Tralee

I'm not sure that is the correct interpretation melzawelza. NSW Companion Animals Act 1998 I believe a dog teathered to a fixed object or structure is not held or secured to a person and further, it is only permitted in off-leash type areas. This is understood in regard to the meaning of 'on leash' which is inclusive of being held (or secured to) the person. Regards. If you keep reading: It is legal, but as you said earlier you could still be charged depending on the dog's behaviour while secured. I did keep reading, and I read very well, thank you. :laugh: Sub-section 5, part (f) should not be taken out of context and Sub-section 5 must be read as a whole. Selective pieces of it cannot be taken to mean something that is not implied. Sub-section 5 refers to areas other than public places, not footpaths etc. For example, a dog may be teathered to the back of a ute. The back of a ute is not a public place, or a place of exception, such as an offleash area. Sub-section 5 part (f), specifically, and in particular, does not refer to teathering a dog to a post in a public place. That is why Sub-section 5 is needed, it is a different circumstance to Sub-section 1. Sub-section 1 and Sub-section 5 are different they are not the same. And they are not interchangable. Further, "Just because a dog is not on a lead in an off-leash area, or is secured in a cage or vehicle or is tethered to a fixed object or structure, does not mean that an offence under section 16 is not committed if the dog rushes at, attacks, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal, whether or not any injury is caused." Leave your dog unattended away from your property at your own peril. It doesn't say 'this sub-section doesn't apply' it says this Section doesn't apply. Meaning Section 13. Meaning the part about being held by an owner. It is perfectly legal to leave your dog tethered. If it wasn't I'd be able to spend my whole day booking people for it if I wanted to. I agree that leaving your dog tethered is mental and I'd never do it, but it is definitely legal in NSW to do so. If your dog bites someone while tethered you can have action taken against you, just like if your dog bites someone while you're walking it down the street you can have action taken against you. Well, I'm not accepting your ruling. Just as I did not accept the local ranger's "Dangerous Dog Declaration", and recently successfully appealed against it and prosecuted an inarguable case in court.

I'm not sure that is the correct interpretation melzawelza. NSW Companion Animals Act 1998 I believe a dog teathered to a fixed object or structure is not held or secured to a person and further, it is only permitted in off-leash type areas. This is understood in regard to the meaning of 'on leash' which is inclusive of being held (or secured to) the person. Regards. See 5 (f) of that very same section: As I have already stated: Section 1 and Section 5 are not inclusive, they are different circumstances, that is why section 5 is needed.

Way to contradict yourself. Done it many times. Would not recommend it. Will only be doing it in future, very guardedly. Great thread for a dog forum BTW Did I contradict myself? Oh, do you mean because the thread is about a Newfy being left for over an hour? I don't think it's a good idea for any length of time, for many reasons. No. The contradiction is here: I only have trouble finding what I'm looking for when I go into Woolies and they've changed all the aisles around. :laugh: Unlike me, you probably get stuck talking to people.

Allevamento di Arajani My apologies for the delay, but some people on facebook don't delete their old photos before they post new ones and I've had to scroll through hundreds of pics and many albums to find the original post. Allevamento di Arajani My admiration for this Italian Breeder is highly held and is constantly growing. However, I suspect that Breeding in Italy is business based.

I just hope that it's true.

Make an effort! You need to put the dogs welfare ahead of your own self interest. Harsh, I'm sorry, but where there's a will, ......

Cheers :) I get SO TIRED of people who, just because they had a dog growing up, start sentences with the words "you just need to" and end them with "get another dog", "use a dog walker", whatever else it is. As if I haven't tried all of that. Grr. It's very hard, even within this thread there are different views as to how to tackle the problem, let alone the vets and trainers you see then the peanut gallery of your friends, family and colleagues :laugh: It's hard to block out the 'noise' and just listen to one voice. SO my update for today! Roo was outside for part of today. I was filming.... I *think* there was improvement. She still agitated, but not in such a frenetic manner, and this could be due to the food changes I think I also spoke to a trainer my vet asked me to call. She was very nice but confused me by saying that rather than unpredictable departures, I should always flag clearly to the dog that I was leaving. She also said that it's really important I come back the second BEFORE the panic starts. How is that even possible? How would I know, until it's started! Especially if I'm not there!! Very confusing to know what to do. Then after work I crated Roo while I went to the shops. 35 minutes. She did paw and bite a lot at the crate, but not in a frenzied way. Interestings things I learned today: "distress" signals (lip licking etc) are completely absent when Roo is alone. She doesn't do any of the trembly stuff. Not once! The 'panic' ie biting doors and crate, does not appear to be driven by distress. She didn't seem distressed at all. Nek said to me, she's learned "scrabbling at her confined state is just something she's learned to do when you're gone" (not those exact words but you get the idea). Well I think that is definitely true. But, how to unlearn it? I don't really know.....crate, or backyard, seems to be the same, she just does it. Hmmm. Well its a training/desensitisation procedure. You need to plan time, and organise your activities to fit it in. Leave Roo, and watch her from a hideaway, but do not re-enter if she is distressed. 5 minutes of this procedure regularly and often will soon take effect. If you have to go away for long periods, when you return, check her before she sees you and if she is quiet and settled then enter in. This way she makes an association between being calm and your appearance, so she will begin to behave calmly, instead of in a distressed manner, in order to get you to return. Regards

