mymatejack

Hi all, noticed this spot on my boys head a couple of days ago which looks like a hot spot to me. Just wondering what others think? (the fur looks wet as I'd just bathed the area with salty water as that's how I cleared up a couple of hot spots when he was younger)

Yep, that's pretty much how it is here, KFC left overs in all sorts of places, kids sandwiches discarded in random places although it's the things like lamb chop bones on nature strips and gardens that puzzle me lol. We also have lots of fruit trees around the neighbourhood which is what caused the recent problem but the random cooked bones worry me too

His walks are his time to have a good sniff around and enjoy and I don't want that to change plus he can find something and have it in his mouth before I've had a chance to see it - the more I try to stop him the faster he swallows I think a muzzle is the best option, aside from other people being worried about him there isn't really any downside to it and the upside is we can keep doing what we do with peace of mind

It's just for when he's on lead walking around the neighbourhood. I find it amazing how many bones and other things somehow end up in people's gardens and on their nature strips(this is suburban Melbourne!) plus the fruit bats take fruit to non-fruit trees to eat and then drop the stones on the ground so they can be anywhere. We're careful about interactions with other dogs and try to communicate with the other owner beforehand(not always possible when you meet on a blind corner) and most people are happy for the dogs to say hello, generally those who aren't have already crossed the street before we get to them The only time he's really off lead is at the beach and there isn't much there for him to eat so I won't be using the muzzle there.

Thanks everyone for the replies The main reason why i don't want people judging him is he loves to say hello to other dogs and I can't imagine too many people coming close enough to him wearing a muzzle for that to happen. But it won't stop me putting one on him to save him from his stomach. I'll take a trip to the local pet store and try a few on. Thanks again for the replies

Hi, my dog ended up at the vet in a bad way last week with an obstruction after eating a fruit stone. He finds all sorts of crap(sometimes literally) to eat while out walking and he's too fast for me to stop him every time. I think a muzzle is going to be the best option, although i don't like the idea of people thinking he's aggressive I think for his own safety it's necessary. What muzzle would you recommend for this purpose? He's a Staffordshire Bull Terrier

Point Nepean Country Club in Rosebud on the Mornington peninsula allow dogs .. I'm not sure of what restrictions there are(if any) but it won't be hard for you to find out.

delete

I've never clipped a dogs nail in my life. Don't you people excecise your dogs?

I stopped reading the smh online, it seems comments on most of the stories on there are incredibly nasty.. As for tennants with pets...if I wasn't living in my house I would happily rent it out to someone with pets! It's very easy to say that when you haven't faced thousands of dollars worth of repairs due to poor tenants. Unfortunately until the courts start sticking up for landlords the pet rental problem will only get worse

Why wouldn't damage to property already be covered in civil courts? To start with it costs the landlord the VCAT(or other state equivalent) fee which as I understand it is not recoverable from the tenant. As an example, you own a property that had new carpet put in 10 years ago, a tenants dog has urinated all over it and cleaning it didn't get rid of the smell. You pay the $250(or whatever it is) to take the tenant to VCAT. VCAT will look at the carpet as having close to zero value due to depreciation and you'll be lucky to get your $250 back, let alone what it will cost to replace the carpet. If you're that concerned about having someone else pay replacement costs for ten year old carpet I wouldn't want you as a landlord. Ten year old carpet is going to have any manner of stains and wear and likely be close to needing replacement, even if a dog hadn't peed on it, and that'd be your responsibility as the owner to replace in order to provide decent fittings. If you somehow managed to get a tenant to pay for the entire replacement cost that'd be a bonus to you, not a fair and reasonable outcome. I'm by no means saying a tenant shouldn't be responsible for rectifying any damage caused by their pets, in the same way as they ought to be responsible for any other damage, but there's fair and reasonable responsibility and there's over the top. Surely you have a more reasonable example than that? Edited for spelling. Firstly, carpet will last significantly longer than 10 years if looked after. If you think that carpet should be allowed to be stained by tenants then i wouldn't want you as a tenant! Stains should be fixed by tenants along the way. Maybe you should buy a property and rent it out and see how you feel when you're left with a great mess and thousands of dollars damage that you can't recover. It's attitudes like yours that will mean that is always going to be difficult to find a rental property that will accept pets. I had a kitchen bench top burnt through the tenants negligence. I was lucky and bluffed them into paying for a new one. I was advised by my property manager that if I had to go to VCAT I stood no chance of recovering anything. This was a perfectly serviceable benchtop with no prior need for replacement, IMO they should be paying replacement cost for whatever they damage, unless there is already pre-existing damage or excessive wear and tear. In the same conversation I was told how another client of hers had taken a tenant to VCAT to recover the cost of holes in the walls. They received next to nothing because VCAT said the depreciated value of the walls was negligable. Do you think all walls should be replaced every 10 years also?

