Echo

Glenfern Bushlands on Glenfern Road (Upwey to Ferntree Gully) was excellent. But now it is on-lead because the hoon dog owners spoilt it for everyone by letting their dogs hunt wildlife. Some echidnas and wallabies suffered. So we all suffer. It was a great area for responsible off-lead bush tracks. I'm worried about Wrights going the same way. Technically it is only on-lead. But the tracks from Cockatoo down to Avonsleigh are great for an off-lead run if dogs have an acceptable re-call and controlled if other dogs being walked. If the irresponsible owners keep allowing their dogs to chase the kangaroos and small animals and monster other dogs we'll have that closed to us also. Yes, Wrights is not a designated off-leash area, according to the list supplied by council, but I have never seen any signage that states dogs must be on lead either. I guess this is why so many locals use it to run their dogs. So far, I have never had a problem with other dogs. Any people I come across will always do the right thing, by putting their dogs on lead when they see you approach. Once you are past each other, the leads come off again. There is a danger for wildlife (which I have seen plenty of), but as you say, all dogs off lead should have good recall to be walked in such an area. I hope we do not lose this because of the idiot few that may go there.

Have you tried Wrights Forrest in Bailey Rd Cockatoo? It's nice in there. Quite a few different tracks to follow. I have walked every inch of it with my dogs, they love it. Much better on weekdays, as not as many people around, but still worth it on the weekends. Also, Kurth Kiln (sp?) park on the Launching Place Rd in Gembrook. Very nice here as well. Lots of tracks to follow. Not so many people either. I've lived in Cockatoo for 11 years and so far, these are the only two places I have found to go with the dogs, where you can let them off lead for a good run, while you enjoy a peaceful walk in the bush. You probably already know about the small off-leash area in Cockatoo, on the main Rd, next to the Community Centre. Unless I want to set up jumps etc for training, I avoid this place. Too small for a decent walk and used by too many other people. The other two places above, you can walk in peace, while the dogs run ahead and explore. Very safe, no roads to worry about.

Agree. Safe for adults and young pups. Excellent product.

The following is taken from the ANKC rules. Hope this helps. Dogs Wearing Protective Clothing: Protective clothing may be put on, or removed from the dog in the interval between the individual and group exercises depending on prevailing weather conditions at the discretion of the Judge.

I could not see that this has already been posted elsewhere. If it has, then just ignore. The RSPCA has created a web site dedicated to stamping out Puppy Farmers. They are looking for support, by way of signatures from the public. http://www.rspcavic.org/campaigns_news/cam...ppy_farming.htm

With the ammount of members we have here, I was kind of hoping to see more like 230. Unfortunately, it seems that apathy reigns supreme. Anyway, I suppose 23 is better than nothing. Thanks for trying Erny.

Every Victorian dog owner should be greatly concerned about the proposed new dog laws. They are unjust and ill-thought out in many ways, and we as responsible dog owners should not accept them without putting up a fight. Victoria is notorious for enacting ill-conceived and unjust legislation against responsible dog owners and their dogs. So often, we complain about the laws which limit our rights as dog owners. As a united group, we are many, and now we have a chance to use the weight of numbers, hopefully to our advantage. Every single email of protest will add weight to the campaign against the proposed Bill. As Erny has pointed out, there is still time for more people to do this. Please take the small ammount of time needed to add your weight to this campaign. Let us all join forces, to stop this proposed legislation, before it is too late. Before it becomes law.

Erny, below is a copy of email response I and others who have emailed have received. Thank you for your email and for forwarding your feedback and concerns. I will take your views into account when the bill is debated and I will advise you of the outcome of the debate when it occurs. It is my understanding that the Bill, at this stage, is now not being debated in this Parliamentary week. The next sitting of Parliament is in the week commencing 7 June 2010. Regards Bill Sykes MP, State Member for Benalla Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture & Water 2/55 Carrier Street, Benalla 3672 Ph: 03 5762 2100 Fx: 03 5762 4478 Mobile: 0427 624 989 Email: [email protected] It matches the information you have received. This being the case, then there is still time to drum up a lot more protests. To anyone who has not yet responded to this call for support: Don't be complacent and leave it to others. Once the proposals become law, it is too late to complain. The time to act is NOW.