We gained some comfort today when our new Vet. explained that laryngeal paralysis is a degenerative disease. It can also be symptomatic of general neuropathy and other peripheral neuropathies can appear in 12 months. Although Sooki was yet still young, she passed on from natural causes. I am somewhat content, that she gave me as many good years as she could, and we gave her the same in return. Rest in Peace my sweet satin coated angel.

Luv it Just the ticket.

Thank so much for your sympathies and compassion. I also received many tributes to her in the Man Thread.

Australian Champion Allarme Arctic Gem (aka: Sooki) 9:11:2004 - 10:2:2013 Sooki collapsed after her usual walk on Sunday afternoon with laryngeal paralysis. She was not fit to be restored to normal health in Veterinary care. I sent her off after 8 years, 3 months and 1 day. Too young, too soon, she was denied the light of day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=EZZSTiHbNps&feature=endscreen

Way to contradict yourself. Done it many times. Would not recommend it. Will only be doing it in future, very guardedly. Great thread for a dog forum BTW

I'm not sure that is the correct interpretation melzawelza. NSW Companion Animals Act 1998 I believe a dog teathered to a fixed object or structure is not held or secured to a person and further, it is only permitted in off-leash type areas. This is understood in regard to the meaning of 'on leash' which is inclusive of being held (or secured to) the person. Regards. If you keep reading: It is legal, but as you said earlier you could still be charged depending on the dog's behaviour while secured. I did keep reading, and I read very well, thank you. :laugh: Sub-section 5, part (f) should not be taken out of context and Sub-section 5 must be read as a whole. Selective pieces of it cannot be taken to mean something that is not implied. Sub-section 5 refers to areas other than public places, not footpaths etc. For example, a dog may be teathered to the back of a ute. The back of a ute is not a public place, or a place of exception, such as an offleash area. Sub-section 5 part (f), specifically, and in particular, does not refer to teathering a dog to a post in a public place. That is why Sub-section 5 is needed, it is a different circumstance to Sub-section 1. Sub-section 1 and Sub-section 5 are different they are not the same. And they are not interchangable. Further, "Just because a dog is not on a lead in an off-leash area, or is secured in a cage or vehicle or is tethered to a fixed object or structure, does not mean that an offence under section 16 is not committed if the dog rushes at, attacks, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal, whether or not any injury is caused." Leave your dog unattended away from your property at your own peril.

Shouldn't that be: "Yes, but for less than 5 minutes," or, "Yes, but for no more than 5 minutes." Yes, you're right. I've fixed it... Ta :) Cool, now I can go to bed and not worry all morning about the grammer nazi. :laugh:

I'm not sure that is the correct interpretation melzawelza. NSW Companion Animals Act 1998 I believe a dog teathered to a fixed object or structure is not held or secured to a person and further, it is only permitted in off-leash type areas. This is understood in regard to the meaning of 'on leash' which is inclusive of being held (or secured to) the person. Regards.

Shouldn't that be: "Yes, but for less than 5 minutes," or, "Yes, but for no more than 5 minutes."

Don't treat me like an idiot please Jo, I didn't say they were the same, I said each to their own. Well, I don't have any children either. If I had to choose between someone elses' children and my dogs, my dogs would get precedence every time. I am responsible for my dogs, I am not responsible for other peoples children. You said this and I asked you to explain what you really meant so I'm trying to make you out to be the bad guy I asked twice if you meant it how it reads and you want to remain cryptic so don't be surprised when people only have your original words to go by. What has the council got to do with it, I asked a question that was nothing to do with council regulations. I understand that people feel the need to protect the things they love but I would like to believe that if it came down to it a person would reach for a child rather than their dog. I guess I better be looking out for number one at dog get togethers then because it seems that it shit goes down the dogs get saved first :laugh: Firstly, I don't see how the OP's original post has anything to do with other people's children being in jeopardy. So you are off topic, and flaunting the forum rules, by continually perpetuating this line of argument. You have this quirk for trying to castigate others by extending meanings from their posts that aren't really there. But for argument sake, I am not Superman, Bruce Willis or Wolverine. I have my lot and my portion which sometimes overwhelmes me. As a result, I have no obligation, or the means, or desire, to be altruistic. However, as a young adult, I spent many Summers in Life Saving at the beach. One year, I had my photo on the front of The Age, out amongst the breakers rescuing a teenage girl. I can still see her face submerged 3 feet under water when I reached her. But there were many others and most of them toddlers. If my dogs are neglected, I'm in the sh*! Other peoples children?? There aren't any here and that's the way I like it.