Why wouldn't damage to property already be covered in civil courts? To start with it costs the landlord the VCAT(or other state equivalent) fee which as I understand it is not recoverable from the tenant. As an example, you own a property that had new carpet put in 10 years ago, a tenants dog has urinated all over it and cleaning it didn't get rid of the smell. You pay the $250(or whatever it is) to take the tenant to VCAT. VCAT will look at the carpet as having close to zero value due to depreciation and you'll be lucky to get your $250 back, let alone what it will cost to replace the carpet.

If pet owners want to have easy access to rental accomodation they need to lobby the govt to change the laws so that landlords have some chance at recovering the cost of damage done to their property. As it stands now, the bias is massively in favour of the tenant and landlords don't stand a chance in recovering what should be paid for by the tenant - pet or no pet.

A mini wouldn't be much more than 8kg if that, still no match for 25/30kg dog.....a GSD is considered a medium sized dog so a mini Schnauzer is still quite a small dog I would think? The point is, since you and mymatejack have missed it, this is about a mini schnauzer that was killed. You and others have come in bitching about little dogs as if that excuses one dog killing another. Just stop it. and you've come in(using your laws of interpreting posts) saying that all little dogs should have absolute immunity to do what they please. Do you really think that?

It's hard to take anyone seriuosly when they make statements like that

Providing the big dog is on leash and the little dog was off leash in a public place and gets chomped, bad luck. An owner of a leashed dog is not held responsible for the consequence of an attack by a dog at large not under effective control. Cleary that should be the case, but if there were no witnesses do you really think that would be the likely outcome?

Well I'd say since it was the little dog that got the chomping.. Id say the little dog is the one with the death sentence. And this is not what happened here, this was a beach, both dogs where off lead and one dog came and killed another dog. Tragicly simple. The big dog is the one still breathing. I wish they would update this story, would like to know if the owner of the attacking dog has handed himself in or done anything about his dog, If this was the dogs first offence and he doesn't want it killed - then he needs to own up to the consequences of owning a menacing or dangerous dog - and keep it muzzled and leashed in public. Thing is he might have snuck off and PTS his dog of his own accord, and then what noone has to answer for this act? Just as bad really. And this family still has no closure... I said a few posts back that I wasn't referring to this particular situation.

I wonder how some of these small dog owners would feel if they owned a larger breed. I'll put forward a little scenario. You're walking your large dog on leash down a suburban footpath. You've spent countless hours during his/her life socialising and training it and it's a perfect family pet, gets on well with other dogs and loves people. Out of nowhere a little snappy tom launches an aggressive yap fest in your dogs face, your dog reacts and with one bite kills or seriously injures the yapper. Things can happen that are beyond your reasonable control. What do you think the news report will say? Which dog do you think will cop the death penalty? Do you seriously think that's fair?

I understand you very well. What part of dog killed by other dog for whatever reason = wrong don't you understand? Yes you do Sheridan. He on the other hand will never get it! where did I say it wasn't wrong? back to school for you

I've encountered both situations and I agree, when a larger dog goes for your dog it is scary and not acceptable, especially if unprovoked. I can think of two different larger dogs that attacked my last dog, I couldn't count the number of little yappers that aggressively approached him though. Neither situation is acceptable and I find it amazing on a forum like this where so many claim to be experts on dog behaviour that some of those so called experts seem to think that a small dog doing it is fine. ETA : In my experience owners of little yappy fluffballs who allow their dogs to aggressively approach other dogs have no concept of how it affects the owners of the other dog. Although I've been lucky to have a fairly non-reactive dog I was always worried when he was targeted by a yapper - clearly I wasn't worried about the little yapper doing damage to him but what if he did react? There would be no mention in the news report that said little yapper started it, it would be all my, and my dogs fault! Do you clowns not realise that?

