bdierikx

Yep, You need to contact an organisation, such as "Service Dog Training" in Victoria http://www.servicedogtraining.com.au/howitworks.php or K9 helpers in Brisbane http://www.caninehelpers.org.au/ or the like etc and follow the processes that they have in place to vet dogs and their handlers for eligibility. Public access is not a simple thing as some dogs can access shopping malls but not planes and so on. If you look at the list of accredited organisations below these are the ones who can give public access to board a plane (assuming disability requires company of the dog in the cabin). In 2009 the QLD govt created the Guide, Hearing and assistance dog Act which has as part of it a Public access test that if a dog has passed it sees the dog's handler issued with a card that when shown to people denying service or discriminating in some other way because of the dog makes them liable for a fine of around $10,000 if they persist with the discrimination. This test is being used by the airlines now and so if you need an assistance animal with public access rights best to choose an accredited organisation. see below from Virgin. The federal law does stipulate that a person can train their own assistance dog to alleviate the effect of their disability but across the country there is a push to implement sets of consistent industry standards in assistance animal training and so using non-accredited methods and organisations is not a wise approach. From Virgin Airlines: Virgin Australia will only accept Assistance Dogs that have been appropriately trained, sufficient to pass a public access test by one of the following organisations: Animal Assisted Therapy Australia Inc. Assistance Dogs Australia Association of Australian Assistance Dogs (NQ) Inc Australian Support Dogs Incorporated Canine Partners as a Member of Assistance Dogs International Registered Service Dogs Washington State USA (Business Licence #600236600) Disability Aid Dogs West Australian Assistance Dogs Inc. Craig A Murray Paws for Diabetics Righteous Pups Australia Canine Helpers for the Disabled Inc. Leko McCulloch (Toto) Hans Van Heesbeen - Service Dog Training (SDT) Organisations must meet or exceed the minimum standards set by: Assistance Dogs International, or Queensland Guide Hearing and Assistance Dogs Act 2009 The owner of an Assistance Dog must carry a proof of identity card, showing the level of appropriate training attained, issued by one of the organisations listed above. All other animals must travel in the hold of the aircraft. Assistance Dogs on International Long Haul Flights Assistance Dogs are accepted on international long haul flights provided they meet the requirements of the registered organisations below: Animal Assisted Therapy Australia Inc. Assistance Dogs Australia Association of Australian Assistance Dogs (NQ) Inc. Australia Support Dogs Incorporated Canine Partners as a Member of Assistance Dogs International Registered Service Dogs, Washington State Business License #600 236 600. Guests who are accompanied by an Assistance Dog must carry documentary evidence of the Assistance Dog’s accreditation with one of the above organisations. What is a Guide Dog? A Guide Dog accompanies/assists a person who has a vision or hearing impairment. Guide Dogs on Domestic and International Short Haul Flights Guide Dogs are permitted by law to accompany their handler in all public places, provided that they have the proper credentials as listed

I have spent the best part of 7 years being told by various vets at various times, starting at 4 months old through to 6 1/2 yrs, that my boy was having an arthritic episode of some sort or other when what was actually happening was he had: ingested tea tree oil; the buckle of his harness was hitting his knee (elbow); he had allergies to grass and "wandering Jew"; he had cuts on his feet; he had swam for nearly 9 hours and was stiff from doing so after a long period of no swimming and; so it goes for years. At no point has he actually had arthritis nor did he require both his hips to be removed before he turned one, as I was told in no uncertain terms, namely "he will be a couch to bowl dog until he is 2 and then you will have to put him down if you don't get both his hips replaced before he is one. He is fully mobile now and happy and healthy and an awesome service dog who's equal I am yet to meet. My point is Vets see arthritis everywhere and nothing else. It is a cop out diagnosis and to answer your earlier question from this position, no arthritis doesn't suddenly flare up out of no where and beset your dog to the point of fundamentally limited movement. In my experience it was tea tree oil that had that effect, nearly killed my boy and Vets were oblivious. Re preventative or prophylactic treatment for non existent arthritis, both green lipped mussel powder and chondroitin are very good for all animals and humans that are active as they maintain healthy cartilage and joints preventing in most cases the onset of even age related arthritis so the supplements with this are only good for the dog. Glucosamine has a suspected relationship to insulin resistance so use in moderation. Physio and acupuncture are a great way to get to the bottom of the pain, as the practitioners are well versed and experienced in all manner of injuries and remedies so i would recommend that as a course of action before the x-ray. They are usually very informative in how to keep dogs stretching and so on for maintained good joint etc health. What you describe above sounds to me like the dog had been hurt and I would be inclined to be cautious about the Kennel if it was me.

