PaddyForever

This does all sound like the aging process- cruel though it can be. Sometimes, it's as though we now have a different dog, isn't it? And indeed, sometimes, we seem to lose them before we actually do. People can go that way, too. My Grandmother has dementia now. Sometimes she knows us, sometimes she doesn't. Sometimes, she sits and stares into space, and I wonder where she is...Other times, she chats away like a budgie. She can be happy one day, sobbing the next. Sadly, our dogs can be similar as they age. My lovely old boy, Paddy, sounded very much like your dog. He, too, was almost deaf, and starting to go blind. He didn't have HD, but he had a bulging disk in his back, that was affecting a nerve, and made walking difficult. Sometimes, he was grumpy because he was old, and sore...I cared for him, while he still had good days, until there were no more good days...I knew when the time had come for that ultimate last act of kindness, and you will, too... Thinking of you through this difficult time...

I agree with this. And I have very close family ties with the police. Still, I can't believe they let a child enter the house at all- how traumatic, to witness something like a raid on your home, parents possibly being arrested, etc... much less, running in with a police dog loose...!I doubt that the dog will be removed from duty,though, much less PTS. As others have commented, he held the boy, helping to defend his handler from what he most likely perceived as a threat. No doubt, the child would have at least called out to his parents, even if he didn't scream, and was most likely panicked. Even his tone of voice could have sounded like a threat to a police dog. And when they are off-lead, they are on-duty...

I've answered this elsewhere, but it's so sad, not to believe this fairy story...And sadly, it is just that, and poor old Granny is just after milk money. RIP, poor dead babies... no horrible girls or lying Grannies at The Bridge.

Oh, this would have been so wonderful, if true! Sadly, I also think they are the wrong puppies, the colours do look wrong. Grandma's just after milk money!

Disgusting individual. Hope he serves his full, if rather pitiful sentence. I wonder if he was sentenced for stealing the dog, or killing her? That poor couple- what a horrible way for your 12 yr old dog's life to end... I would never get over it, myself. And I'm worried about what this sick individual will do next...I guess, there's always the chance that he just let the dog go, and it fell from the bridge... but really, what dog is usually that foolish...I hope this guy doesn't move on to bigger targets...Hopefully, someone will treat him like a dog in prison...that's a happy thought... :D RIP, darling Jess.

Horrible. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible story, horrible man, horrible, flimsy single charge of cruelty!!! Why not a charge for the original kicking/maiming of the dog, and at least another for the drowning?! How awful that the killing of an animal in such a way doesn't seem to warrent a charge? I hope this guy gets the max sentence, before he gets out and loses his temper again, with another poor animal, or person...Also, my vet has performed a couple of caesar's on my dogs on the weekend, including one on a Saturday, at midnight. I actually don't know of any vet without an after-hours emergency phone number. Nor do I want to. And would I ever have not taken my dogs to the vet, given the cost of such an opp on the weekend? Never, ever, never. I'm all for the sentence fitting the crime, but this guy is just a waste of space on the planet. Disgusting creature. :D Sleep well, poor little dog. No pain at The Bridge.

Jolly lucky for Willie that they spotted him! Bit silly of the owner to put him down on a ferry without a lead on- but we all make silly mistakes, I guess. I wouldn't dare do that with my dogs, though! But then again, I own a Golden Retriever and a Gordon Setter, and they'd be in the water in a second. And my Frenchie would dive in after them- and sink to the bottom!!!

*Facepalm* My initial post was relating to people signing e-petitions, not people commenting on these stories on the forums. If your response was not addressing my post (or the issues relating to e-petitions I brought up), perhaps you should not have quoted me. Sorry, I had actually gone a little off thread, I admit, but I was talking about my post that you had replied to. I do know that the original topic was regarding the e-petitions, but many of the comments above mine had been discussing the events concerned, themselves. The person commenting just above your original quote, had been quite upset, as had many others, by the stories involved. When you have people commenting on those topics, and then you come in with a negative comment actually ABOUT the e-petitions, it can get quite confusing. I do apologise if no insult was intended. I myself, find it hard to differentiate between e-petitions and sites such as DOL, where we at least have some chance to 'have our say' re events such as those talked about here. Although, I guess that in e-petitions, our names may be added, but our comments as such, may never actually be HEARD. But, for many of us, e-petitions/commenting on forums such as these, are the only way we know HOW to protest. And sometimes, those protests can make a difference. Wasn't it put down to the wave of protests over Facebook and in other forums, that the police involved were so diligent in finding that young girl/puppy drowner? Maybe in an e-petition, if we had just ticked a box next to 'Do you believe this girl should be caught?', instead of the more personal act of actually DISCUSSING the particulars of the event, and our thoughts on them, then there would not have been anywhere near the collective outcry that ensued...Sorry again, if I did go off the subject YOU were discussing...

