swingin

Veterinary rehabilitation foster care: care for an animal, outside of the establishment, whilst it recovers from an illness or disease, until the animal is well enough to return to the establishment for rehoming. And i'm assuming your powers of comprehension are limited or you don't consider animals in ''care'' are entitled to decent living conditions & responsible, professional care.

What you are quoting is animals under medical or temperament supervision listed here Foster carers conducting veterinary or behavioural rehabilitation foster care for an establishment must:

At least you agree with the rest of the world, except for one poor soul in perpetual denial, that there is such a thing as a PITBULL - abbreviation of American Pitbull Terrier. Yes, ASTs & APBTs are the same breed. The Qld judiciary declared them to be so - Chivers V GCCC. There is a very rocky road ahead.

•provide environmental enrichment and socialisation in accordance with the veterinary agreement[

ASTs, APBTs & SBTs are all described as pitbull types, absolutely. However, their worldwide, commonly known & commonly used abbreviations are. Amstaffs, PITBULLS & Staffies. APBT are universally know as PITBULLS not only in their country of origin, by both their admirers & detractors, but also everywhere else in the world. If people are referring to an AST they say Amstaff. SBT, staffy/stafford. APBT PITBULL Denial is a display of a distinct lack of masculine kit. Not to mention credibility. Amstaff people & staffy people don't deny their breed, that seems to be the exclusive domain of the PITBULL people. Shame, shame,shame. Just where exactly is BSL being repealled? I know in the UK there has been a submission to parliament to sort of repeal their BSL. Included in the submission is the reason, it's primarily because of breed misrepresentation. The proponents are hoping for a reading in the next couple of years. There is no mention, or intention of repealling their Banned Breeds legislation. PITBULLs & all their listed alias' will still be banned. As will all other listed breeds. Which will probably be the common denominator everywhere else as well.

It reads that veterinary permission is required before any out of shelter activity can take place. Obviously to ensure good intentions don't result in bad situations. Health or temperament wise. If the vet says o.k. it's o.k. Bring it on.

It appears costs that may be involved upgrading existing facilities is the main objection to the submission. The conditions so described are what registered breeders adhereing to their CofEs are already expected to provide. Should a rescue/pound/shelter that houses multiple animals be allowed to keep them in conditions less satisfactory than those who donate to help with their upkeep house & provide for their own pets? The insurance angle is a no brainer. Anyone who doesn't have a public liability policy is just plain stupid to begin with. I can see this expanding to envelope all persons who house animals on their property in situations not considered to be the norm for the keeping of your average family pets. Registered breeders will also come under scrutiny &, more importantly, so will the puppy millers. Then the thumbs down of the critics will turn to thumbs up. I can't see anything untoward with the proposal. That is just my opinion of course. Bring it on.

Shooting the messanger: a clear sign of lack of knowledge of the issues. Please name credible registries which recognise a breed called a Pit Bull Your rationale may work if you are BSing to the uninitiated rather than raving on a dog specific forum. Show me a registry that lists, as pure breeds, such breeds as Rotties Dobes Newfies Iggies Bullies Staffies Chi's Am Staffs Foxies Goldens Labs etc etc etc ad infinitum & Pitbulls even (UKC-ADBA claim they are credible) Show me any self declared ''dog person'' who doesn't know which breed is being referred to & have an instant image come to mind & i'll show someone seriously out of their depth. An imposter even. Going the elephant wearing sun glasses route doesn't work, wont work, wont ever work. Denial is Bart Simpsonism. ''I didn't do it". ''It wasn't me''. Credibility zero. Funny on Foxtel. Pathectic in real life Education is the way. If you have to balls to stand up & be counted that is. Don't expect others to do it for you. ''You'' have to do it. Which looks to be highly unlikely. But until someone with the gonads does, BSL is here to stay.

Not cheap. Also not cheap. And all the other stuff I can't be bothered picking out- operating a rescue is going to be almost impossible for smaller groups without much in the way of income. I'm assuming this one means exactly as it sounds- and if that's the case, wtf. When the points you mention are taken in context they make perfect sense. To isolate bits & pieces is a little careless when dealing with the facts. People should read the entire proposal before making a decsion on its worth. for e.g carer who undertakes foster care must have a written agreement with the establishment. Foster carers conducting juvenile foster care for an establishment must: •have the permits, where required by local government, to keep the number of animals at their premises •keep the animals in accordance with the instructions of the veterinary agreement •assess and record the weight and condition of the animal in their care on a daily basis •notify the establishment and present the animal to a veterinary practitioner if symptoms of illness develop •provide environmental enrichment and socialisation in accordance with the veterinary agreement•not allow animals kept on their premises to leave the premises unless returning them to the establishment; or for veterinary practitioner treatment •return the animals under foster care to the establishment within the specified time set by the veterinary practitioner or at the end of three months, whichever is sooner •permit their premises to be audited for compliance with the Act and Code by an authorised officer. Foster carers conducting veterinary or behavioural rehabilitation foster care for an establishment must:•be trained or experienced to care for and meet the needs of the animals placed in their care for rehabilitation •not have more animals requiring juvenile, veterinary or behavioural rehabilitation foster care, in their care at any one time, than they can singularly manage •have the permits, where required by local government, to keep the number of animals at their premises •record the condition of the animal in their care on a daily basis, and present this to the veterinary practitioner at least every seven days•present the animal to a veterinary practitioner for a health assessment every seven days •keep the records required by the Code and report to the operations manager on the condition of the animals as required by the Code on a weekly basis•permit their premises to be audited for compliance with the Act and Code by an authorised officer •return the animals under foster care to the establishment within the specified time set by the veterinary practitioner or at the end of three months, whichever is sooner

Being pedantic doesn't do much for ones credibility either. Do you have any experience & knowledge with ''what ever they are''? You certainly don't appear to have. Before you ask, the answer is ''Yes''

Commenting with a confessed lack of knowledge of the subject matter does even less for ones credibility.

Prime/Seven I think. The dog wasn't a slavering beast, so maybe, just maybe it will be given a fair assessment & the blame appointed where it belongs. The peckerheaded owner.

You get 5 points for the challenge & 1 point for every dog of the same sex, including yours (except baby puppy) B.O.B gets an additional point for every entry of the opposite sex (except baby puppy) B.I.G a point for every dog entered in the group (except baby puppy) Ditto B.I.S. Don't get too excited tho, the maximum amount of points awarded at any one show is 25

The dog was featured on the news. Calm, friendly. The same scenario as the Golden incident last week in fact. It was a pitbull alright, & a very handsome one at that. The fact it wasn't compliant to any of the regulations required for the keeping of restricted breeds isn't going to do the cause much good. Why wouldn't the incident be reported if it was another breed? The Golden incident was in the news for longer than this storey was as a matter of fact. Being in total denial doesnt do the cause any good either..

Public comment is requested. I would be interested to see just what areas of the proposal people find objectionable? It reads the same as any caring person would treat their own pets. How could that be bad? Some here would boo Santa.