Diana R

POCTA are laws not codes and unless the specific bits of a mandatory code of practice is also in that POCTA and someone breaches the code its not able to be a cruelty charge which is a criminal offence. Think it through how can you charge someone for keeping 4 dogs the same way they can keep two simply because a mandatory code of practice says more than 3 fertile dogs you have to do things differently .Yes they can remove your licence and yes they can fine you but you wont get anyone charged with cruelty for breaching a code of practice unless its something that is also covered in the act . If this guy could have been charged with animal cruelty of course the RSPCA would have done so. You cant trust the reports about him moving dogs, not providing vet treatment etc because its information based on information from sources known to exaggerate and sensationalise. As far as him moving dogs around there is no requirement for dogs used for breeding to be only allowed on one property and not ever be able to visit others, stay in kennels live in guardian homes,go away for the weekend to a dog show etc . The council said he was now compliant and fact is if he hadnt of cut the deal he could have paid a bigger fine and continued to breed his dogs - because he was now compliant and according to the RSPCA hadnt breached cruelty laws. The more time, again and again we spend on beating up those who seem to be letting people off leniently and speculating about the evidence and the real life things which impact on a case the longer we will see more crap scoff regulations and codes and dogs will keep suffering. I'm obviously not explaining myself very well. As you can read about in this link http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/agriculture-and-food/animal-health-and-welfare/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-legislation/victorian-codes-of-practice-for-animal-welfare the Codes covered under the DAA are mandatory (specifically the Code of breeding and rearing establishments), whereas the POCTA Codes are defensible (i.e. they should be used to advise people on how they should care for their animals and therefore if people can demonstrate that they have followed them, then can't be charged with cruelty). I took the combined information that was put out in public by the RSPCA and the council to mean that the puppy farmer in question wouldn't be charged under POCTA because he hadn't breeched the minimum requirements set out in the defensible Code (in this case it would be the private keeping of dogs I'd say) and they can't make a cruelty charge stick if that's the case. The council however, COULD have charged the owner for a breech of the conditions required for breeding establishments (a mandatory Code which is enforceable), but chose not to because they would have a hard time making them stick, given the business wasn't registered AND the RSPCA had deemed that cruelty charges weren't relevant - they worded it poorly by using the word 'cruelty' when they were talking about the charges that they dropped, but based on the rest of the info I'd say the above situation (or the possibility that the AMO in charge is an authorised officer under POCTA) are the only two feasible explanations. RSPCA aren't the only body that can seek to charge people under POCTA - the police can (and do under specific circumstances - IME they do an excellent job at it too) and some AMO's can IF they are recognised as AO's under the Act. RSPCA are also just as bound by resource limitations as everyone else that works in animal welfare, so they make decisions to follow up cases based on whether they think that the resources put in to *maybe* getting a conviction would be better used elsewhere (say, in keeping the puppy farmer on side so that they can get hold of the dogs and get them out of the situation - as often happens in hoarding cases). The only question I really have in this whole situation is why the sentence for the unreg business charge was so light, given that the owner has a known history of re-offending and it appears that he's actively sought to dodge the system in order to get away with providing conditions that don't meet the requirements set out in the Code (which is mandatory IF he had been registered). If the purpose of registration is to create a system of accountability, then his offence is not minor and he should have received towards the higher end of the punishments available. As I said earlier, my guess as to why this happened is probably because of precedent in earlier cases (so there wasn't an option for the judge to actually give a harsher punishment) and if that's the case, then the law needs to be tweaked to allow for a more appropriate sentence to be given.

Depends on the charges, but the Codes covered in the DAA (which stipulate conditions for breeding facilities and owned dogs) are mandatory, whereas the POCTA Codes aren't (but can be used as a defence to cruelty charges). The council could therefore charge for failure to comply with mandatory Codes (evidenced by sub-standard conditions), in situations where an authorised officer under POCTA couldn't. The council obviously felt that the lesser charges wouldn't stick for some reason (possibly because the conditions were defensible using the POCTA Codes) so the went with the one they knew they would get a conviction on. Also, if he was moving around animals that were supposed to be registered as part of his breeding business, to facilities that are non-compliant with the requirents and/or not providing vet care etc. as required, he would have been breaking the law IF he'd registered his business and dogs as he was supposed to. The point I was making is that the leniency he received on the unreg business charge was inappropriate, if the point of that law is to register breeding businesses in an attempt to make people accountable for the treatment of their dogs. I have no idea if the council has evidence that dogs were moved, but given they weren't registered as part of a breeding business anyway, council can't do anything other than het him for not registering.

If an AMO is also an authorised officer under POCTA, then council can prosecute for cruelty offences under that Act. Not sure if that's the case here though. I understood the statement issued by council to mean that they dropped a number of charges related to the conditions (which would amount to cruelty but council would be attempting to charge under mandatory Codes covered by the DAA, thus they would have trouble making them stick, probably because the defensible Codes in POCTA contrdict the line council was taking) in preference for a sure-fire conviction on the unregistered business charge. What's of concern to me is that there's an obvious bias towards regulation (as per all of the changes we have seen in recent years) without a concurrent focus on the purpose of regulation, which is to ensure better conditions (supposedly). Futher to that, the current sentence was on the lower end of what could be given for the charge - how is that justifiable given the conditions, the guy moving dogs around to avoid charges and the whole reason for regulation in the first place? I'd guess that precedent in previous cases tied the judge's hands to a degree, but if that's the case, then that law needs to be tweaked to allow more appropriate sentencing.

