~Anne~

Again though, there are many ways to minimise risk without preventing adoptions. To say that no large dog is suitable for a family, without actually assessing each individual dog, family, and situation, is mind blowing. "Minimising risk" is also why certain breeds are still maligned, deemed 'unsuitable' for adoption, and sometimes killed on the spot. I don't support nor condemn either way. I'm talking about a process. I'm talking about the big picture. A broad process in a local Government department.

It's called risk aversion. It's not the Council covering themselves because of litigation necessarily, it is the Council minimising risk to the purchaser, the dog and the council. The risk can take many forms - litigation, bad publicity, injury to a human, potential displacement or worse for the dog. It's sensible really. More rescuers should try analyse different risks and ways to minimise it.

Sometimes it's not the scanner but the person checking. They may only check a limited number of databases. I get your point though. I think it is the 'stupid of the century'. We are one country yet we operate under several different animal related laws which are governed at State level. You'd think that the relevant State government departments could collaborate so that their laws were all complementary. Surely it can't be that hard.

That's right, as a rescuer I do all my paperwork when dogs are adopted and send it off. I just asked for a list from the council of all the dogs registered in my name and guess what? Some of the dogs i have adopted out and completed Transfer of Ownerships on are still in my name ... Yes, I regularly got the same result. The database details are only as good as those who comply and those who enter the details.

So you judge everyone by your one experience? That's not very clever. You must be dumb. I guess I should judge you just as harshly and as loosely as you are judging this person? But I won't and I don't think you are dumb. I think you are limiting your argument on your one experience though which weakens your point. No one has said that it is the new adopted owners fault. Why does there have to be fault. Where the problem lies is in the fact that the woman won't return the dog or it's rightful owner. Yep, and I am sure that this will stop people from adopting dogs.....t will stop as many dogs from being adopted as it will people going on holidays and entrusting their dogs into someone else care.

The loving owner that left her with someone who couldn't even be bothered to tell her the dog was missing? How do you know the dog doesn't have a better quality of life with the new owners? Mia hadn't been off the property for 7 years. How can you hold the owner responsible for someone else's actions? It defies logic. She hasn't any control over the other person unless he was a remote conrolled robot and she held the remote!!

Yes, vet records definitely help. The onus of ownership, depending on who is disputing it, relies on you. As an example, several years ago I had a pug surrendered to me. Coincidently her name was Lilly. She was not in great shape and had been neglected. She was in this predicament due to a divorce or seperation. She was chipped, but not registered. Her chip was in the breeders name still as the breeder had failed to transfer it. She was around 7 or 8 years of age. I contacted the breeder as a courtesy to let her know I had the dog in my care. To get the paperwork in order I had to contact the breeder again to explain the dog was still chipped in her name. She demanded the dog back stating it was 'hers' if it was chipped in her name. To cut a long story short, the surrendering owner provided a receipt of sale, vaccination certificates and vet records showing that he had owned the dog since purchasing her as pup. This documentation satisfied the requirements of the Companion Animals Register and she was transferred into my name.

She was overseas and may not have been contactable though. I'm not sure how common this is but I know of dogs where only a letter has been sent to the address on the database and no effort has been made to ring anyone.

Microchipping does not give you legal ownership. Microchipping is purely a tracking and registration system. The chip may be used to help you prove ownership but many other considerations, such a receipt of sale, would also be used. None of them on their own prove ownership.

You know for what it's worth we talk about 'responsibility' all the time on this forum. We use the phrase 'dogs are for life' and we talk about them being our responsibility for the life of the pet. Here is an owner trying to show her responsibility toward her pet of 7 years and people are so quick to write off her responsibility. She didn't have the dog chipped. So what. It wasn't law when the pup was born was it? If it was t law then, is she legally obligated to have it chipped later or is it like in NSW where animals born prior to the introduction of microchipping didn't have to chip them. Was it sensible the dog wasn't chipped? Probably not. Would they have been able to contact the owner given she was overseas, even if he was chipped? There is a good chance they may not have been able to. So for this she deserves to lose her pet of 7 years because someone who has owned it for 9 days has become attached to it. Granted, they adopted it legally. It's no ones fault. But you can't tell me that the attachment they have formed after 9 days is as strong as the attachment the owner had for their dog, and the dog had for their owner, that was developed over the 7 years. What about the dog. Through no fault of its own it has been lost from the environment it had known for 7 years, possibly been traumatised through wandering and the pound process, and then it is put into an unfamiliar home environment.