It's a pity the development permit didn't get over turned. There is also now the possibility of working towards getting residents involved and fostering a positive culture of dog ownership and rather than alienate dog owning residents, involve them in the conservation of the Koalas, lots of possibilites on that front. So much that can be done. And it looks like the Mayor, Barry Longland might just be the right person to see that happen see link http://www.mydailynews.com.au/news/no-dog-ban-imposed-on-planned-kings-forest-develop/1598272/?utm_campaign=News+PM&utm_source=Daily+News&utm_medium=email

I know Kane is amazing but how did he learn to type? Hi B Well Katdog, as you would know he can talk and so when he asked me to type all his lobbying for a fairer and more equitable society, where accessing places with a service dog doesn't come down to ill informed opinion, I decided to do myself a favour and bought him the software Dragon naturally speaking and bingo he took it from there. :)

The dog ban got over turned http://echonetdaily.echo.net.au/mayor-blamed-for-failed-dog-ban/#comment-2110 YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Well done, Pickles That little dog has truckloads of spirit, which would be a great 'teacher'. BTW, I was just told about a Psychology Clinic in Victoria where therapy dogs are an option for sessions, especially with children and young people: http://www.ltw.com.au/psychology.php I once read a researcher's comment, re the wonderful benefits dogs have been found (with hard evidence) to bring people of all kinds & of all ages & needs. He said that if dogs were a medication, it'd be hailed as a wonder drug. With no side effects, either. :) I take my puppy to therapy with me sometimes, even when people see him in the waiting room with me they smile and ask if they can say hi and he's a really licky boy so always makes people laugh. Puppies, or dogs, are great therapy, even for grown-ups! And yet people think it makes sense to deny populations of 40,000 people these pleasures and benefits. It is a pity that the benfits of dogs to human society are beholden to the simplistic and somewhat remarkable false dichotmoy of being pro dog or anti dog, as is the case here in Australia seeing policy makers ignore the profound benefits that dogs provide to people. Pity if someone buys a house in the development up in the Tweed and has a child with a disabiltiy or develops one themself...

forgot to mention that this is all for 140 Koalas http://echonetdaily.echo.net.au/give-koalas-a-lifeline-says-milne/

It isn't the increase of population that sees off-leash beaches closed it is council is anti-dog. This is a broad trend across many councils and dog owners should not be beholden to such narrow minded world views. There are many other ways they could go about managing dogs in the shire but they don't even give them a thought. Typically lazy, spineless and devoid of any social intelligence. Recently in the Tweed they unnecessarily closed an off leash dog park that has been around for over twenty years in South Tweed for no better reason than the people involved in developing a sports complex adjacent to it knew absolutely nothing about dogs and dog behaviour, didn't care to know and could see none of the value in the park as social resource for ameliorating so many of the bad things they think dogs embody ie barking through lack of exercise, agression through lack of socialisation etc. Of course there is the general lack of intelligence that makes thinking that way possible and the councillors who were approached over the issue didn't know there heads from their feet when it came to understanding what was at stake. Closing parks to put playgrounds in (which is what saw the park closed) when there are 85 childrens playgrounds and 14 off leash areas across the shire,including beaches, banning dog ownership in an area that will house over 40,000 people and closing beaches and creeks to dogs is not a symptom of population growth alone. It is the underpinning anti-dog sentiment that shapes how council chooses to act in regard to dogs. Re the comment about living in Koala beach, when Kings Forest, the true advent of the Gold Coast to Northern NSW, is built, it will be the equivalent of Tweed Heads and Murwillumbah being no dog zones, this is fundamentally different to the Koala Beach development. Massive difference of scale. Should have mentioned earlier that this ridiculous idea was voted down by council last year. In an attempt to appear relevant the Greens councilor has ressurected it. I handed out how to vote cards for the Greens in last years state election, won't make that mistake again If the Greens want to do somethng meaningful environmentally this is what it should be http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_southern_ocean_5/?tIFHhdb

Lots of good reponses here, but it seems the scale of what is being talked about and the lasting inter-generational effects of huge populations of people growing up oblivious to what dogs are, how they behave, what makes them tick, what are their benefits etc and what this will mean for future directions in dog policy is being overlooked. Thirty years ago you could take a dog on a train in Sydney for a half fare, now, even with a guide dog you are as likely as not to be challenged. Non-organisationally trained assistance animals have to seek special permission, in breach of Federal law (though this is presently under review, finally!). This signifies a huge shift in perceptions about the place of dogs in society and represents how such shifts have roll on effects. The changes in terms of how dogs are valued in our community are negative enough as it is. Start engineering populations of people who haven't got a clue and think it is the end of the world if a dog runs up to them in a park and things are going to get messy. The public liability argument that has legitimated such changes is being replaced or joined with this new environmentalism. When you look at the benefits that dogs provide people and so what damage not being able to have dogs will do to our community, it makes no sense, especially when residential areas of this scale are ultimately being built to house people. Lets not overlook the fact that the area (Tweed Shire) has a large--frighteningly large--feral dog population already, all over the place. It would seem to me to be more common sense that the development be done elsewhere as considering how fragile Koala numbers are nationally, tokenistic dog bans are not going to reverse the damage of tens of thousands of houses seeing habitat cleared. I live near Koala Beach and have met two families that have left because they want to get dogs for their kids btw. Not everyone has the freedom or luxury to move like that. Anyway it is a sad indictment on the Tweed shire council that they prefer these tokenistic and socially destructive approaches to dog related issues and that other more equitable and commonsensical options weren't/aren't being considered. These bylaws haven't been tested in court yet and it is my understanding on advice that they won't hold. Just curious what these massive estates are going to do to accommodate assistance animals like guide dogs, etc...?