I agree. Debating Capital Punishment is probably going to lead to another slanging match, since it's something else most people have strong views on. I'm going to sign off this thread just by saying that we can all get a little carried away debating a topic we have strong feelings for, and sometimes we can all say things 'off the cuff', without thinking them through. Glad they found this girl. Hope she's punished/counselled adequately so that this horrible act doesn't lead to something worse...Farewell, all...

So very sorry to hear of your loss. My first dog was a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, called Elton John! He was a darling...Passed aged 9 1/2 from heart-failure, too. They are such a lovable breed. My brother still owns Cavs, now. Would your boxer be up to having a new puppy friend one day? If not, at least you have your lovely cats to help keep him company. My thoughts are with you. Sleep well, Mozart and Beethoven.

Obviously you did not read read my post very well, my initial post was in criticism of the petition (not the thread or any of the people commenting in it) and I do not see how I could possibly have been any more clear about that That aside, I'd suggest you go back to read that second link; "helping" where no one really benefits is simply a waste of time that could be better spent actually working towards improvement of the situation. How you choose to help is up to you, I just don't agree with convincing people to sign e-petitions when the reality is, they do not lead to positive change (despite what they claim- the sites that host these petitions will tell you otherwise but when there's paid advertising involved, I think closer scrutiny is definitely required). Sorry, You must have miss-read me. I don't remember saying anything about 'signing e-petitions.'!!!I was talking about discussing current events, sharing our thoughts, etc. Power in numbers and all that. Popular opinion can turn a tide, you know. And this is the first place that many people read about events involving an animal that we all care a lot for. Discussing how we can help is the first move towards anything, isn't it? And I really don't mean to be rude, although I know I'm going to sound it. I did read everything you said perfectly well. I just didn't like it! Perhaps you could have added a little more advice that didn't sound so much like criticism. I may just be paranoid, though...! :D

Well... All of this is getting pretty heated, isn't it? I'm afraid you've landed yourself in it a bit this time, Moselle. Jack the Ripper may or may not have been a rapist. Still, the acts that he commited were far and beyond the average murderer's acts, were obviously sexual in nature, and hardly a fitting punishment for a child! Are we getting to the stage where we should punish children for what they MAY become?! How then, should we punish adult purpetrators of atrocious acts? Actually, don't tell me, I'm a little afraid to ask...!

That child is nowhere near old enough to have endured any such mental scarring and guess what? even if that was so you would think that she of all people would have even more compassion for defenceless animals instead of being such a despicable being. Can't find it in me to make any excuses for that maggot. I'm guessing forgiveness and trying to understand others isn't a part of your ideal world either? Suggesting that you hope a child gets raped and brutally murdered has got to be one of the most utterly disgusting things I have ever had the misfortune to read on this forum Rape was never something that I wished upon her so please do not put words in my mouth; I may have mentioned Jack the Ripper but I was not thinking of rape as I am not of the knowledge that Jack the Ripper was a rapist. I said that in a moment of total disgust and despair so hence I do not wish for her to be mutilated which is what JTR was known for; However, I am not ashamed to say that I hope her life is one of unhappiness and total misery. As a clinical psychologist I have dealt with all walks of life and know only too well that not all cases of animal cruelty are due to a dysfunctional upbringing or some sad occurance, some people are just born plain evil so therefore I am beyond trying to constantly make excuses for such atrocities because more often than not there are NO EXCUSES! The perpetrators are simply evil and a waste of oxygen and that is the tragic part! How very scary to let you near people as a psychologist, when you condone throwing children/kids into a river, or condemning them to a life of hell. I don't wish to jump on someone for having an honest opinion, but I agree with this last comment here. I have had counselling myself, and have been affected by my upbringing. I would certainly never consider harming an animal/person, or ever derive pleasure from doing so. And that includes the child/children in this case, 'damaged' as they may be...Also, I would hope that, given my problems, you wouldn't consider me a waste of oxygen when counselling me, and that you would show compassion and understanding for the reasons behind what has made me who I am...What do you consider too damaged, and when do you make that call? Pls don't get me wrong again. I am still very angry at this girl and believe she should be punished for her actions. Appropriately.