You will probably be wasting your time requesting a meeting with DogsVic. Their response to the proposed legislation is very weak, and does nothing at all to address the very real possibility of innocent dogs being unjustly killed. As you can see from their response below, they believe this legislation will not affect DogsVic members. They even thought it was a positive thing, to have the time frame for the killing altered fro 24 hours, to 48. How very generous of them. If a dog "suspected" of being dangerous or menacing has been safely contained and impounded, what is the rush to kill it? Why can we not stay with the time frame of 8 days, giving the responsible dog owner, plenty of time to find and reclaim their animal? Proposed New Dangerous Dogs Legislation DOGS Victoria has been in contact with the Office of the Minister for Agriculture (the Honourable Joe Helper) to get details of recent media announcements of new legislation to better control dangerous dogs and prevent dog attacks. The Minister’s office has confirmed that: • The proposed legislation will strengthen the powers of local Councils to deal with dogs involved in aggressive attacks on other dogs and people • The proposed legislation provides that dogs involved in aggressive dog attacks that are not registered with a Council may be contained or euthanized at the discretion of the Council • Owners of such dogs who fail to register their dogs will have no right of appeal against any Council decision of the dog. The Minister’s office believes that this legislation, which is still to go to Parliament for approval, will better police the activities of “underground” breeding activities, and owners who fail to register their dogs. The message is clear: If you register your dogs with your local Council, you have nothing to fear from the new legislation, which aims to promote Responsible Dog Ownership in this way.DOGS Victoria will continue to promote on the radio and in newspapers the importance for new purchasers to ensure they receive ANKC registration papers from an affiliated DOGS Victoria breeder to ensure that they are not being sold cross-breeds by unscrupulous breeders. DOGS Victoria is the peak body for purebred dogs in Victoria. The only requested changes were: 1. To provide flexibility for members of DOGS Victoria to remove dog collars with registration ID when in public places if this interfered with grooming arrangements for show dogs (members would be required to carry alternative proof of registration) 2. To recommend that the Responsible Dow Owners program developed by DOGS Victoria be a prescribed program for persons who have breached Council regulations that require dogs to be contained on their property and on leash when outside their property. A further consultation took place last week on 22 March 2010. The major amendment to the proposed amendments since the informal consultation appears to be a more precise definition of the grounds on which a Council can seize and possibly destroy a dog involved in an act of aggression or menace. This more precise definition gives greater protection to owners of such dogs. The Council must satisfy 3 requirements – that the dog is at large, unregistered and involved in an act of aggression or menace, before it can order its destruction. The Minister’s office is clear that such dogs are unlikely to be owned by members of DOGS Victoria and is very clear about our various Rules, Regulations and Codes in relation to these matters. We have suggested that the timeframe for Councils to act to seize and destroy a dog should be extended from 24 hours to 48 hours to allow more time for the owner to come forward. The President again commented that this legislation is unlikely to affect members of DOGS Victoria whose dogs are not at large, off-leash or involved in acts of aggression or menace.All the previous suggestions made by DOGS Victoria (see 1 & 2 above) have been incorporated into the regulations as requested. It was noted that the legislation is being driven personally by the Premier in response to recent dog attacks. Title DOMESTIC ANIMALS AMENDMENT (DANGEROUS DOGS) BILL House ASSEMBLY Activity Second Reading Members HELPER Date 6 May 2010 6 May 2010 ASSEMBLY page 62 Mr HELPER (Minister for Agriculture) -- I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010 amends the Domestic Animals Act 1994, to address community needs and expectations over serious dog attacks and responsible dog ownership and education. The bill will do this by strengthening council powers to control and destroy dogs that are a danger to the community, increasing penalties for irresponsible owners whose conduct has allowed dogs to attack, increasing resources for educating dog owners and by reforming the existing restricted breed regime. Currently a dog seized while at large must be held in the pound for a minimum of eight days even if there is no way of identifying its owner. The bill will give an authorised council officer power to destroy a dog 48 hours after seizure if the dog was straying, is unidentifiable and is considered a danger to the community. The bill will also allow an authorised officer to immediately destroy any dog that is behaving in such a manner or in such circumstances that the officer reasonably believes it will cause imminent serious injury or death to a person or other animal. This power currently exists for officers authorised under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 but will now be extended to council officers under the Domestic