Jed

They should be put down. Owner should be prosecuted, and should pay compensation to the person whose dogs were killed The dogs are dog aggressive. They should have been securely contained. They weren't. No mitigating circumstances.

Yes, I would. I would presume that all tests had been done, and it was decided by experts that euthanasia was the best option. I would also euthanase rather than operate. "Colic" is a generic term for a multitude of problems. "Colic" can range from the horse looking anxious, with a raised temperature, to a major blockage, twisted intestines, enteroliths to a ruptured stomach. I would hazad a learned guess that as a windsucker, this horse experienced mild colic symptoms from continually swallowing air. I mentioned treatment in a previous post. It's all as my previous post. I told you it was.

Good luck with it anyhow.

I saw a course from this company which a friend did. I wouldn't do it. Why don't you look at the MDBA courses? They have some good ones.

Sorry, Graeme, I edited (because I found I had read your original post incorrectly) - I notice your reply contains my unedited post - just alerting you, no need to respond again. My apologies And as a breeder, I don't think it's cruel - pups are moved for a whole lot of reasons, and seem to be ok. I have never travelled mine from Perth or NZ following docking or banding, but I wouldn't see it as causing great distress. Certainly not to the pups, and if the mother's emotional needs were met on the trip, she should be fine. I have, however, had friends send pregnant bitches to me to whelp and raise the pups, and the girls (and pups) have been fine. I have also travelled pups very long distances for one reason or another (not to do with docking) over the years and have never observed any distress, or lack of weight gain etc. Gigit, I think the pups were docked prior to the new laws in WA.

And, did she succomb to colic?

Hi PomsNZ. I think Yogi Bear is .. welll, too common. Elementary Boo Boo does sound like a mistake! This lot are good at picking names though, there are some good ones there.

I am having some difficulty understanding what the problem is? Do you not want the bitch, do you not want the bitch on breeders terms? Did you want an undocked dog? To answer your question, plenty of pregnant bitches travel, as do pregnant women. Planes and cars are both air conditioned. Dogs tend to sleep through car trips. Pregnant bitches (and cattle, and horses) often travel from another country to Australia. I don't think vets in two countries, or the vets at AQIS would allow that if it was cruel. As far as travelling the pups back from Perth, I don't see a problem with that either. Many of us have had to travel pups for hours following caesarians, and I have never seen any pup have any adverse reaction. If care is taken during transport, there shouldn't be a problem, providing the bitch is happy and unstressed. If the pups did well, and she did well, she no doubt was happy and unstressed. There are plenty of breeders of previously docked breeds who believe it is cruel for a previously docked breed to have a tail. Some feel so strongly about it, they walked away, and either do not breed, or breed a different, tailed breed. Some previous breeders now do not breed, but they buy imported docked dogs to show. Or, if they have boxers, they buy a bobtail dog. Others organised to have pups docked in Perth or NZ. Some breeders did and do travel bitches, some do not. I am not sure what "normal" is, but it is not unusual. When I bred docked dogs, no one ever asked me who docked them. Is this an issue? If you are not happy, I suggest you take it up with the breeder? Edit - Ok, rewind. I thought you had a pup from the litter. Now I think perhaps it is the bitch that you have on breeders' terms? I think you should take it up with the breeder, we really can't comment without knowing the circumstances. Also, if she returned to the breeder to whelp and raise the litter, it was in the breeder's hands, unless you had a written agreement which stated otherwise. If the bitch was returned to you fit, well and happy, and that was the agreement, the breeder has fulfilled their part of the bargain.

Yep, lots have gone to the doggers, Jdavis. Lots and lots. I think the big lesson here is NOT to be a foster carer for the RSPCA, particularly of large animals, unless you can take a bucketfull of hurt. If you don't do it, it can't happen to you. As Steve rightly points out, as a fosterer, you have no control, and the 'rescuer' or RSPCA can remove the animal from your care at any point, and do what they will with it. So sad, too bad

Sorry, can you clarify please .So they haven't substantially changed the laws, but dogs which are BEYOND their owner's property will be subject to fines? Yes? And if they are contained, but rush the fence and bark whilst still being contained by the fence, what then?