Sorry, I can't afford to fly over to Singapore and protest in person, so this form of expressing disgust is all that I have. Sorry to be so 'lazy.' If you feel commenting is so inefectual, why did you bother? At least we can share our abhorance of acts like these, and feel a little better that there are decent people in this world?(And unfortunately, I'm far off feeling 'Good'!) Or would you rather only read about these horrible atrocities and be left wondering if the world has completely gone to hell? I won't be looking at the pics, either. I will just hug my dogs. , those of you who are not sighing with the tedium of this post... There's plenty that people can do to help without flying to Singapore to camp out in front of the Judge's house. Also, despite what you misread, I did not suggest that sharing your feelings on the matter here was ineffectual- your feelings (or anyone else's here, for that matter) are likely not going to help any dogs in Singapore but if it makes you feel better, well, that's great. What I said (take a moment to re-read my post, please) was that signing online petitions (unless those petitions are set up by Government as a means of assessing public opinion) does not achieve anything. You could argue that it draws attention to a cause but then, creating an informative website that outlines the issue and provides the public with all the facts is a far better method of drawing publicity (sans the feel-good factor of "helping" by signing something, of course). You might want to have a read of this: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/petition/internet.asp And maybe this.. http://www.snopes.com/info/glossary.asp#slack I did read your post quite well, and didn't misread anything. I didn't see any alternative suggestions to our comments on that first post, only critisism at our commenting in the first place. I did take a look at the first site you suggested. Didn't bother with the other. The basic gist of the first, seems to be that the on-line petition is an ineffectual phenomenon. I really don't believe that. All forums open to public discussion/sharing of info, have the power to be very effectual. What leads to the interest in creating a website? Anything that gets info around, that's what. Also, do you think that Youtube is ineffectual? It did o.k. for Susan Whatshername. Most sites that get a lot of public attention, will end up having at least a small effect on changing things for the better, if the moral majority care enough to be outraged. If we can't help prevent attrocities from happening, and, unfortunately, we know that we can't, at least said outrage could have some effect on how they are dealt with. Especially in countries where our patronage is valued...I agree with starting a web-site, though, or in having involvement in one, if you know how to get one started, or if not, at least participate. Maybe discussing that on this forum may lead to something...

With our council, an application for a permit costs $65, which is payable with the application, and regardless of whether it is successful, or not. I have been told that the inspector who visited me, has since left the shire, and that he had made life a bit difficult for everyone, and that comes from the council rep who visited me to give me my current permit. Although the first inspector had the discression to grant the permit before taking it to council, he chose to forgo that option. I could understand it, if someone was not caring for their animals, but in my case, it was so the opposite...Just because of that single complaint...I guess you can always take the chance and try to register an extra animal, without the permit, and hope they don't notice the others you already have, but it would not really be legal. As a rep for the program I have mentioned, I feel it is my duty to be a responsible owner, and to promote that. I once had a problem, that when on a rural property, my neighbour's dogs came up as registered to my property, and I had to prove they weren't mine, before they would add my new puppy, and that was with my dogs fitting in to the permit I already had. I just wanted to register the puppy! I currently have a really good relationship with our local laws officer, which is a good thing...

Kirislin you are right. The person in question may not have endured the war in general but she has been raised by people who have, in an environment where genocide was enacted upon a population of the same country because they didn't have the same belief system, because they were different from the other. A dog is of no value in a society like that. A goat or sheep would be. Chickens and ducks would, but not a dog, an animal that costs money to feed and brings nothing to the table except a financial drain. An animal that is easy to acquire and just as easy to be rid of. That is the world this child has been raised in. Clearly what she has done is totally unacceptable and probably so even to her peers and maybe even her parents. Perhaps these children were charged with the task on drowing the puppies, hence the fact that they were in a bucket in the first place. The fact that they made a game of it is something that certainly indicates that things are not right in their world. And maybe they would get into severe trouble if their parents were to have found out. But I find the attitude of those who want to inflict a violent revenge of these perperators equally distrurbing. They talk of a world gone mad and yet they throw petrol on the fires of hatred. Is that really going to help??? I doubt it. It would only help to fuel the hatred that is so instilled in this world already. I'm all for justice. I'm all for being held accountable. I don't believe that people should get off from these types of things with a slap on the wrist. No, not every damaged person is able to be rehabilitated. Actual most cannot be. In the half centuary I've been on this planet I've seen things I will not speak of. It's made me cynical at times but it hasn't turned me into a person with a mob mentality. I agree with all of this. Very well said, Liz T. A totally disturbing story with a very sad and scary view of the world we live in.