Animals Act 1994. In the case of dangerous dogs found at large, the bill will give an authorised council officer power to destroy the dog 24 hours after confirming it is a declared 'dangerous dog' under the act. This is a dog that has previously been proven to have attacked and caused serious injury. It is a central tenet of dog management legislation that a dog is confined, registered and identifiable to its owner. *** DAILY HANSARD *** PROOF VERSION ONLY *** DO NOT QUOTE ***I Effective regulation -- including compliance, return of lost animals to owners, animal management services and public education programs -- depends on registration. Yet an estimated 40 per cent of dog owners fail to register their animals. The bill will double the penalties for not applying for registration and for an animal not wearing the council identification marker when off the owners' premises. As well, the bill will give authorised officers explicit power to scan a dog for a microchip to identify it for enforcement purposes under the act. It is in the nature of dogs to stray if they are not responsibly confined. To provide greater incentive for responsible dog ownership, the penalties for an owner allowing a dog to be at large will be doubled from 3 to 6 penalty units for a dog at large during the day and from 5 to 10 penalty units for a dog at large during the evening. Serious dog attacks often hospitalise the victim and sometimes cause death. The community expects serious penalties to apply. The act currently provides for a penalty, for a declared dangerous dog attacking or biting a person, of 120 penalty units or six months imprisonment. By contrast the penalty for any other dog is a maximum 20 penalty units. The bill will double this to 40 penalty units. The bill also provides new powers for the Magistrates Court to order an owner guilty of an offence under the act to attend a training course relating to responsible dog ownership, or for the dog and owner to attend an approved obedience training course. Community responsible pet ownership education programs and information, council officer training, government advisory support services for councils and animal management research are well received by councils and the community. I*** DAILY HANSARD *** PROOF VERSION ONLY *** DO NOT QUOTE ***I http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form =VicHansard.dumpall&startpage=6.. . 11/05/201() Victorian Parliamentary Hansard - Parliament of Victoria Page 2 of 2 These initiatives are funded from the existing levy of $1 for every cat registration and $2.50 for every dog registration. As these rates have remained unchanged since 2001, the bill will increase the existing levy to $2 and $3.50 respectively. The increased revenue will facilitate expansion of all of these successful programs. The bill broadens the criteria for the declaration of a 'menacing' and 'dangerous dog'. It will allow a dog that causes a non-serious bite injury on a person or animal to be declared a 'menacing dog' and a dog that has been the subject of a second or subsequent attack or rushing offence to be declared a 'dangerous dog'. In 2003 the government introduced restricted breed dog legislation into Victoria to regulate the ownership and keeping of dogs whose importation is prohibited under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 of the commonwealth. Page 63 As at January 2010 there were 335 restricted breed dogs declared in Victoria. However, microchip identification registry declarations by owners suggest that there are several times that number of this type of dog in the community that are registered as another almost identical breed or as a crossbreed of another breed. This means that these dogs are not being kept in accordance with the strict controls that apply to restricted breed dogs that may be kept under the act. In order to better regulate restricted breed dogs, in place of the current prohibition, the bill provides for a two-year amnesty period to allow owners to register restricted breed dogs and thereby bring them under the existing strict controls. The amnesty will only apply to dogs in Victoria immediately before the amnesty begins. I*** DAILY HANSARD *** PROOF VERSION ONLY *** DO NOT QUOTE ***I The bill provides for a standard to be preicribed to assist with the identification of a dog as one of the restricted breed dogs. If a dog fits within the standard it will be included In the definition of a restricted breed dog whether or not the dog is a cross breed. To ensure procedural fairness and transparency of process, the bill provides for appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal from a declaration of a restricted breed dog. This will replace the current provisions in the act providing for an appeals panel. Lastly, the bill will clarify the authorisation requirements for the implanting of microchips and ensures that only veterinary practitioners can implant horses. It will also make several machinery and housekeeping amendments to clarify provisions of the Domestic Animals Act 1994. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr McINTOSH (Kew). Debate adjourned until Thursday, 20 May. As you can see from the above, this debate has been adjourned until 20th May. So if any of you want to register a protest, the time to do so is nearly gone. I have done so and urge as many people as possible to also act quickly. As already stated, it is most likely a lost cause, especially when our own organisation, DogsVic, has not registered any concern on our behalf.

