dog_fan

How many regular Joe Blows would know to do this? Not many that I know of... T. I am sure their are plenty of people that check. I always offer my current M/ship card and the phone number of Dogs Queensland to check on anything they feel is of importance to them. Lots of people go onto list and ask questions as to "what to do when purchasing a pure bred" and I believe we give excellent advise. I am sure we all say do your homework and educated yourself first. For those that do not do their homework we can only offer sympathy. A card only states what club you belong to not the standards of practice that you engage in.

thank you, yes I saw the parents papers or papers I believed to be for the parents it wasn't until she'd been here awhile that we started thinking, she wasn't purebred (vet confirmed this down the track) but by then she was our dog and we loved her regardless. No nothing arrived when I tried to check with the breeder in case they sort of got"lost in the mail" they didn't respond to calls / texts / emails. even drove there once but no one answered the door. Yes, but did you ring Dogs Queensland and ask if these people were current members. Did you ask to see their current membership card ?. Did you go to dog shows and speak to other breeders to ascertain that these people were regular breeders ?. It would be really easy if all we had to do was check whether they were members of their state kennel club but that actually tells us very little about their ethics or their practices. Shame the kennel clubs can't assure the general public of the quality of all their members.

It is not legal to steal anyone's property and that includes dogs.

Very concerned. Its a Maremma almost fully recovered and I have 3 other Maremmas aged 5-8. So, good luck with that. No probs I have ways and means.

There's some very fancy footwork being done here. Lets have you actually address the issue raised in response to your calls for more moral behaviour though shall we? I can walk past your house for a week, see a dog with its leg in a sling, decide that it isn't being properly cared for according to my standards and take it. Well according to your take on appropriate behaviour, I can anyway. I don't need to know that its not your dog. I don't need to know how you are treating it and I certainly don't need to know that you have done nothing to exacerbate the dog's injury. Indeed, I don't need facts of any kind. All I need is my own subjective opinion on the issue and your argument is that my theft of a dog in your care is not only justified but necessary. After all, in 2012 there are no innocent bystanders. Is that how you really see such issues? I live across the road from a hospital. There are people all through the day on the footpath in slings, casts, crutches, wheelchairs, standing with a mobile drip as they have a smoke. You should abduct all of those people because they are being mistreated. Really. That's quite bizarre. You're trying to equate compassionate care with 'torture'. According to my values it is torture and I am going to steal the dog. How do you feel about that? You appear to have situational ethics.

Rubbish!!! First aid is one thing stealing is another. Also who is to prove whether someone has a current certificate or not. I do not want people with a lack of judgement and information making decisions on behalf of another when we have a system in place to manage those events. The RSPCA was called and deemed there was no illegality. If you don't like that complain through the appropriate channels do not steal someone's family pet when you do not have enough information to make a rational considered decision. Notwithstanding that stealing is illegal. Its not rubbish. Every school child knows its illegal to stand around and watch a fight. At least they should if the School Police Liason Officers have done their job. There is no such thing as an innocent bystander. Further there is no exclusion zone someone can place around themselves if they break the law, animal cruelty included. There are huge penalties for animal cruelty. Those collars are illegal in NSW, there's your precedent. Alternatively, just turn your head and look the other way. Whoever the neigbours are they're lucky they don't live next door to me. *ignore* You speak with such authority and what you say is totally wrong. I have no idea where you got your information from but I suggest that inciting people to break the law is much worse that putting a collar on a puppy to stop it being squashed by a car. Threatening to harm another as you have above is also a deplorable attitude and may even be against the law as well. I suggest you research further before you dig a bigger hole for yourself.

Bound to intervene legally???? I think not. A moral imperative is no excuse to break the law. Being a vigilante is illegal and nobody elected you as the moral police. Who said your values are the correct ones anyway? Today it is the theft of a dog, tomorrow what, maybe the beating of someone you think has wronged you, where does it stop? Today in 2012 there is no such thing as an innocent bystander. Its not limited to a moral imperative. It is the legal duty of those empowered to act, and that is just about everybody, to intervene when necessary. As an example, anyone with first aid qualifications must render assistance; that's the law. Or people could just sit on their a^$# like they used to. Not. Rubbish!!! First aid is one thing stealing is another. Also who is to prove whether someone has a current certificate or not. I do not want people with a lack of judgement and information making decisions on behalf of another when we have a system in place to manage those events. The RSPCA was called and deemed there was no illegality. If you don't like that complain through the appropriate channels do not steal someone's family pet when you do not have enough information to make a rational considered decision. Notwithstanding that stealing is illegal.

Disagree! The pup's hardly a few weeks old, and should have had supervised, intermittent training. I would've removed the whole dog. And that would be theft. Where do you get the idea you are above the law and can break it in your righteous indignation. What a cheek! Not in my value system. Our social responsibility and obligation to protect the weak and defenseless is precisely why the law exists. I don't care if they're mistreating; a puppy, their children, or bashing each others brains out, I am be bound to intervene in some manner. Bound to intervene legally???? I think not. A moral imperative is no excuse to break the law. Being a vigilante is illegal and nobody elected you as the moral police. Who said your values are the correct ones anyway? Today it is the theft of a dog, tomorrow what, maybe the beating of someone you think has wronged you, where does it stop?

