dog_fan

Loved enough to be Killed you mean? Is killing a dog who cannot make you a few $$$$s anymore doing the right thing? Is killing a dog because a new baby is in the house or it digs holes or it barks or any other reason doing the right thing? People kill dogs for many reasons none are worse than the other and often pts is the only realistic option. There are worse things than dead for some dogs. If there is a dog that is barking all the time and digging holes, it means one thing, you have not given it time and training. This is not the dog's fault but your own. Really? Great to see you have all the answers and can do a behavioural assessment over the net. So what your saying is the dog was born like that, with behavioural issues? They can be

Loved enough to be Killed you mean? Is killing a dog who cannot make you a few $$$$s anymore doing the right thing? Is killing a dog because a new baby is in the house or it digs holes or it barks or any other reason doing the right thing? People kill dogs for many reasons none are worse than the other and often pts is the only realistic option. There are worse things than dead for some dogs. If there is a dog that is barking all the time and digging holes, it means one thing, you have not given it time and training. This is not the dog's fault but your own. Really? Great to see you have all the answers and can do a behavioural assessment over the net.

Loved enough to be Killed you mean? Is killing a dog who cannot make you a few $$$$s anymore doing the right thing? Is killing a dog because a new baby is in the house or it digs holes or it barks or any other reason doing the right thing? People kill dogs for many reasons none are worse than the other and often pts is the only realistic option. There are worse things than dead for some dogs.

A great post that explains the issue very well. To be honest, I can't fathom why it is so offensive to some in this thread. Should nothing ever change in the world of breeding? Is breeding dogs so perfect that nothing should ever be considered or even discussed lest it upset some? To be fair, I can understand that some think they are forever under attack regardless of what they do though but the reactions in this thread work against them and simply reinforce poor perceptions. I agree Crisovar, personally I find the term 'furbaby' far more offensive than 'pet quality'. Although I agree with the sentiment you have expressed about the term 'furbaby', the term 'pet quality' isn't offensive, but it may be sending a negative message about the product (in this case a puppy). Whereas the term 'furbaby' gives another message all together in my view. Until this thread I have never been aware of any need to change the description of a pet quality pup. Resistant to change? well when it is change simply for the sake of appeasing the sensibilities of a couple of people on an internet forum, then yes. My pups are not a product and I have never found any need to market them. Happy, healthy typical pet pups in loving appreciative homes do that for me. Change for the sake of change No not change for changes sake. Change because the environment is changing. I think a more strategic look at the environment rather than a personal one might mean breeders start to work together and push the animal rights agenda back.

In every business I have been involved in we had focus groups where we canvassed the consumers to get their views of our product and whether our marketing campaign was getting the message we wanted across. We would have been very foolish indeed to just use our ideas and spend millions on advertising if it was not going to get our message across to the right market segment. Like it or not, consumers are quite sophisticated when they are purchasing anything and I think registered breeders should pay heed to feedback about how their product is perceived, especially when there is growing opposition to that product. Most companies now have changed how they operate and what core messages they have because times are changing and if they want to remain relevant and profitable then they need to change to meet market expectations. If they don't they will lose profitability and market share and eventually they won't exist.

The RSPCA is a not for profit organisation so the company defamation restrictions would not apply to them. Here is the info from here: Who can sue? Under the old system of individual state laws, almost anyone or any organisation or company could bring an action for defamation. However, under the Uniform Defamation Law, corporations with 10 or more employees cannot sue. However, be warned that individuals or groups of individuals employed by or associated with that corporation - such as company directors, CEOs or managers - can still sue if they are identified by the publication. Not-for-profit organisations can still sue for defamation, no matter how many employees or members they have.

I think both can be sued, the blog/web site owner especially so if they had been made aware of the defamatory post/s and did not remove them.

Anyone can say anything as long as it's the truth. Obviously the RSPCA won the case because there was proof the information published was false.

If the new definition of a puppy farmer is one of "any premise/person who has ever sold a puppy" then that means all Dogs Vic registered breeders are now puppy farmers? Gosh who would have seen that coming. I wonder how the registered breeders who supported Oscars Law or who support animal rights now feel? I wonder if they will still be allowed to participate given they are now the evil puppy farmers. This will do nothing to stop dogs being treated badly nor will it stem the tide of unwanted or abandoned dogs nor will it reduce dog bites. I now wonder what this law is really supposed to do?

Obviously people in NSW should not use e-collars to snake proof their dog given it is illegal. I wonder if the RSPCA is interested in the inhumane killing of snakes?

so shock the dog to try to teach it to leave the snake alone, good luck finding enough snakes to put near your dog to teach it that lesson, and then leave your dogs free to roam so they can avoid the snakes. Good thinking there. Actually it is good thinking. There are trainers who have snakes for the purpose of proofing dogs. The snakes do not need to be venomous for the proofing to work and it does work. I would definitely use an e-collar if it meant my dog would actively avoid snakes. My preference is to have a living breathing dog avoids snakes that and snakes that are allowed to go about their business.

Seriously, pay heed to your statement "Look twice. See more than the obvious." because you are missing the implications.

I am surprised that people are talking about breaking the law on a public forum when there are more humane ways to deal with the issue. Dogs can also be snake proofed using an e-collar. If I was in an area that had snakes I would snake proof my dogs and not leave them penned where they had no way of escape. But I suppose each to their own managing the issue, hopefully using legal means.

I thought it is illegal to kill snakes?

