Tralee

I know but it is prescriptive not proscriptive. I've worked in NSW schools all my life, and I would confidently take my dogs on to school premises (out of hours) which are not fenced with locked gates. As a corollary, Agricultural High Schools have fenced areas for this very reason.

What law is that Tralee? To defend yourself you can use such reasonable force as is necessary to preserve yourself from harm. It's about what is a reasonable response to the circumstances as the person in question perceives them. That's what the defence of self defence goes into. Its common knowledge from Law. Its been discussed exaustively. An example might help. If an intruder to my home attacks me with a baseball bat, then I can defend myself with a baseball bat. I cannot take the Samurai sword off the wall and cut one of their legs off. Similarly, if they attacked me with a bread knife then I could defend myself with a large knife. I can shoot tback if they shoot at me, but presumably, I can only shoot to kill if they shoot me dead. :D Self defence is restrained by this edict. I cannot kill someone in my home just because they slapped me. However, force can be confidently met with equal force.

Exactly Red ink is not legal either.

Not everyone shares your passion for dogs. Some people don't like dogs. Some people are afraid of dogs. And our challenge as responsible dog owners is to deal with it. No point arcing up over minor set backs. Our challenge?? I can speak for myself, and I would prefer that you didn't assume, or presume, to represent me. Thank you

Well, after I finished my Masters in Theology I contemplated becoming a wandering monk going about the country admonishing people about their lifestyle. But then I thought: How popular would that be? I would have let the dog in, fully cognizant that it was a school area.

Please tell me you don't teach legal studies. You are only allowed to have your dog at a cafe with the OWNER'S permission. A cafe is NOT a public place. It's all there on the DLG website Tralee. Have a read. One website does not 'a suppository of wisdom' make. :D It would be nice if we could make the law mean what we want it to but that is incredibly irresponsible when giving advice to people. What's wrong with saying: "Gee mixeduppup, I'm sorry you weren't allowed to take your dog in to vote with you" instead of the wet blanket arguments you are putting up.

What?

Oh I get the need. What I don't get is why they can't accompany me everywhere.

Its an offence in NSW to tie a dog up and leave it unattended. (and I'm not going over the companion animal act 'ad infinitum' again)

Mouth stimulation is essential for all dogs. Devise a planned program to have the pup chew in a manner that is more controlled and less destructive. A designated duration of time each day spent in mouth stimulation and supervised non-chewing. Time spent in a crate without anything to chew as well. Time spent in a crate only with suitable things to chew as well. Mouth stimulation should be encouraged, so reward and reinforce constructive chewing and admonish and prevent destructive chewing. Good Luck

Dogs are allowed in outdoor eating areas if there is a public thouroughfare. I've quoted directly from the Act from the NSW legislation website. They are talking about public picnic/BBQ areas I think, not cafes. Cafes are not public places as defined by the Act. Members of the public have no "entitlement" to use them. Huh. Cafes are on footpaths. The public has a legal right to use a retail business - 'entitlement' A retail business is required by law to open to the public for a certain number of prescribed hours.

It might help to consider why dogs are not allowed on school grounds during school hours. There you have the proscription of the law, hence the small dogs being allowed to go to the voting booths 'out of school hours'. You'd think the Electorical Commission and its officers would know the law.

This is misquoted. The school was not being used for the purposes prescribed. Note the emphasis on 'prescribed'. I could hire the school out to whoever I deem could assist with fundraising for the school, including Dog Training Clubs because the school is only used for its prescribed purposes during school hours.

This is misquoted. Dogs are allowed in outdoor eating areas if there is a public thouroughfare.

I don't see any mention of "during school hours" in the school prohibition. If you're going to get into a stoush about your right to have your dog with you, it pays to check that the law is on your side. I appreciate that this law is a very frequently ignored one but it does exist. What happens on school grounds out of hours doesn't miraculously disappear on school mornings. In the ACT dogs are allowed on high school grounds out of hours but the the primary school ban is 24/7. Given the amount of vandalism schools experience you'd think a bit of dog poo might be considered a decent price to pay for a bit of out of hours presence. Mixeduppup is not in the ACT. Is there an issue?

I guess another reason why dogs may not be allowed at schools is the issue of cleanliness - the possibility of wee and droppings. In this regard, it would make no difference if it was a 'school' or a 'voting area' on the day. Considering I see dog droppings on the sidewalk on the same street as the school while dropping my son off, it seems people cannot be relied on to pick up. Dogs are a lot cleaner than adolescent children. For one thing they don't leave their lunch everywhere (including classrooms) and school toilets start out clean every morning but are absolutley stinking by the end of the day. Then there are the birds, the mice, the rats, the rabbits, the Koalas and the interminable cockroaches. I even worked in a school where people used to urinate in the stairwells on the weekends. The dog rule is not a Health Regulation, do you think? Kind regards. :)

Nailed it. Dogs are not allowed on school grounds during school hours. The electorial commission has responsibility for the school during voting hours, including setting up, voting, and counting. Little lambs are not allowed at school either, it is against the rules. We had a a drug dog at school recently. :D

Number 4 in the 1st set or the 5th or 7th in the second set.

but nothing quoted in the article would prove that it wasn't either for me there is just not enough information to have anything approaching an understanding of what occurred I'm not going over the arguments ad infinitum. That's good because yours aren't improving with repetition. Oh dear's right. The police were on the property. Are we reading the same article? Perhaps it would suit your position better to argue it was a drive by shooting. You've got as much basis for that as you have for most of your assertions. :laugh: He who :laugh: last, hardest. Thank-you and Goodnight. I've been here before, its not going to happen again.

but nothing quoted in the article would prove that it wasn't either for me there is just not enough information to have anything approaching an understanding of what occurred I'm not going over the arguments ad infinitum. A reread of the OP's article will reveal that the dog was shot in its own driveway and the Police had not yet entered the property. Oh dear.

It will take some very special magician to prove this dog was vicious.

In any issue of fear, the law is clear. Force can only be met with equal force. Gun vs Dog. My scales of justice tend to have the dog riding much higher than the gun But we have some bwave police officers in Victoria. Maybe he could have just climbed a tree.

I find some of the comments is this thread totally bizarre, especially for a dog forum. It would be a different matter if it was a Police Union forum, but its not. There is a bias and prejudice against the dog, highly inflammatory with questionable motivation. Oh well, De Ja Vu really.

Does it worry you at all that you're conducting a systematic public character assassination of a person you've never met and whose side of the story you've never heard? I guess not. Just try to get your head around this would you? No. Try not. Do or do not. The dog did not have a gun. Your statement that the Police Officer believed the dog was approaching with lethal force is laudible. There is data based evidence to verify the contrary - the neighbours knew the dog and vouchsafed that it was harmless.

All in a day's work for the Police Officer then. "Oh hello dear, what did you do at work today?" "Not much, just shot a family pet whom the whole neighbourhood new and loved. It was owned by an old, disabled woman. She can always get another one"