Hi, How old is Banjo? A young dog should have less excersize, of course, due to growing bones, but most dogs will not USUALLY overdo the swimming. That being said, I have owned a couple of water-mad Goldens...!Still, most dogs will USUALLY head for shore when they tire. I'd hate to advise you of this, though, and have Banjo drown, or you drown trying to save him! Banjo's recall really needs to be better before you risk letting him off the lead, esp with other dogs/people around. How is his basic obedience, in general? He is probably whining with both excitement, and a bit of desperation to keep swimming, as he tires. He also may be trying to avoid coming back to shore for fear that that would be the end of the fun, and that you may not let him out again. Quite a few episodes of recalling him, and then letting him return to the water, on-lead so that you can control him, may help him to realise it's not always the end when you call him back to you. Good luck!

Sorry, I can't afford to fly over to Singapore and protest in person, so this form of expressing disgust is all that I have. Sorry to be so 'lazy.' If you feel commenting is so ineffectual, why did you bother? At least we can share our abhorance of acts like these, and feel a little better that there are decent people in this world?(And unfortunately, I'm far off feeling 'Good'!) Or would you rather only read about these horrible atrocities and be left wondering if the world has completely gone to hell? I won't be looking at the pics, either. I will just hug my dogs. , those of you who are not sighing with the tedium of this post...

How horrible. Obviously, the experts thought they had no other choice. It does sound terrible, but I agree with it being better than a prolonged death. Pity something instantaneous could not have happened. It would have been so awful for those involved. Swim free for eternity, Mr/Mrs whale.

You said it. What a total prat. Not exactly the way to try and impress someone- by beating up their dog. Sounds like he needs a psych assesment, if you ask me.

Agree with you - police don't have time to wait until a tranquiliser starts to work - they want quick and effective control. These dogs would probably not be able to be re-homed due to their upbringing. Pitty's are medium sized, but I get the American Dogs magazine and the Pitbulls that are advertised in that magazine are just amazing - they have been bred to be these enormous oversized dogs, nothing like the standards for an APBTl. Oversized heads, massive square shoulders, enormous thick necks and much taller. When you see these APBTs in the magazine you would seriously wonder if they are one and the same breed. A few years ago, a friend of our's son got into some trouble with stolen car parts or something and the police went around with a search warrant. Their Rotty was out the back and wouldn't let the police into the back shed and they were told to gather the dog up or they would shoot it I don't think a dog's well being within reason is allowed to interfere with a criminal investigation. Fiona ;) Don't get me wrong. I come from a law inforcement background, and have the utmost respect for the police and more reason than many for wanting them kept safe. A stun-gun just seems a strange weapon to use on a dog, possibly unreliable, and a bit brutal. There is usually some homework done prior to a raid, and I am surprised at the weapon of choice. And I agree that if these dogs were taught to attack and owned by scum, their temperaments may not be such that they could be re-homed. I still think it's sad that they copped this lot in life... Also, many breeds have the instinct to defend owner and property, and could still be a decent family pet. And I don't trust any media report that states the breed of a dog, at least until I've seen a pic or footage of the dog. The media want to get their report in, and don't usually take too much time in verifying the breed of dog involved. And too many people see a large dog that COULD BE a Pit Bull, and label it such. No tears for the scum involved, but I am sad for these dogs, whatever their breed/s.. Go our Aussie police officers. I am glad they arrested this low-life.

Don't know quite what to make of this. If the raid was planned, surely the police knew about the dogs? Had they planned to use the stun-guns on the dogs, I wonder? Surely not? Why not a tranquiliser gun? I guess a stun-gun was better than a real rifle, though. Hope the dogs didn't have to go through the same ordeal when the police returned today? Hopefully, someone had taken them in? After all, any dog should be forgiven for trying to protect it's owner and territory, surely? Poor doggies Hope they get a nice new owner, if this low-life is going to jail.