Disagree! The pup's hardly a few weeks old, and should have had supervised, intermittent training. I would've removed the whole dog. And that would be theft. Where do you get the idea you are above the law and can break it in your righteous indignation. What a cheek!

Have you ever actually met a diagnosed hoarder? Or seen how the animals are kept? That term makes me prickle and often pops up in anti-private-rescue propaganda. Hoarding is an illness. And you have to be qualified to diagnose it, not just an armchair critic. A true collector isn't just keeping a couple of fosters and I think many carers would be mortified to think foster failure could even be considered a red flag for mental illness. Yes, I absolutely agree that rescues do need to keep an eyes on all policies and procedures. And yep I'm all too aware of how people react when you suggest they are letting the side down. People do not need to meet a diagnosed anything to understand the issues. However, yes I have witnessed this first hand, not that it matters. I object to anyone saying all rescue is good and that they cannot do better. That level of arrogance is mind boggling. Foster carers need support which includes an understanding of why they are fostering because some foster to meet their own needs not the dogs. Anyway seems to me some rescue is a closed shop with people protecting their own interests by personally attacking others to make their point. Which is very poor form and gives the impression there is something to hide.

I have seen on this forum a decided lack of insight in some quarters about who rescues, why they rescue and what measures should be used to determine success. I have seen a lot of heads being buried in the sand and a huge amount of pats on the back for what I believe to be poor practice. In most sectors these days people and organisations must really have their eyes open and be prepared to be critical of their own practices. However this is sadly lacking in some rescue organisations who when anyone criticises them they come back with personal attacks. Only when we are truthful can the dogs truly benefit.

What is your damage? Is it the whole of Rescue you dislike or do you just constantly allude to some groups? Every time an opportunity presents itself, you accuse Rescue of hoarding. Just wondering why you feel the need to put us all down here? Note the use of the word some. If the shoes fits etc

I am convinced some foster careers and some rescues are a front for hoarders.

AHave you been nominated the forum police?

Maybe try here as well http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/235262-going-to-vcat/page__view__findpost__p__5763298

I would also like to know this.

I take offence at the holier than thou attitude some rescuers have as it certainly does not help dogs

Seriously? The owner who will be living with the dig and paying for it should have no say? I would never ever get a dog from a rescue far too much non-common sense in that sector. From what I read in this forum I wonder if some rescues actually want to rehome dogs, sometimes it seems to me the word rescue is just another name for hoarding.

:rofl: Fools tend to show themselves up

It's a little disturbing that people concerned about the health and function of pedigree dogs are being labelled animal rights nutters. It is extremely disturbing and certainly gives the general public more cause for alarm. If the breeders of dogs, especially dogs that have extremes in their conformation, hide their heads in the sand then members of the public may think the fox is in charge of the hen house and ask for even more restrictions on breeder activities. It is shameful that people cannot see that the health and welfare of the dogs must be paramount and that dogs need to be able to function. If a bred cannot mate naturally nor give birth naturally without human intervention then without us the breed would die out. Most people think that is wrong and must be fixed. Most people want dogs to be able to be dogs and to do dog things like run and play and mate and give birth without human intervention.

The no right of appeal re RSPCA decisions is a critical issue that needs to be addressed. It is the only organisation that has policing powers that has no right of appeal or complaint. If a copper takes me aside and gives me a whack I can report him, if a government agency makes a decision I disagree with I can appeal it. Not so the RSPCA decisions. This is a fundamental issue that needs addressing.

And maybe this will be the only thing that saves some breeds. That there are dogs available for breeding that have not been bred for the show ring and may not have the serious faults we see today.

No disrespect intended but are you a specialised person who can proclaim Pekingese have bred true and have not changed substantially? Seems there are a lot of arm chair critics around you included

Here is the ukkc breed standard for Clumber Spaniels eyes Clean, dark, amber. Full light eyes highly undesirable. Acceptable to have some haw showing but without excess. Free from obvious eye problems. The extreme could be that there was excess haw showing

There was a good discussion on DOL about the development of the Pekingese breed. With interesting references to the original 'standard' set down by the Chinese Empress for the specific household lifestyle ]that the dogs were to lead. The processes at the Westminster Show didn't disqualify Malachy for any feature that would have impeded his health or functioning.....within such a lifestyle. Which was why I was curious (& may never know), what feature of the Crufts Pekingese was seen by an examining vet to fall into at category. We expect different things from dogs in these modern times. Probably different from a Chinese Empress I'll wager. We really do expect dogs to be healthy and to be able to come on a walk with us and to be able to see properly and to not need to be carried everywhere. We have modern appliances that keep our feet and beds warm so I think dogs don't need to do that any more, although mine still want that job :)