The Teacup Warrior

How do we know she lives next to whole families? I must have missed that part. Or don't singles and childless couples live in suburbia anymore? I was raised by a single-parent shift worker, and used to shift-work myself. Trust me, it ain't that hard. Good lord, you really can't win with some people. Ok, I'm walking - this thread seems to just be turning into pointless back-and-forth. Anyone who would like to continue discussing is welcome to PM me... I'm not sure the turn that the conversation is really adding to the thread.

I suggested moving. Apparently that's unrealistic. *shrugs* Hey, it's all groovy. De-barking for all. You've opened my eyes. The shame I'm feeling right now is unbearable. And my handle has nothing to do with "teacup" breeds. There go those assumptions again... Stop taking everything so seriously people - take a deep breath and smile. I promise, it feels good!

Lack of sleep is why sleeping pills were invented

Hey, I'm the first person to admit I don't know it all! And I would never criticise a dog owner for de-barking. I'm sure there are many loving owners out there who've had it done in what they feel is the dog's best interests. I just don't know that I agree with the procedure. Have I met every dog out there? No. I like to keep an open mind on things. I don't like to say "all" of something is bad. But as a rule, since people seem to want a definite answer, no, I don't understand the need to de-bark. Re the spay/neuter issue, one could argue that desexing reduces the risk of cancer, and therefore is necessary. Dogs don't commit suicide when they're homeless... but they do suffer, starve, get hit by cars, have horrible things done to them by teenagers (which I won't describe), get used as bait dogs in dog-fighting... I think if more dogs had early-age desexing, it would reduce the number of "oops" litters, BYBs and puppy farmers. That said, I don't know everything. Is anybody able to tell me why early-age desexing may not be good for the individual dog? (not being sarcastic, I would actually like to know).

There seems to be a lot of jumping to conclusions here. At no point did I say that people in suburbia shouldn't have dogs. If people can't deal with a barking dog, my suggestion would be that they find some other way to deal with their dissatisfaction. It's noise... it's not like living surrounded by killer bees. Noise can't hurt you. Unless there's some magical element to this dog's barking that I'm not aware of? Perhaps it's causing people to bleed from the ears? If that's the case, slap my wrist and call me a fool... There is no need for the dog to die just because it barks. There is always the option to move to a less suburban area... and no, I'm not saying the OP should do that, I'm just saying life is full of options. I don't think that my post was graphic. Perhaps I've been exposed to more distressing sights than others. Unfortunately, horrible things happen in the world. Brushing them under the carpet doesn't stop them from happening. The OP may choose to get her dog de-barked regardless of what I say- my opinion is totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. She may encounter negative reactions from other people who think it's cruel. Unfortunately, de-barking isn't viewed very favourably by a lot of people. Not everybody likes everyone else's opinions. It's not the end of the world. The OP will do what she wants in the end, and I'm not saying she can't. I wish that sharing "horror stories" of puppy mill de-barking were enough to frighten people off de-barking, but let's be honest - I'm an anonymous nobody here, just like everybody else, and I ain't that powerful. I'm not kidding myself here folks. There's been more positive encouragement of the OP having the procedure done than negative - as I said, my opinion changes nothing. I simply don't see why people are so eager to jump down each other's throats here when someone disagrees with them - everyone interprets what's said as if it's a personal attack on them, their mother, their children's children's children... and then it turns into World War 3. Can't we all mellow out a bit?

Of course I desex. Desexing has nothing to do with human convenience, and everything to do with preventing the euthanasia of homeless pets. I'm not opposed to necessary medical procedures like desexing... or cutting out tumours... or caesarians... anything like that. I am opposed to unnecessary medical procedures such as tail-docking, ear clipping, things of that nature. I hope that's cleared up any confusion on my viewpoints?

At the risk of repeating myself, my objection to de-barking is: at what point do we draw the line at modifying an animal's behaviour and body for the sake of human convenience? There are plenty of people who annoy me - I consider the sound of their voice a nuisance. I have bogan neighbours behind me who have screaming arguments at 2am in the morning, frequently. I don't think I have the right to silence them though. I roll over and put a pillow over my head.

I'm aware they were thinking of a properly done de-barking. If you bothered to look at my previous posts, I mentioned not knowing a vet who would conduct the procedure but hoping that they would thoroughly check out one who knew what they were doing. At no point did I imply that the OP was a puppy-miller. My inclusion of puppy-mill de-barking methods was in response to a query from another poster on this thread. Not sure where you're getting the "sweeping generalisation" thing from, I'm afraid.

