Tralee

On the contrary. I am not talking hypothetically. I currently have a dog in care, taken on entirely out of compassion. Its all well and good to jump up and down and say you should not do this, or that. I have taken someone's dog that was suffering and given my time and money to its care. I am sure you have too, steve. If there is a point, it is I know the difference between talking about it, and actually getting your hands dirty.

The OP did NOT break the law. Your views were that the pup should be removed from its owner. Hardly the same thing. You appointed yourself the arbiter of standards for dog keeping over and above the RSPCA and pronounced the owners unfit - all based on a second hand reports. Nice work. But when your dog ownership was theoretically called into question based on a similar level of knowledge you defended your behaviour - a chance NOT given to this pup's owners before you handed down your judgment. Few folk suggested that the OP's intervention wasn't a reasonable course of action although my view is that removal of a containment collar on an animal kept in non-secure fencing should have been thought through. If that pup had ended up dead on the road, how would the OP have felt? Do unto others Tralee. If you don't want folk taking the law into their own hands based on minimal information where your dogs are concerned, you might want to reconsider advocating it for other dog owners. That was my point. Yes. Hello old friend. Don't dictate to me. I gave my opinion. The convo is over *ignore*

Forum Rules 2,3 12. *ignore*

So if anything you do to your dogs is "stupid" in my opinion, I should steal them? Or is it only when you think things are stupid that people should have to follow your advice? You seem to have a remarkable inability to place yourself in the shoes of people who'd be the subjects of your version of moral liberation of pets. You may consider yourself to be an exemplary dog owner but if your advice was followed, it wouldn't matter how well your animals were treated if another person found that treatment lacking. Anarchy.... The OP intervened and so would I. The OP was quite justified and pity there isn't more like them.

No probs I have ways and means.

It wouldn't have been stupid if they hadn't put an electic collar on a six week old puppy.

Very concerned. Its a Maremma almost fully recovered and I have 3 other Maremmas aged 5-8. So, good luck with that.

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'.

No further harm was done! If fact, if you knew the condition it was being kept in then it was a good act just to 'seize' the dog as I did. The dog was removed from the very real threat of further harm being done. I can't see you doing any good for the dog, or acting in the interest of the OP's puppy neighbour. I think you know what I'm getting at, some might believe the harm was in the operation being delayed. If I decided that the dog was in pain because it had an injury that needed repair and wasn't getting it fast enough I could take matters into my own hands yes? So if the dog's owner was not looking after it properly then why are you sending it back, being the moral crusader you claim to be? Not as black and white as you make it out to be. My apologies but I've got no idea what you're getting. The fact that I've replied gives witness to the necessity of correcting your misconceptions. I don't have to chase you around in circles. And, I have no intention of getting into personal matters, or more particularly my private reasons for doing things. But out of consideration, I can offer that you take a look at "The Doctrine of Double Effect."

Seriously, it is obvious you have things knotted up irrationally. I didn't do anything to make the dog's injury worse. No further harm was done! If fact, if you knew the condition it was being kept in then it was a good act just to 'seize' the dog as I did. The dog was removed from the very real threat of further harm being done. I can't see you doing any good for the dog, or acting in the interest of the OP's puppy neighbour.

But what if someone subjectively decided that not getting an operation done on a dog immediately constituted harm? How would you feel to come home to a stolen dog? I'm sure you're missed something. Its not my dog. You can't steal something that doesn't belong to me.

You did the right thing palski.

Electric Fence Collar On A Puppy STUPID or not my business?! Stupid. Very stupid. And its definately your business as there's not much I can do. I didn't see it. However, the last time I took a dog in, the cost was up around $3000. Hang on a minute, the dogs still here. :D

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*

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.

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.

Yeah. Ya' think!

Disagree! The pup's hardly a few weeks old, and should have had supervised, intermittent training. I would've removed the whole dog.

Maybe some direct personal contact rather than all the subterfuge. The dogs/pups interest is at stake. And who knows, since you have a common interest, you may find some new friends.

After two attacks on people, sorry but there won't be tears from me if the dog is put to sleep.There will be tears from me, it's not Max's fault he had an irresponsible owner. Well, reading the article, Max was provoked on both the primary and secondary occasions. It happens, whether if was a 14yo and his granny is inconsequential. The fact of the matter, and what makes it a tragedy since Mr O'Shea clearly loves his dog, is that Max was not restrained and contained as per the requirements of the law or the expectations of the community. Now, unfortunately, it may be some time before Mr O'Shea can show to all those concerned that he understands his obligations and responsibilities in matters involving dogs.

It does not look good for Max at all. Mr Michael O'Shea also looks bound to learn the hard way that: "Dogs are expensive, and the lessons are hard."

If we can start producing dogs like this then we may be in with a chance.

I was also given a dog, a Beagle/Corgi cross, as a teenager. Exceptionally good dog, and irreplacable as far as I'm concerned. My other dogs are all special in their own way, but, as your story tells, I know they will reveal just how special they really are when they have to leave me. Its not a thought I relish or dwell upon.

One day, at an Australian event, a Maremma will win Best in Group and then go on to win Best in Show.

I will miss him, very much. Its been four months now. Anyway, He has one more Veterinary visit on Thurday for his final check-up. As you can see below, its time for him to go home. :-)