The only difference between entire and desexed bitches is that entire bitches come into season, and if mated may have pups. There can be differences in coats, depending on age desexed, breed etc.

Why on earth do the owners continue to take the poor dog to the dog park? I have found in the past, that desexed males do tend to get more 'goey' with entire males. Simple solution, stay away from dog parks. ;) Well, the problem in this case for the poor dog is that the owner is a single guy and he has a dog as a 'chick magnet' (his words). His logic is "he came into this world with balls and he'll leave this world with them. I have since found out that the dog has testicular cancer. The dog is a scapegoat in this case. He is unhappy at the park, being bullied by desexed boys and used as a magnet. Responsible dog ownership for you. You've totally railroaded the thread. Are you happy now? Begin another thread, will you.

I have no idea why they told the owner something which wasn't true. See my post above for possible explanation. I imagine that all animals which pass through the RSPCA are sent to the dead animal dump, as the horse was. That would be standard practice, so the horse was sent there as standard practice.

But, but, Souffie, they were . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wolfies. A daddy and a mummy.

And, in the end, the RSPCA have done nothing wrong. RSPCA took back a horse from a foster carer, as they are entitled to do. She could not afford to pay for it. RSPCA Townsville wouldn't give it back to her, despite the newspaper offering the $500. Mark Townend, wonderful chap that he is, mediated, and it was decided that the horse would be returned to the foster carer, as an adoption. Unfortunately, during the period allocated to health tests, quarantine etc, the horse developed colic, a problem from which it had previously suffered, and which can be life theatening. The colic was very serious, and the horse was euthanased to save further suffering. The carer was not notified. Perhaps there was not time, or she didn't answer the phone. RSPCA told her the horse had been buried, when it fact it was taken to the dump. So ??? Someone at the RSPCA had wrong information which they passed on by accident. They shouldn't have, but errors happen, and a lot of the people who help at the RSPCA are volunteers, so mistakes do happen. RSPCA is interested in the welfare of animals, and if they hire staff to man the phones 24/7 that's less money to spend on the welfare of animals. What's the problem? Really, there is no problem. I am sure that someone has or will apologise for giving the carer incorrect information, so that solves the only small problem involved with this situation. And misunderstandings between the shelter manager and the foster carer were mediated to a successful conclusion by Mark Townend. He might even apologise by personal letter to the foster carer? Perhaps he will. Who would want another organisation to do the work of the RSPCA? Why would anyone want to change anything? End of story.

In Qld, Biosecurity (aka DPI) already handles cruelty cases outside the metropolitan area, and has done for quite some time. The recent raid on the puppy farm at Murgon was handled by Biosecurity and the RSPCA.

Mmm, I spoke to someone last night who lost his young boxer from heart problems - bought from a byb, no papers, no idea what was in the lines, heart status of the parents wasn't known. Bit risky. The 'browns' - fawn or red, have black masks, except where the black is covered by white, if they are 'flashy'.

OOps, Troy ate my reply. Get maccas next time, Troy. Cocker Spaniels are referred to as "Cocker Spaniels" and they are "English" cockers. American Cockers are slightly different in looks, as comparing photos of the two breeds will show. So, Cockers and American Cockers. Two different breeds. American Cckers are always called that. Not a silly question at all!! I meant Cocker Spaniels.

You would be surprised at how many times I get that question when clients book in for their pet to be euthanased, I'd estimate at least half to three-quarters of the people ask us what happens with their pets. What do you tell them? Most vets, particularly not in metropolitan areas, send the animals to the dead animal dump, because there is no incincerator. My vet, who sends them to the da dump, says they are buried, which is quite true. It costs $150 approximately for backhoe and operator or excavator to bury a horse, including travelling, if you are in an area where travel is not too far. It doesn't take long. Very stony ground may require an excavator, or if it is layers or rock, a dozer. Dozers cost about double in those kind of conditions.

I weakened, I did put a response up. Not a nice one (although I managed to contain myself and not call him an a#####le) so it may not pass moderation. This is my biggest hate. They have no regard for the animal or it's feelings, (in fact, most of them would argue that dogs don't have feelings), they get a dog which is patently unsuitable for the situation, and once something goes wrong, they don't have the intenstinal fortitude to do the hard yards and find the dog a suitable home, or do the ultimately responsible thing and have the dog put to sleep. It makes me fully sick.