Don't worry, all is good. This is because of the teething, which will be aided by chewing. So keep on giving the bones, they will help with the process. Julie

Eric, Showdog is absolutely right, this rule has been there for years and applies all over Australia. When any State Breed Club holds its specialty Championship show anywhere in Australia Challenges can not be awarded for that breed within 150 km of the show venue. So for example when the GSDCT holds its Championship Show at New Norfolk, an All Breeds club holding a Champ show in Longford could not award Challenges for GSD. Do you think that is unfair as well ???? When a NATIONAL Breed Specialty Show is held the exclusion zone for CCs is 1000km from the venue. This applies to all Breeds and all States. Neither Tasmanians nor GSD exhibitors are being discriminated against. What a load of rubbish! A National Show can be held anywhere that the respective National Breed organisation wants to hold it. There is no requirement for it to be rotated between all States. It could very well be held in the same City or State every year if desired.

Where did you find them Bisart? Was it near the North West corner of the main show arena? (opposite the VCA office) If so they might belong to the GSDC of SA Secretary Steve Collins, who had his trailer parked there all weekend. Echo

Now that is definately going to be one huge weekend. Can we expect to see you ringside in a flowing white gown? Julie

A friend has tried this on her GSD, who is a manic barker, only when riding in the dog trailer. The dog rides for 35 mins. to attend training, then 35 mins. home. This journey is done twice a week, so all up, the Husher is worn for about 1 hour and 20 mins. each week. When the Husher was brand new, the dog could still bark, but it was greatly muffled. This seemed to be an acceptable solution to the problem. After only 4 weeks, the barking became louder and we noticed that the elastic around the front of the muzzle was beginning to stretch. Two weeks later, the elastic was so stretched, the dog could bark normally and the Husher was useless. All up, it would have been in use for a maximum of 8 hours. Now I have to say, that this particular dog is an absolute maniac when it comes to riding in the trailer, his barking is non-stop, so the Husher would have been given a pretty good work-out, but I would have expected it to have lasted longer than this, for the price paid. After contacting the manufacturer, my friend was told that they were under no obligation to replace the Husher, because the guarantee did not cover the actual materials used. After some discussion, the manufacturer eventually agreed to replace the item. The same defect appeared in the replacement Husher, roughly in the same time-frame. Here is the guarantee, as copied from their web-site. * The Husher is covered by a 100% unconditional replacement guarantee covering manufacturing defects and workmanship. In the event of any manufacturing defect, please contact us immediately at: Not much point in guaranteeing workmanship, when the materials used are clearly not suitable to last longer than a short time in use.

Agree. You have a working dog. Taking her for walks, playing with her and her having another dog to play with are just not enough. There is no real mental stimulation in these activities. She has a completely different mind-set to your Great Dane, who will probably be happy with these activities alone. Her mind needs a lot more to occupy it to stop her from going stir crazy. The drive to chase things should be put to good use, by regular training in obedience, tracking, trick training, agility etc. As she is highly motivated by the tennis ball, this would be an ideal reward. A mentally bored GSD is usually a recipe for disaster. Julie

Ros Fleay, Chirnside Park Vet Clinic

Pointless video. Why would anyone bother to put that up for public viewing? Just makes the woman look dumb. Julie

Best wishes for your boy. I hope all turns out well. Julie

Poor baby. I would restrict her excercise for a few days and see if that makes any difference. No playing with other doggie friends, no ball chasing, games of tug etc. Let her mooch around quietly and restrict any hard physical excercise. In short, keep her as quiet as possible, even if you have to crate her and take her out on lead to stop her from running, jumping. A lot of the time, things like this will resolve themselves, if they are allowed to heal without further aggravation. If things are not improved after a few days, then a trip to the Vet would be in order. I hope she is back to her old self soon. Julie

I'll second that. I have one and most of my dog equipment is also HS. They make very high quality products. Julie

Agree with all of the above. But with reference to the portion I have hilighted: This is the sole function of Breed Surveys. All GSD's should be presented for Breed Survey before being bred. Surveyors are very experienced and will be able to assess your girl's breeding potential, based on conformation, movement, temperament and bloodlines. To be eligable for participation, your dog must also have a passing score for both hips and elbows, so health is also considered. Breed Surveys are held regularly in all states. I believe there are a couple per year organised for the North QLDers, so they don't have to travel all the way to Brisbane. You should be able to find out all the info. you need on Breed Survey and other GSDCA schemes by contacting the GSDCQ, or look at their website. Because the market for showdogs is relatively small, there are many breedworthy specimens that are placed in pet homes. Not showing your dog does not make it unworthy to breed with, but you will only know for sure, one way or the other, by seeking guidance from experienced GSD people. I believe the best way to do this is by putting your dog through all the relevent breed schemes, and be guided by the results you gain. Julie

Like someone else already said........run the other way.

I will be there with my friend, Cristine. We both have GSD's in Open. Cristine going for her title, me going for first pass. Good luck to all Julie

Details for the FOOS training sessions are on page 3 of the October Dogs Victoria magazine. The email address supplied in this advertisement is incorrect. You can find the correct address if you look at the FOOS trial schedule on page 18. Julie

I just signed and I was the 965th signature. Spread the word, we need lots more. This human piece of shit does not deserve any leniency. I wish the maximum penalty was more. Julie