I didn't say that science doesn't cause problems. I'm saying that it also finds solutions and in the entire course of history (while we're looking at ALL the data) it would be difficult to conclude that science was responsible for our issues (as opposed to "greed", "corruption" etc) and that we weren't better off as a result of science. But to say that science causes prisons, serious mental health problems, poverty and war is indefensible. Had I said that you would be correct Fair enough but you're going to have to unpack your own argument, as it stands it's not holding much water. It would take a lot of license to argue that atrocities of war (to name an example) were committed "in the name of science" but maybe you have better examples? You are indeed missing the point. Science is not the cause but some scientists are opportunistic and use war, mental institutions, the poor, and the displaced as subjects in their research. People who have less opportunity to give informed consent and therefore bring the individual scientists and the profession as a whole into disrepute.

I didn't say that science doesn't cause problems. I'm saying that it also finds solutions and in the entire course of history (while we're looking at ALL the data) it would be difficult to conclude that science was responsible for our issues (as opposed to "greed", "corruption" etc) and that we weren't better off as a result of science. But to say that science causes prisons, serious mental health problems, poverty and war is indefensible. Had I said that you would be correct

So a handful of scientists colours your entire view of science? Even though it was scientists who first started ringing the alarm bells on smoking, and who later were able to satisfy everyone (except the tobacco companies) that smoking was harmful? If you're going to pick a handful, why not the handful that benefited humanity? I take all data into account when assessing a situation. I am not sure it is only a handful of scientists by the way, I think that is an understated amount. I used the example to illustrate why public scepticism of scientists exists. If scientists choose to ignore this then so be it. All that does it to reinforce the public view that scientists live in a rarefied atmosphere out of touch with the community. Take a look at weasels' post. Scientists are people too. You don't devote your life to frustration and crap pay because you're on the 'side of evil' and aren't deeply interested in whatever it is you research. Tobacco companies used a handful of scientists to endorse the (entirely correct at one point) opinion that no causal link between smoking and lung cancer had been found. The rest was advertising (see http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2008/11/when_science_was_smoking_hot.php for examples). Calling these people "scientists" is like saying the white coats at the Ponds Institute are scientists. Any first-year stats or research methods text-book covers this topic in detail if you want to look at verified data. Lots of people endure crap conditions and crap pay to do what they are interested in. I used smoking as it was an easily recognised piece of research that the public are aware of, however, there are other areas where scientists have caused harm. To not acknowledge this is fool hardy. People have been severely harmed in the name of science, often against their will, think of prisoners or people in mental institutions or the poor or displaced. Yes scientists are people but I have found there to be a lack of people skills within the profession as has been displayed in this thread.

They already exist to some degree Weasels - they called universities. ;) Some young folk go in to one end and never re-emerge. And they spend their lives learning more and more about less and less and lose the ability to engage with anyone other than scientists. That is a fundamental truth poodlefan

So a handful of scientists colours your entire view of science? Even though it was scientists who first started ringing the alarm bells on smoking, and who later were able to satisfy everyone (except the tobacco companies) that smoking was harmful? If you're going to pick a handful, why not the handful that benefited humanity? I take all data into account when assessing a situation. I am not sure it is only a handful of scientists by the way, I think that is an understated amount. I used the example to illustrate why public scepticism of scientists exists. If scientists choose to ignore this then so be it. All that does it to reinforce the public view that scientists live in a rarefied atmosphere out of touch with the community.

The community has a deep distrust of scientists, based on their experiential data. The public are their guinea pigs with many people being harmed by their research findings. Let's look at the scientists who's research findings were that smoking was actually healthy, and there are many many more examples. Look at the scientists who sell out their ethics to the highest bidder, more often the pharmaceutical companies. It is no wonder people are sceptical of what a scientists motives are. We want to know if they are on the side of good not evil and to be frank the arrogant post by the scientist who started this post was appalling and incredibly short sighted. it does not bode well for any future participation from this group of people.

He has no regard for who will be paying the price...the poor dogs who have done nothing wrong and their families as they grieve for their loss.

Who is this guy? What a callous, pompous and cavalier attitude he has. :mad I thought that there were only 2 forms of identification accepted under this Legislation: 1. ANKC Papers 2. A veterinarian's letter which identifies the dog as a particular breed and as far as I know no AVA veterinarian is prepared to do this.

I totally agree with you. Edited to add. We have also bred them to a type some of which may be incapable of providing for their own needs even if they were given that chance.

I love my dogs and believe that it is only because we see them as property that we can fully look after their welfare. If we see animals as having rights then who bears responsibility for them? How do we then have them in our homes? Can we buy anything that has rights? Can we force something that has rights to be contained? Can we force something that has rights not to reproduce? Can we neuter them to stop reproduction without their consent? Believing animals are property does not need to mean we see them as less worthy or throw away but it does mean that as their owners there are responsibilities placed on us for their welfare. In a capitalist society a man's property is legally seen as important so to have animals as property gives us the ability to look after them very well. As an example, if anyone decided they liked my dogs and I can't see who wouldn't :D, and they decide to take them for themselves from my land, because the dogs are my property I can use our legal system help me retrieve them from the thieves. If the dogs are not my property then anyone can come and take them and it would not be seen as theft. I see my dogs as my property and my responsibility to look after based on the latest animal management practices to ensure their health and welfare is paramount.

Keep your 'silly' remarks to yourself & be civil. I've pointed out that there's ongoing discussion & debate about animals rights. Just as there's always ongoing discussion & debates about the question of any rights. I am not giving a charter or a law on animal rights. The ongoing debate is because rights do not occur naturally. They arise out of debates & discussions in communities.....and can become very heated and polarised. Often critics argue that some new 'right' is at odds with some other existing 'right'. Like, the opponents of giving votes to women, pointed out that was in conflict with women being under the direction of their husbands in the law of the time. If there becomes enough support in the community, only then are particular rights given....by way of the legal framework or an agreed upon charter. My position is that the debate and discussion that go in a community around any new perspective on rights....is healthy. From all sides. Goodness me, talk about playing the man and not the ball. I have read the forum rules and personal attacks are not allowed.