I'm surprised the pound even rang to ask you, if the owners were angry? The pound just should have said no. How silly to even make the call "oh excuse me Dogmad, do you mind if we give these owners your number so they can abuse you?" Sounds ludicrous. It seems you are saying that education is needed for chips...going by that tactic, and in the same vein, isn't education also needed for the care of dogs? Sometimes it is just education and sometimes it may be a specific set of unusual circumstances that have developed. I'm not saying it is or isn't in the situation you spoke of but who are any of us to judge without facts.

I've never put collars on my dogs let alone have tags attached to a collar. Reading the comments in this thread makes me thank my lucky stars that my dogs have never been lost.

Thanks :) Yes, it's an enormous relief. We haven't stopped snuggling :D I feel a bit silly now after being such a drama queen in that other thread (Breeds Less Prone to Cancer). I'm sorry to have caused so much fuss and bother, but at the time I was really distressed. Hey, it's no big deal and the thread was actually good. I learnt that pugs are prone to certain cancers. It's hard not to feel stressed when you're battling a disease that can have dire consequences in our pets.

I can't imagine how hard this must be for you.

Sorry, just noticed this. That's great news and a relief for you I'm sure.

Someone may have picked the dog up whilst in the middle of a journey and then dropped the dog off at a pound or whatever at the end of the journey. It's very common.

Their rights by law are one thing but moral rights are another. Id rather live by values and morals. Using the law as a reason why the dog should not be returned is using the law as a scapegoat to defend selfishness. Morally the dog belongs to the original owner.

Yes, I put a bitch in for desexing and she had been desexed. Missy was unchipped, unmarked and unregistered. When the vets opened her up they discovered she had been done but it was messy and I think there was something left (I can't recall what it was now.... Maybe the uterine stump was excessive or something??) and so they tidied it up while they were there.

And as for bonding with the dog in 9 days. What of the owner who bonded with their pet over a 7 year period!

How long has Vic had mandatory microchipping? I've only ever adopted one dog from Victoria. That was 9.5 years ago. He was not chipped because it wasn't compulsory at the time. I chipped him after his adoption because NSW had had compulsory chipping for about 4 years at that time. My cat, Molly, was never chipped. She was born before compulsory chipping came in NSW. By law I did not have to chip her because she was born prior to its introduction. She died only a couple of years ago without ever being microchipped. I was well within the law. I often go away for lengthy periods and my animals are in the care of others. I trust my sitters however I too could have ended up in a similar situation to this woman. I can't imagine the mean spirited comments I would receive on this forum if it was me trying to claim back my beloved Molly. As for fault. I'm mystified why there has to be a 'fault' on anyone's behalf. I'm also amazed that people then judge openly on what they perceive is fault. I'm even more amazed, probably flabbergasted, that people are saying they would decide if the dog was well looked after or not before deciding they would give it back. By whose standards are we talking about here?! Seriously folks, what the hell is this world coming to! I'm not sure I'd come to threats to get one of my dogs back but I can tell you now that I would fight my hardest to get back any of my animals if they somehow ended up in another home without me personally giving them away!

We've had a range of presentations with Boof. He's had MCTs that present like a wart (which is what the new growth is liked on his neck) and others which had been more like skin tags and softer. We have also had one that was under the dermis and felt like a cyst to me but it wasn't round. It was more oval in shape. This one is round and doesn't seem attached to anything but it is hard to tell because of the position.

I'm so sorry Bindo. I hope they can find an answer for you. *cyber hugs*

I would return the dog because it would be the right thing to do. The new owners are acting very selfishly. The dog is morally owned by the other woman. Sure, legally no law has been broken but come on, who would keep the dog after the situation had been explained. We are not talking about a possession here, we are talking about a loved pet. If it were a pair of shoes them maybe it would be different.

Boof has two more lumps that have come up. One on his back paw and one on his neck. I can't get him to the vet until next weekend. With all that is happening here at the moment it is hard to coordinate things. Hopefully they're both nothing to worry about.

It's great to see everything going well Bindo. I am concerned we now might also have a potential MCT on Boof's foot. It was this thread that made me look closer. He has a round growth between his toes on one of his back paws and another lump that has come up on his neck. I'm hoping the paw is an interdigital cyst although it doesn't look like the others I have seen. There is no inflammation whereas every case I've seen of cysts there has been inflammation. What did Lucy's look like?