I think banning up to 40,000 people from being able to choose whether they want a dog or not is discriminating. I think the millinos of dollars that can be saved in public health and commuity services by promoting dog ownership is what we should be thinking about here. Not to mention the safety and quality of life issues that dogs provide.

I agree that people that don't want to live with dogs shouldn't have to and therefore shouldn't buy/get one. The ghettos of dog owners and non-dog owners is too redolent of other social divisions in history for me to buy into it as tempting as the vision may be. But what is being missed here is that a lot of people won't have a choice. This is where things get problematic. The scale of people we are talking about is huge and as such will have long lasting broader cultural impacts. Small comunities that voluntarily don't have dogs is one thing, a population of 40,000 who can't is another. Ultimately we will out live them all I suppose but it would be nice to live in a sociaty where pro dog values and the subsequent positive culture of dog ownership could flourish. @Esky Husky, I can tell you from the experience I have had being out and about in public with my boy everyday, everywhere, the pro dog society you dream of is wonderful. Being accompanied by my boy everywhere, hearing children continually telling gtheir mums "look a puppy" and asking "can I pat it", having elderly people stop me in shopping isles at supermarkets and asking to pat my boy and then listening to their stories of dogs (commony labradors) that they used to own and the tears they shed reminiscing on these times and their sorrow at not being able to have a dog because of their age and where they live not allowing them. People are far more engaging and friendly and always seem happier being able to interact with a dog. There are the exceptions such as security guards and bus drivers and other self appoined fun police that get off on picking on the disabled but ultimately if we could all do this we would truly be living in the lucky country.

<<<NEWS FLASH>>> the issue discussed below has develped further see http://www.mydailynews.com.au/news/no-dog-ban-imposed-on-planned-kings-forest-develop/1598272/ I would like to bring to the attention of all DOL-ers that in northern NSW there is a move by the Greens councillor in the Tweed shire to have a new development called Kings Forest, a residential area that is going to house 40, 000 people, declared a no dog zone. By last year’s census the population living in this area will equal a 50% increase on current levels and so constitute close to a third of the population of the shire. What this means is that for generations to come a massive portion of the population of the area will not be able to own dogs. This overlooks the myriad benefits that dogs provide to humans in terms of greater life expectancy of people who live with dogs, significantly reduced risk of heart disease, lower cholesterol levels, faster recovery from surgery and other physical trauma to the body, amelioration of isolation, alienation and related conditions of living that induce or exacerbate mental health conditions, increased public and private safety and in the words of people who actually spend time looking into and researching, rather than merely opining about dogs and humans “people who live with dogs just plain feel better than people who don’t” (Bradley 2005). Many of you may think “so what? I don’t live there, it doesn’t affect me”, however, it is becoming a trend across much of Australia that building and subdividing and development approvals can be fast tracked if this kind of tokenistic environmentalism is a part of the plans. In the case of the Tweed development it is because enough homes for 40, 000 people are being built in the middle of the area’s largest most densely populated Koala habitat that the Greens have come up with ludicrous idea. It is Lunacy to think that preventing people from having dogs is going to ameliorate the impact of enough houses for forty thousand people being built in a Koala habitat. Wouldn’t putting the development elsewhere make more sense? The net result of such a state of affairs is of concern as an increase in population of people who do not grow up around dogs can only mean trouble and greater restrictions for those of us who have them. I personally have an assistance animal and so am in theory exempt from such lunacy and always will be ( though it is always a fight to get access to properties if people know you have a dog even if it is an assistance animal), but I know that one of the biggest barriers to having an assistance animal (dog) is the lack of understanding and prejudices against dogs in the wider community. Such a development as making an entire town a dog free zone will only serve to exacerbate these problems that occur from people’s ignorance of dogs. From breeders to dog welfare groups and the more sane part of society that owns and likes dogs, this emerging trend should be cause for concern. Just FYI.

Thanks for that . Definitely something to keep in mind. However, I think there are a lot more steps before those ones that people need to know to AVOID putting themselves in a position where they are at the final stage of being eye balled by a dog that doesn't like them. On that note wouldn't it be a better idea to train people how to interact with strange dogs and to raise their own dogs so that the dogs aren't put in a position where they have to become aggressive and so that dogs aren't raised to be agressive? This kind of tabloid hype is so over inflated, if they were serious about wanting to protect people from dog attack they would have included alot more information of a preventative nature. It is a pity that dog attack stories appeal so much to the general public and so widely. Anyone read "Dogs Bite but Baloons and slippers are more dangerous" by Janis Bradley (2005)? Very interesting analysis of the perceptions of dogs as dangerous, although rather heavy on the stats side of things. Are we allowed to put book names up here?