I was thinking the same thing. Not going to marinate too well through all the cat hair and skin! Mentally disturbed, definitely! I agree. SICK, SICK, SICK. Mentally disturbed, AND stupid! What a combo...!

I disagree with the new laws. Doesn't mention anything about a temperament test! This is for a dog that has no collar and no chip. Don't forget, collars fall off, can be taken off by other people, and chips can get missed. "Clause 23 inserts new sections into the Act that allow for Councils to destroy a dog that is not registered and the owner is not identifiable, that is at large and that is reasonably believed to have caused or is likely to cause an offence under section 29 (attacking or biting a person or animal, or rushing at or chasing any person). If all of these preconditions are met, Councils may destroy the dog no sooner than 48 hours after a record is made by an authorised officer." So, from what I gather from the above quote, if the council thinks the dog may attack or rush at a person or animal if it were lose, then they can to destroy it within 48hours. Keep in mind, to get to this point, they would already have the dog in custody. Why can't they just keep it for the 8 days. It can't do any harm if it is already locked up! Too many ifs, thinks and mays for my liking! So, what IF the chip is missed when the dog is scanned. Hi- I hope by 'above quote', you aren't quoting me, as my quote is 'the above quote' here, and has been used again in reff to these new laws! What I said was that I hadn't disagreed with 'the main gist' of the new laws, but I wanted to know how they would clarify them, i.e, what would be the criteria for considering a dog as 'likely to attack'? I also commented about the lack of time allocated to said dogs, and the high price of the fines involved, so obviously I am not 'all for', these new laws, either. Just wanted to clarify that! I personally think that wandering dogs should be collected by council, for their own welfare, but enough time allocated to locate the owner. I think dogs, and cats, should be microchipped, to HELP identify said owners, remembering that it may very well have been the BREEDER who had the animal microchipped. If responsible, they should have a record of the buyer. Dangerous dogs, who are menacing people or property, should be captured and contained, and again, enough time allocated to find the owners, as there could be many reasons as to why a wandering dog could exhibit 'dangerous' behaviour, through fear, maltreatment, illness, etc. And I know that not all points were covered by the quoting of the laws in the original quote. I do think that people should be held more accountable for the welfare of their pets, and the welfare of the general public, though. Sometimes, a dog could be wandering for a genuine reason, but the irresponsible owners give us all, and sometimes, our breeds, a bad name. Something that is not discussed enough, are the silly laws that govern the numbers of dogs that we are allowed to keep in certain areas. I have had to get several excess animal permits, but a lot of people would be afraid to apply for them, in case they got knocked back, and then receieved a council visit...This puts some people off registering their extra dog/cat, and therefore, perhaps loathe to collect them from a shelter, as they would have to admit the ownership of an unregistered animal, and cop the fines. Of course there should be limits, but two dogs and two cats, is not enough for the commited animal owner, esp one involved in showing, obedience, etc, and could even promote the practise of 'retiring' aging dogs, to make way for the new. Is it NSW who doesn't police numbers, as long as animals are well kept and cared for? No, by above quote I meant the quote above where I was typing. The part with quotation marks. That quote was from the Research Brief for the new laws. Of course, dogs should not roam. However, their should be enough time for their owners to claim them from the pound. With ACO's picking up strays and fining people for walking their dog's offlead in onlead areas, well, I think if they did their job better in the first place, people would be more compliant and there may not have been any need for these new harsh laws. The council in my area does not do anything much unless an actual complaint is made. I have never heard of them fining or warning anyone for walking their dog off lead. Really annoys me, lots of offlead dogs in this area. I wonder if they will all of a sudden get a new energy now and actually do the job they are supposed to do. It wouldn't surprise me, much more rewarding for the council now! I don't really see a problem with people having to get excess animal permits. Some people have far too many animals and do not look after them correctly. I have not had a problem getting extra dog permits. Anyway, the law is in now so we shall just have to put up with it for the moment. I haven't had too much of a problem either, with excess dog permits, but I was knocked back once, due to having had a barking dog complaint on record, at the property for which the permit would be issued. That complaint was due to my old dog having had a stroke, and crying a lot, despite all attempts to rectify the situation, and speaking to all my neighbours BEFORE a complaint was lodged. The poor old boy settled down after approx a fortnight, but my neighbour, who I had explained the situation to, and who had sympathised with me, and had sworn her 'budgie was louder' than my dog, had already found the time to put a complaint in writing. The inspector who visited, unannounced, did not see(or rather, hear!) a problem, really, but the local council thought that they would be remiss in granting the permit, because I had already had ONE complaint. I have discussed this issue elsewhere. I rectified the situation by moving later, and have not had a problem with excess permits since. I agree, of course, with some regulation of numbers, but it is a pity that a 'puppy farm,' as such, can keep several hundred dogs on a property that they have a pre-existing dog permit for, and a person in a residential area, even with a 1/4 acre block like we have currently, has to apply for a permit to keep a third dog. These permits are reliant on your neighbours' approval, and council's agreement. As a small-time breeder, I am also very attached to my dogs. I do not own 'breeders', therefore, I would like to keep my dogs as they age, and own a younger dog or two. As I have said before, I have been a rep for the Responsible Pet Ed Program Of Vic, and need my dogs for the program, too. I am an obedience instructor and trial competitor, and my dogs are very well socialised and cared for. We are on the lookout for property zoned rural, where we will be very happy with a 5 dog limit. It's just sad that one complaint can threaten a responsible owner's permission to keep that extra dog. And I do know a lot of people frightened to try to register that third dog...I am very much for responsible ownership, but I think NSW has a better arangement, with no limit on no's, as long as animals are well-cared for. Surely, somewhere in the middle could be an acceptable compromise? I don't intend to own a houseful of dogs/cats!!!Also, if laws are never challenged by the people they affect, then they would never be changed, would they?!!! Sorry, all a bit , I know, I do tend to get a bit carried away...!

