. I've highlighted what I think your post quote is referring to; Government will ask the Reference Group (see rec 22) to consider and advise on applying this category to specific high risk breeds. Yes, I can see some possible reason for concern here, but it is in the hands of the Taskforce it seems.

Ok! I'll do it for you for the sake of members reading this post and trying to determine if they should be concerned and or what they can do about it; I'm assuming the above mention group is the Taskforce? Who knows. However, you've said that the Taskforce didn't make these recommendations but the Government did. The Taskforce recommendation reads: Recommendation 1.1 - Amend the CA Act to introduce a “potentially dangerous” dog category. The Government's response is: Supported. Implemented through the Companion Animals (Amendment) Act 2013. Control category termed ‘Menacing Dog’. Government will ask the Reference Group (see rec 22) to consider and advise on applying this category to specific high risk breeds. Am I on the right track? You'll forgive me if I have to do it post by post.

So which recommendations weren't made by the Taskforce? I'm not attempting to be difficult nor do I necessarily disbelieve you. If you can clarify where the Government has added in specific recommendations, that were not recommendations of the Taskforce, it might help readers understand what the issues are.

I honestly haven't gone through it word for word but the recommendations match up on first glance.

You mean this document? http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Information/Companion%20Animals%20Taskforce%20report%20-%20Recommendations%20regarding%20dangerous%20dog%20management.pdf

Great news. Now, how do you rid him from harassing you? I hope he fades away pretty quickly for you.

The Taskforce didnt come up with any of these recommendations. They have essentially come out of nowhere and just been added in to the response to their actual recommendations. The taskforce only recommended breed neutral stuff. That isn't what the site states. I find it difficult to copy and paste on my iPad but it states in the second paragraph that the "Government is pleased to support most Taskforce recommendations..." That to me indicates, or at the very least implicates, the Taskforce as being the one making the recommendations.

Now Plan B, your second post was more to order. Well done although you could still do with some improvement. I don't recall saying anything about sitting back and waiting for a negative conclusion either. I swear you have a problem with comprehension. I've been around for a while and I am not new to BSL. I've written countless submissions, met with political representatives, coordinated media releases, and was even once interviewed on national radio about the issues surrounding this legislation. I understand the issues. Terrifying people into thinking that their dogs are in imminent danger is not the response that I think this development needs.

More alarm! I think you need to look at thinking of strategies that might actually work, not playing scare tactics and senselessly aiming to frighten people. No-one will be breaking in to my home and stealing my dogs anytime soon. I'm quite certain of that. Because sitting back and watching VIC go to the crapper worked so well. And if you really thought a forum post was going to warn you about masked men right outside your window, that's a little concerning. Plan B, your ability to actually read appears to be deteriorating. If I were you, I'd be more concerned about that then being worried about something that was never said. Masked men? Outside my window? Really? :laugh:

Vomiting after being fed raw meat is common. I have a dog who can only eat meat cooked. He sounds like your vet says, a fussy dog, if he has been like this since he was a pup. If a medical condition has been ruled out then you'll have to win him over with patience and perhaps variety. Have your tried chicken? I've not met many dogs that will not eat a fresh, warm BBQ'd chook. I've also used cat food to tempt dogs that have been sick. They seem to like the strong fishy smells.

Immediate threat to all dog owners. That's a little alarmist don't you think? I raced into this thread thinking my dogs were at risk of imminent death. I had visions of a murderous spree being undertaken by masked madmen. I can well understand the concerns but whipping dog owners into a frenzy with irrational and broadly based statements will not help the cause in my opinion.

A scenario for you all: You rescue a 12 month old dog. The microchip is transferred to your name. 6 months later you re home the dog and complete the transfer details. The chip database for some reason never is updated and the dogs ownership details remain in your name. 6 years later the dog is found wandering and attacks and kills a little dog being walked by an older lady. Are you responsible for this dog? Are you the legal owner of this dog? The chip is in your name. Should the old lady claim compensation for the loss of her dog from you? Should the Council fine you for allowing a dog, that is not under anyones control, and has attacked and killed another dog?

That's sounds a little scary for you Jill. Good thinking by the wife. Her solicitor should be able to offer some ideas on how to proceed further. If the dogs have been with her for 4 years, and he hasn't had anything to do with them, that should help her case of ownership. Here is a clear example. Dogmad, while not a family law situation, I had a breeder try to claim ownership on a dog she had bred 8 years prior to it coming in to my care She had sold it as an 8 week old pup. The person she sold it to surrendered it to me. The breeder demanded I give the dog to her and said that as it was microchipped in her name still, she legally owned it. The real owner easily proved his rightful ownership of the dog through the sales reciept and vet bills incurred over the 8 years. The microchip paperwork in this case did not prove legal ownership. Legal ownership is determined by a range of things. Microchip paperwork may be used as evidence, but as I said, it is not proof of legal ownership on its own.

I'd contact a lawyer who works in the field just for telephone advice. Has he contacted you directly or is he just harassing his ex? Does he know you have the dogs and who you are?

As someone who is supposed to work in the area of companion animals you have a poor understanding of the Act you work with and the law. You're throwing definitions at me from an Act. Jill is in a compromised situation if the husband decides to take it further. If you want to advise her otherwise, and she takes your advice then so be it. I would much rather take the advice of a trained professional in law though. I am also almost certain that Federal law overrides State law when there is a clash. Family Law is Federal I believe. The Companion Animals Act is a Local Government Act, which is at the bottom of the food chain of law I think you'll find.

Page 28. Pets and family law - who gets the dog in a divorce? https://www.lawsociety.com.au/cs/groups/public/documents/internetyounglawyers/420246.pdf Sorry, can't paste from my iPad properly and the document doesn't allow editing. The last paragraph also states: "As pets are property under Australian law, pursuant to the Family Law Act courts can order injunctions forcing a person to do or not to do something in relation to a pet. For example, if one spouse took away a pet from another spouse upon separation, an application could be made to the court for an injunction forcing the return of the pet...." Rescuers and those who work for Councils should know that microchip identification is for identification purposes. It does not constitute legal ownership of any animal. The microchip details may be used as evidence, but it does NOT solely constitute nor prove ownership.

Actually it doesn't, in NSW or anyone else for that matter. Only a court of law can determine the ownership. In divorces, the animals are considered property and as such no-one can dispose of the shared property until a court determines who will get what. I know from experience that the microchip paperwork itself doesn't NOT prove ownership. Microchip paperwork across the country states owners that haven't owned the dog for years.

The microchip paperwork does not prove ownership. In this case, I'd imagine they are part of the joint property that will be divided. He has as much right to them as she does and they both have more rights to them than your rescue. You might be putting yourself into a precarious position if you don't return them to him.