Oh, and for anyone who was actually interested in knowing - puppy mills generally use a variety of methods to de-bark; most common are cutting or "shanking" the vocal cords (without anaesthetic, usually with a knife or screwdriver), heavy blows to the throat, or by ramming a metal pipe down the dog's throat. I'm not "hammering" anyone. I simply wonder at what point do we draw the line at modifying an animal's behaviour and body for the sake of human convenience? I live right next to two barking dogs, and I've never felt the need to whine about the noise - earplugs, turn up the stereo, get out of the house and do something else. Mind you, after being at the shelter, I barely even notice it when a dog barks anymore, I kind of just tune it out. I'm not a big fan of complainers, particularly if they're neighbours. My opinion is that if someone has the time to complain, they've got time to do something useful - like help fix the problem. Unfortunately, in this day and age people live in close proximity to one another. Some noise pollution as a result of that is inevitable. I don't understand why people get so worked up over a little noise (and this is coming from someone who has a neighbour who regularly has loud, obnoxious parties). People today just seem to have no tolerance for anything that they perceive to inconvenience them in the slightest way. Is it really that big a deal? Can't we all just get along for god's sake??? I mean, with all the war, genocide, rape, ethnic cleansing and generally horrible sh*t in the world, people would rather focus on petty carp like whether their neighbour's dog barks too much. I despair for the human race sometimes, I really do.

I know everyone here has different opinions, but I don't understand why some people here act so rudely towards others. It's pretty off-putting for newcomers to the board, to be honest. Yeah yeah, I know - "if you don't like it, leave" - I'm not getting all butthurt because someone I've never even met doesn't like something that I said. I just can't believe how much b*tchiness, sarcasm and aggressiveness comes from some of the posters here. We don't all have to agree, but surely we can at least be courteous - we're all supposed to be adults here after all. How is anybody meant to learn anything here??? It's kind of disappointing.

Then again, the OP did say they've tried medication to calm it as well. I dunno, I still don't like the concept but I do see where the OP is coming from. Too bad you can't just get rid of your neighbours! Or move somewhere isolated... I'd make sure any vet that was carrying the procedure really knew what the hell they were doing though... I can't think of any vet that I know who'd do it?

Call me old-school but I don't like the notion of de-barking (yeah, I know, I know... being put down for barking isn't fair to the dog either). Maybe I just have too many negative associations with it because of the de-barking that's done on a lot of dogs in puppy mills (again, I know there's a difference between properly-done de-barking by a vet and what puppy mill butchers do, don't jump down my throat anyone! If it's only barking with the OP isn't at home, maybe it's a problem with separation anxiety. Maybe it needs a home where it can be with someone who's home all day. Again, not saying that the owner ought to give up the dog rather than de-bark, but it is another option to consider. I suppose what I'm getting at is... is the dog barking because it's unhappy? De-barking it might fix the noise problem, but does that mean that the dog will still be unhappy? If so, then I'm not sure de-barking would be the best option... it'll just be unhappy at a quieter volume.

Plenty of rescue groups will take in strays directly off the street. Yes, they are required to hold them for X amount of days - rescue groups use that time to try to contact the original owner, see if the dog's microchipped etc; if the dog's not being cared for properly some rescue groups will ask if the owner would like to sign the dog over to the rescue organisation. If the dog's not claimed by X amount of days, the dog becomes the property of the rescue group and they're able to re-home. In the meantime, the dog is cared for by the rescue group, fed properly, given shelter and is wormed and flea'ed straight away. Even if the dog is re-claimed, generally the fine that's issued via the council serves as a good wake-up call for the owner to take better care of their dog.

Like the title says folks - if I'm aware of a person selling pups without microchips, who should I report it to? I've tried tracking down some info online and I believe I should be going to the council, but I'd like to see if anybody here has any additional suggestions. I should clarify, this is in relation to a number of "$50 puppy"-type of ads that I'm seeing in my local classifieds lately; I'm guessing that the majority are the result of a "whoops" litter from the family pet, however there is one ad I'm fairly certain is from a dodgy hydrobath operator who's been discussed on these forums before. On-topic responses only please guys - I don't want it to turn into one of those done-to-death arguments about whether people who bring home a free dog can afford to look after it properly or not...

I can relate - sometimes you do feel like giving up. That said, you have to remind yourself that you don't do it for the people - you do it to help the animals. I'd much rather be abused by somebody than feel like I was partly responsible for an animal getting hit by a car because I didn't have the guts to tell them that they were doing something wrong.

The current Qld legislation says that the dog has to be tethered on the back of a ute - it can't be left to ride loose. That said, a lot of dogs end up being hung and dragged if they fall off the back - some people are petitioning to make changes to the current rules; whether it'll happen or not, I don't know.