"Alfred E Newman" :laugh: New Avatar - "Like"

Don't treat me like an idiot please Jo, I didn't say they were the same, I said each to their own. Well, I don't have any children either. If I had to choose between someone elses' children and my dogs, my dogs would get precedence every time. I am responsible for my dogs, I am not responsible for other peoples children. See, I don't get this. Are you saying if it was a life or death situation you would let a child die to save your dog? Note I am asking for clarification because I am not sure you really mean what I think you mean. I would do that too. I will first save my dog and then any stranger.....child or adult!!! But I would do all I can to save anyone, human or animal. If you will save a strange child before your own, then and only then you would have the right to question this. Because we always prioritise what we love most. Since you are here are you saying that if a car was coming and there was a child or your dog you'd save your dog and let the child die? Sure I'd save my child if it was between a strange kid and my own, but I'd never let a child die over my dog. So you can value your child over a strange child but I can't value my dog more than a strange child?? So your feelings are more important than mine? That's double standard. And yes, that's exactly what I mean. I will save my dogs over a stranger under any circumstances. And mind you, it's not I who would let the child die, it would be the highly irresponsible parent who did not take care of their own child. I've been through this in another thread and am not at all embarrassed to admit that although I wouldn't know for sure unless I was put in that position I honestly think I would save my dog first. I know there is the age old argument that people should hold more value for all humans than any other living creature and that it's immoral to think any other way but you know what, it's all relative as far as I'm concerned. People instinctively try to save those who are most important to them and just as others have said their child is more important to them than someone else's child, my dog is more important to me than someone else's child. No, I'm not saying my dog is human, I'm saying he holds more value for me than a child I don't know. I will also accept that there are more people who will think I am a monster for feeling that way than there are who feel the same. So be it. Not at all snook. You're not a monster. Like you, I would cry over the loss of one of my dogs (and I have) long before I could feel the same sadness over the death of a stranger.

You're second guessing and trying to paint others black. The fact is: the community recognises that the general public are not responsible for other people's children. Given, in a life or death situation people have an obligation to intervene. But indeed, Council's enforce dog control orders on people to ensure other people's children are protected. Yet, if someone wants to let their child wander into my yard, where it is not an offence under the Companion Animals Act 1998 (The Act) for the dogs to defend the property, then it is the community's problem and responsibility not mine. But I expect you to twist this reasoning around for your own self interest, and be blowed with the integrity of the forum.

Don't treat me like an idiot please Jo, I didn't say they were the same, I said each to their own. Well, I don't have any children either. If I had to choose between someone elses' children and my dogs, my dogs would get precedence every time. I am responsible for my dogs, I am not responsible for other peoples children. See, I don't get this. Are you saying if it was a life or death situation you would let a child die to save your dog? Note I am asking for clarification because I am not sure you really mean what I think you mean. Quite frankly my dear, I'm not responsible for what you think I mean. Where's 'the bird' emoticon.

Kobie is gorgeous BTW How old? Worse can happen, and touch wood it won't, but I would take odds on that it will. Fact: If you want to be in control of the development of your dogs temperament then get yourself a compound where people cannot interfere with it. Sounds extreme, but let the sense of an old head on old shoulders linger longer. My dog was seriously traumatised by a gardener at just 10 weeks old. It took years for her to become desensitised. My second dog was traumatised by a Vet. and his problems became extreme and persistent over the next year. My fourth dog was being interfered with by a neighbor who had serious anger problems, and one day she came to me with her toe sliced into two. She became too reactive after that and I had to have her euthanased. So, if you want to be in control of the development of your dogs temperament then get a compound where people cannot interfere with it. A compound would be as simple as a fenced yard inside the property boundaries. You know those dogs who rush the fences along the street. Well, actually its an offence and just around the corner from me, two dogs; a young Siberian and a Malamute who were absolutley lovely dogs 12 months ago, have recently been seized and euthanased because the owner used to let them run up to the fence but kids and other people made them reactive and they bit a few people. So, your choice. Take control or lose it. Regards

When I was more naive, I took my new puppy girl (2-3 months old) to the supermarket and tied her up at the seat out the front. Fortunately, I came back just in time to find an "Alfred E Newman - Wot me Worry" look alike attempting to untie the leash. I don't leave them now but if it is unavoidable I make sure I can see them at all times, or I ask someone to watch them for me.

Winning, it seems, is not uncommon when a balanced view is taken and the dogs equally have merit.

Likewise, have fun but more importantly make sure your puppy has fun. Let your puppy blunder, allow your self to blunder, and laugh about it then and later. An exhibition of Canine/Human love beats the rigorous, cantankerous, impatience of a 'win at all costs' competitor anyday.