I disagree with the new laws. Doesn't mention anything about a temperament test! This is for a dog that has no collar and no chip. Don't forget, collars fall off, can be taken off by other people, and chips can get missed. "Clause 23 inserts new sections into the Act that allow for Councils to destroy a dog that is not registered and the owner is not identifiable, that is at large and that is reasonably believed to have caused or is likely to cause an offence under section 29 (attacking or biting a person or animal, or rushing at or chasing any person). If all of these preconditions are met, Councils may destroy the dog no sooner than 48 hours after a record is made by an authorised officer." So, from what I gather from the above quote, if the council thinks the dog may attack or rush at a person or animal if it were lose, then they can to destroy it within 48hours. Keep in mind, to get to this point, they would already have the dog in custody. Why can't they just keep it for the 8 days. It can't do any harm if it is already locked up! Too many ifs, thinks and mays for my liking! So, what IF the chip is missed when the dog is scanned. Hi- I hope by 'above quote', you aren't quoting me, as my quote is 'the above quote' here, and has been used again in reff to these new laws! What I said was that I hadn't disagreed with 'the main gist' of the new laws, but I wanted to know how they would clarify them, i.e, what would be the criteria for considering a dog as 'likely to attack'? I also commented about the lack of time allocated to said dogs, and the high price of the fines involved, so obviously I am not 'all for', these new laws, either. Just wanted to clarify that! I personally think that wandering dogs should be collected by council, for their own welfare, but enough time allocated to locate the owner. I think dogs, and cats, should be microchipped, to HELP identify said owners, remembering that it may very well have been the BREEDER who had the animal microchipped. If responsible, they should have a record of the buyer. Dangerous dogs, who are menacing people or property, should be captured and contained, and again, enough time allocated to find the owners, as there could be many reasons as to why a wandering dog could exhibit 'dangerous' behaviour, through fear, maltreatment, illness, etc. And I know that not all points were covered by the quoting of the laws in the original quote. I do think that people should be held more accountable for the welfare of their pets, and the welfare of the general public, though. Sometimes, a dog could be wandering for a genuine reason, but the irresponsible owners give us all, and sometimes, our breeds, a bad name. Something that is not discussed enough, are the silly laws that govern the numbers of dogs that we are allowed to keep in certain areas. I have had to get several excess animal permits, but a lot of people would be afraid to apply for them, in case they got knocked back, and then receieved a council visit...This puts some people off registering their extra dog/cat, and therefore, perhaps loathe to collect them from a shelter, as they would have to admit the ownership of an unregistered animal, and cop the fines. Of course there should be limits, but two dogs and two cats, is not enough for the commited animal owner, esp one involved in showing, obedience, etc, and could even promote the practise of 'retiring' aging dogs, to make way for the new. Is it NSW who doesn't police numbers, as long as animals are well kept and cared for?