Also, she could tell the scabby teens which shelter the dog was being taken to. If they don't have the money to get it back, frankly - who cares? If they don't have the money to register a dog and care for it properly, they shouldn't own it. It's not like she's abducting the dog to hold it for ransom. I dunno, like I said - not everyone's going to agree. Not everyone's going to act the same way in a particular situation. If it were me, that's what I would have done - but then, as it has been pointed out to me by several people, I am a little crazy. Also very confrontational. I still don't think she could get in trouble for theft. I've seen plenty of irritated neighbours bringing their neighbour's dogs in when they've found them outside of the yard. Whether that's right or not, I'm not getting into. But nobody would consider that stealing - even though they know who the owner is and could have just put it back in the yard.

I didn't say she should impersonate a council officer. I said she should tell them the council told her to take it to a shelter. Hell, if the council can't come get it, why not ask the guy on the phone if she has permission to take it to a shelter? I'm sure he would say yes. I'm not trying to criticise, so please don't take it that way. I'm simply offering advice and information in the event that anyone here finds themselves in a similar situation in the future. As far as stealing the dog - it's only stealing if she takes it with the intent to keep it. The scabby teens said that their friend "gave" them the dog. They have no documentation or registration to prove it's theirs. And irregardless, the teenagers are in the wrong by leaving an unregistered dog in a public place (which they admitted to) - a dog which sounds like it's in definite need of medical care. I'm not saying she should have taken the dog. What I am saying is that if she wanted to, legally she she could not be charged with stealing. She's not taking the dog with intent to keep it. The animal is clearly neglected and as the OP describes it, was at risk of being hit by a car and a train on several occasions. She would have every right to remove the animal. Frankly, I could care less about the property rights of the teenagers. This dog is clearly being neglected - the focus should be on the dog's rights. It was left running loose in a public place, without food or shelter. Whether it was for a few hours or not is utterly irrelevant - doing that to an animal is actually a violation of animal cruelty laws. One could also argue that if the dog were aggressive, the teens could be held liable for public endangerment. Again, I don't want to get bogged down in legal semantics. I'm simply suggesting a course of action in the event of a similar situation. Not everyone here will agree with it - and hey, not everybody has to! I'm sure if ten board members were put in the same situation, everyone would act differently. My point is, there are resources in the Moreton Bay Council area outside of the RSPCA and the council. I'm just sorry that the OP spent 2 hours being d*cked around by the RSPCA and council with no result, when she was clearly trying to do the right thing and help the animal.

Hi Kirsty I'm usually just a lurker on these forums (I'm in the local pet rescue scene so I just like to visit the forums to keep up on the latest news in the dog world), but I joined up so I could shoot you a message. Sounds like we live roughly in the same area. Listen, in the event that you see the dog again (fingers crossed; sounds like those grotty teenagers are locals), I'd suggest you phone Peninsula Animal Aid. They're located in Clontarf (Redcliffe), only about 20 minutes drive from Narangba. Unlike the RSPCA, PAA is a no-kill shelter. I know that they're currently at full capacity with their dogs unfortunately - however if you visit their website, there's an after-hours mobile you can call (the lady is called Lynne, I believe - very no-nonsense but passionate about pet rescue and a huge dog lover). I'm sure Lynne would help you and would not fob you off like the council and the RSPCA did (who IMO are fairly useless). I understand you may not have wanted to get into an altercation with the teens by taking their dog if they were there... in a situation like that, I'd recommend bluffing and telling the teens that the council have instructed you to take the dog to the nearest shelter facility. If they tried to obstruct you, threaten to phone the police. They wouldn't want to tangle with that and would get out of your face pretty quickly. Also if memory serves, Narangba station has cameras, which is another deterrent in case they wanted to get nasty. Morally, they have no right to be owning that dog. From a legal perspective... well, there's no logical way you could get into trouble for taking the dog in this particular situation, I'll tell you that much. You're not a council representative, so technically you're not allowed to seize dogs. However: the dog is un-registered, unmicrochipped and is wandering loose in a public place, which means it can be impounded as a stray. Given that the dog had no registration or microchip, the teens have no legal way to prove that the dog is theirs. Any person whose dog is unregistered and is found wandering is subject to a hefty fine. The scabby teens can't be bothered to spend any money on the dog anyway, so they wouldn't pay to get the dog back. The dog would be held for the required number of days at the shelter, and would then revert to being the property of the relevant shelter. After which the dog can be desexed, given the necessary vet care, microchipped and re-homed to a place where it will actually be looked after and loved. Realistically, if you see that dog again and it has no tags or ID, there is nothing to stop you from picking it up and taking it somewhere and saying that you found it wandering - people do it all the time. You're not stealing the dog, and again - scabby teens have no proof that they own the dog. (Trying to not rant about their abhorrent lack of care for the dog and just keep this factual...) In the event that you're in a similar situation again, hopefully this might help?