WreckitWhippet

Yeahhhh for Uncle Fwarkie the Pointer and his RUBIG.

Hmmm. What you said SBT123. Seems odd to go to all the trouble of Prog testing and then having a 'slip mating' on purpose. Very 'hit n miss IMO. I'm still shaking my head

Wonderful, caring and ethical aren't words I'd use when talking about the RSPCA. Perhaps they may think twice about fabricating evidence and making things up as they go along.

Go tonight and you'll see some on the Pointers .

Again I ask: Did you see the animals and were you at the court case to see all the evidence from each side? Did you

I just wonder how many innocent people have been taken to the cleans because of the RSPCA and the way they conduct themselves. This time they picked the wrong people to screw over and they are paying for it.

I hope they took them for millions. What a shame it was out of court and the settlement details won't be known.

Bring on the Gundogs .....

Whippets have flat or limited slips Staffords have flat collars, or limited slip or martingales, it just depends on where I am and what I'm doing. I sometimes use a check chain on a Stafford when it's gets a bit full of itself or needs a reminder of how we walk. All dogs have the same soft leads, that are the same length

same here, but then it's into quarantine for a few hours as his farts are deadly Feed it outside and in the monring before heading off to work

It's NSW we can have as many dogs as we like. NSW can also see dogs declared dangerous for rushing , they do not need to bite someone suggested reading is the Companion Animals ACT

You will find that they are processing a notice of intent to declare them to be dangerous. The owner has 7 days under the CAA to lodge any objections and appeal to council as to why they shouldn't be declared. They can also seek legal advice during this time. I think you will find that they will most likely surrender the dogs once they have been declared dangerous, as it costs plenty of money to build a cage that meets the CAA requirements. That cage may also be sujbect to a DA, depending on their location and it will certainly have to pass council inspection upon completion. If you want to assist the rangers/council in their decision making, the best thing you can do is write down the details of the incidents and forward them to council. Include in this a letter of complaint to the General Manager.

I am very concerned that my home address details would be made public. I'm very careful when out walking not to disclose where I live to anyone that stops me to have a chat about the dogs. I provide them with my contact number if they'd like it and then make sure I walk home a different way so as not to be followed. Like Steve I also have a child and would possessions that means a lot to me. It's all well and good to suggest a security camera and locking the place up but that's not going to do me any good, if someone decides to jump a fence and help themselves to a litter or worse one of my dogs or bitches. Those that live out of town are more vulnerable, especially if they work or are away for longer periods during the day. It's crazy, that our "hobby" would place our possessions, animals and even our children at risk. Perhaps the RSPCA would like to list where their inspectors live, so I can go and knock on their door, take a peak at how their animals live or complain after hours when they've failed to show up to a cruelty case I've reported.

which I think was your original question?? or which is below the other question and a different question. red was the original question then you came along and added the blue bit two very different questions

The original 8 votes will be added to the final results of this poll, SBT, as I have already stated. I am not sure what you mean by saying that the 2nd lot could have answered question a or b? I only have one question. I answered yes to your original question but as it stands now, I would not answer it in the same way.

Yup. Sure looks that way to me! Did you not read my responce to SBT's comment? It was my err in not wording the question properly in the very 1st place. I did explain that and proceeded to say that the previous 8 votes (yes) are to be added to the final poll results therefore nothing is lost. I didn't answer yes to your two amended versions

Please stop amending the poll. The first 8 people answered one question, then got deleted, the second 8 could have answered to question a or b and now another two have voted.

the first 8 people answered yes to the top question and then got nuked who knows which one you are supposed to answer this time round

So you just changed the poll question when people didn't agree with you. You went in and emended it at 2.50 and took some of the options away and then back in again at 2.59 to put up your new question.

Love your work, so when 8 people said they agreed with his comments, you decided to take the poll down LOL

They probably were some mongrel bred bull breed crosses or the "generic" Staffy.

Council is right though, the samples submitted could have come from any dog. Collection by an authorised officer, who scans at the time of collection and signs off on the samples, removes any doubt, but of course there are those who like to make it more difficult for themselves and GCCC would not have been able to make such claims had the sample been collected properly in the first place.

Quite likely that the dogs involved were not APBT's. I think it would be a pretty safe bet that they were some mongrel cross or the generic "staffie".

It's NSW an owner can be issued with a Notice to declare, for the act of rushing. People only need fear for their own or the safety of their pets and children and rangers can step in.

Ranger should have issued an NOI when they first became an issue. They could have then seized the dogs for non compliance, before it resulted in a dead dog.