Sounds to me like you think that a small dog barking is a provocation for another dog to attack it. That's so wrong. Dogs are allowed to bark, barking isn't harmful. Sounds to me like you didn't understand what I said. Any dog barking from a distance is not provaction IMO. However any dog(of whatever size) charging up to another dog and carrying on in an aggressive manner IS provocation - and anyone who lives in the real world will see this regularly, and almost always from little yappers! Do you believe that simply because a dog is small and "cute" that it can do what it likes? I thought we had laws that people were supposed to follow and when it comes to dog laws, surely members of this forum should be all about upholding those laws, not putting size restrictions on how they are applied. btw, most of what i've said since my first or second post is not directed at the original story, just the posters who seem to think that aggressive little dogs should be given a free pass.

I have met plenty of small dogs that quite happily meet and greet my dog without issue. It's not simply a small dog thing, it's a lack of socialisation and training by owners who think their little fluffball can do no wrong and has the right to do whatever it pleases. Sounds to me like you're trying to justify your small dog acting aggressively toward other dogs?

I think i'm going to start reporting these little yappers to the council for rushing me. Let them start declaring some of these little out of control ankle biters as dangerous dogs. Maybe then some of you will get the message that it's not ok for your little dogs to aggressively yap at other dogs/people(it is against the law no matter the size of your dog!!!). Greytmate : A responsible owner wouldn't take an aggressive dog of any size to an offleash dog park, whether you keep it on leash or not - common sense says that someone's dog is going to approach yours and may react to your dogs aggressive behaviour. Sheridan - please go and take a course in english comprehension!

Given that we are all interpreting your posts the same way, perhaps the issue is in the delivery rather than the interpretation. "did their little fluffball yap and carry on toward the larger dog first or was it as portrayed, a completely unprovoked attack? Unfortunately we're never likely to know!" I've been accused of all sorts of things in this thread. I've been accused of suggesting that a small dog yapping at a larger dog somehow justified the small dog getting ripped to shreds. I look forward to someone showing me where I said that - not some ridiculous extrapolation of what i've said, what i actually said! The 'ridiculous extrapolation' that you so kindly quoted again above was a direct quote from you. I've bolded it for your easy reference. You suggested that the fault might lie with the little dog's actions, and then were incredibly rude and insensitive to small dog owners, basically suggesting everyone should 'control their yapping little shits.' That one's NOT a direct quote, but I can't be bothered going back and searching seven pages for more of your posts for the one I refer to. I can't believe that with all of these people telling you how unreasonable your posts are coming across in this thread, that it doesn't occur to you that there may be some merit to what we say. Where did I say that a little dog yapping and carrying on JUSTIFIED an attack? I was simply questioning whether there might be a little more to the story, I don't believe provocation is a justiable excuse for the outcome but it would go a long way to explaining what happened. As far as offending owners of little dogs, if you own a little dog and it likes to go aggressively yapping at other dogs then I do hope you were offended and you might take something from what i've said. If you own a little dog that doesn't go aggressively yapping at other dogs then you have no reason to be offended!!! I'm absolutely sick of owners of little dogs who allow their dogs to provoke other dogs - I see it all the time, luckily the park/beach i go to daily is generally populated by well trained dogs, but I can imagine it's only a matter of time before someones dog who isn't as well trained and socialised as my own reacts to a little yapper and well the outcome could quickly become tragic like this one. And I couldn't give a rodents rectum how many people jump into your little yapping pack accusing me of anything and everything. Not one accusation holds water with what I actually said!

You clearly can't show where I said any of the things that you and others have accused me of saying.