They should have just asked us, eh, Bisart Dobes? It's good that studies are proving what we all know. A friend of mine stayed with me for a while. She is quite depressive, and was given to sitting, staring at the floor, feeling really down. TBCSITW would clamber up beside her, sit down like a person, put his paws around her neck, and bury his nose in her neck or face. Giving her a damn good cuddle. He never did it when she was feeling good.

I thought it was a great response. Well thought out and written. I couldn't possibly respond, I'd want to say that he is a selfish a#####le who should be responsible for his own dog, and have the guts to take her to the vet and have her put down, not dump his problems on the pound staff. I really dislike the mindset of handing your problem to someone else, and not giving a rats whether they knock it off or not. He was complaining about the dog killing native animals. He is worse, the dog was only following instinct, he was simply someone who wasn't prepared to responsibly deal with problems of his own making. He's supposed to be intelligent, the dog is acting on instinct And why was the dog able to get into the bush to kill the animals? Hmmm? Quite a few of mine wouldn't mind a nice possum hunt, or rumbling a goanna, or razzing up a wallaby. They aren't allowed, and they aren't given the opportunity. How hard is it anyhow? Hope he never gets another dog. No dog deserves him.

The bottom line is that the council is taking away people's rights to make their own decisions regarding their own property. Which is a reduction of basic freedom. I don't agree with people randomly breeding dogs because they can either, But who knows how much he knows about breeding? who knows that his family aren't hanging out for a pup from Piper? And if councils mandatorily desex all cross bred dogs, there will be no more, and those who want cross bred dogs wont be able to have one. And even if that is not the case, we should be fighting for basic freedoms, because if we don't they will continue to remove them. Instead of the council making across the board laws to cover their own laziness and lack of interest in enforcing current laws, they should take the steps to ensure that ratepayers do abide by the current laws. There have been several purebred pups who have been seized and desexed. Someone bought a show pup, it was seized, council wouldn't give it back AT ALL unless it was desexed. It was. The excrement will hit the fan about that one too. One extremely irate registered breeder (not one you'd mess with) is on the council's case.

I'm pretty well with you on this. I don't have a problem about the horse being taken to the dump - IF it was in fact the dead animal dump, which I suspect it was. Some of the packages around it look like dead animals to me. At most da dumps, except the ones in extreme back woods have dirt dozed over the carcasses every day or couple of days. Most of the animals pts at the vets are disposed of in the same way. Very few places run incincerators large enough for carcases. What I don't care for is the lack of humanity and respect shown to the carer, in the face of her grief. She was obviously very fond of the horse, and had forged a bond with it, she wanted to keep it. Leaving aside the question of whether the horse needed to be euthed (and I don't for a nano second think it did, but that is supposition only) the shabby, high handed and grossly unkind way the fosterer was treated is totally amoral. No organisation with any care for anything would have done this. Additionally, I suspect the horse was shot, and it would have been shocking to find a beloved horse at the dump, shot. Particularly someone who was emotionally fragile, having just suffered an etopic pregnancy. How appalling. "All creatures great and small" obviously doesn't apply to horses, or foster carers. What's new? It's big bu$ine$$ of course, they can't be worried about a few fowls, as Hugh Wirth told us all. Apparently it's such a big bu$ine$$ they can't be worried about a few horses or a few people either.

The problems Corvus and Greytmate experienced were mainly caused by dogs not being inside their fences. If councils responded to complaints about dogs inside fences rushing fences, instead of ignoring them, there wouldn't be a problem. Can no one else see that the areas where we can keep dogs are being eroded? Not everyone owns the "ideal" yard for dogs, with a huge backyard. My opinion is that if it is your property, your dog should have access to all of it. And any dog which is not being kept according to the current bylaws should be dealt with. Seems to me it is simply another council eroding the freedom of the ratepayers to save themselves work and trouble. Bloody hell. Soon councils will legislate that you need 5 acres to be able to keep a dog at all.