Totally agree with both Mita and Powerlegs. Just picking up on the point about 'subgroups' (like shelters, private rescue, pounds etc.) judging each other (both between and within groups). It's important for all of us to remember that the welfare sector is a huge system, which requires all parts to be involved and effective in order to function well. Everybody is important and everybody can contribute something, but no one person is the 'key' to progress. Everyone (even those that probably shouldn't be doing the work) comes to the table with a unique skillset and life experience, at least some of which is usually applicable and valuable for others within the system. That should be a huge strength for us, rather than a weakness (like it currently is). The one consistent feature of progressive communities all over the world is cohesion - they know what each team member can and can't do, play to the strengths of each team member (be that the local AMO, trainer, pound staffer, specialist rescuer, vet provider etc. etc.) and provide a consistent, reliable message to the public, which in time results in snowballing support for animal welfare outcomes. It's a whole lot easier and more effective to get the public (and other welfare orgs) on board through consistent, supportive provision of services and education, than it is to shame/bully/manipulate them into getting involved or engaging in RPO behaviours. I'm not really sure why cohesiveness, mutual respect and team work are such difficult ideals to sell, but I'm hopeful that it becomes less difficult as support services for people working 'on the ground' become the norm and we all become more aware of how much damage we do to ourselves by feeding the negativity and isolation.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who's worked or volunteered in companion animal welfare/rescue will know a few people who fit the description that you gave above, Sarsaparilla. It's hard to draw a solid line between people who are honestly suffering from burnout in some capacity, or have developed a destructive or counter-productive coping mechanism (but would be perfectly capable of doing an excellent job with the right guidance and support) and those that probably shouldn't be doing the work at all, just based on the behaviour you see online and whether they think they are irreplaceable though. Culturally, we have some really counter-productive 'measures' of the quality of a welfare org or rescue group that are popularised (like the 'who's got the best numbers' game), so sometimes you get situations where good people conform to an attitude or norm that they know is wrong/destructive/counter-productive to what we are trying to achieve in the long term, just because they no longer have the energy to fight with the AR crew or the 'zealots' (read the Four Phases article for what I mean by that), their perception is totally screwed up at that point in time because they are struggling with their own circumstances, or because they perceive it to be the easiest way to achieve a tangible, positive outcome for an animal that they are caring for given the circumstances. They aren't mutually exclusive situations either! I'm regularly disappointed and frustrated by the sheer intensity of the hate, judgement and blaming/shaming that goes on in the broader welfare sector (and that some people encourage the public to join in on, often while 'selling' a simplified and counter-productive measure of how to tell the 'good guys' from the 'bad guys'). Anyone who understands what compassion fatigue is and how it affects everyone who does this work (and I mean everyone - not everyone burns out, but everyone will feel the emotional and psychological toll of welfare work), also understands that feeding the negativity is NEVER helpful for anyone involved. We KNOW that really kicking goals in comp animal welfare requires the whole community to be involved (which simply doesn't happen when people are actively working to 'divide and conquer', or manipulate people's emotions to garner support, or to assign blame because they think that they have the magic bullet to 'fixing things'); we KNOW that animal welfare outcomes are intrinsically linked to human welfare outcomes (in all walks of life, not just our sector); and we KNOW that everyone who is involved in this field will struggle with the first two points BECAUSE of compassion fatigue. Yet, we still have a culture in welfare/rescue that actively feeds the CF cycle and the majority of people who work or vollie in welfare have never even heard of the term.

This is a topic really close to my heart, so I thought I'd post a couple of links here for those who are interested in the topic or would like to start up a discussion about Compassion Fatigue with welfare groups (and animal management professionals!) that they know or work with. The Animal Sheltering Magazine website has a lot of great resources about CF, including this article written by Doug Fakkema (he's one of the pioneers in CF management in animal welfare workers): http://www.animalsheltering.org/resources/magazine/mar_apr_2001/four_phases.html Here's his website http://dougfakkema.com/articles.html There's also a project/website specifically designed for combatting CF called the Compassion Fatigue Awareness Project http://www.compassionfatigue.org/pages/petsmart.html It's really a topic that we should have front and centre on the agenda in Australia, as it's a welfare problem for both the people directly affected AND the animals they work with. There's also many links between compassion fatigue and workers' (or vollies') struggling to deal with the public in an empathetic and effective way - proactive and effective management of CF on an organisational level provides a solid basis on which to build a progressive and flexible environment.

We basically just need somewhere with an indoor space suitable to run the workshops, with parking for participants and space for dogs to comfortably hang out in their crates. Toilets and wash facilities for the humans are needed as well, but otherwise we're pretty self-contained and are all covered by our own insurance. My next point of contact was going to be obedience clubs who have their own club rooms, as I've struck out with council and the local sports and horse riding clubs I've contacted.

How many dogs do you need vs how many do you already have? It would depend on the location and when/how often training sessions need to be run for me to decide whether or not I can join so I need to know all the information first. My dog has already been trained to alert to the basic nosework scent (birch, etc) so I wonder if it will interfere with this? I am not that experienced with nosework so not sure if teaching her to alert to diabetes more frequently will cause her to confuse the scents when I do want her to alert to birch. Still I think it's a very worthwhile cause and would like to contribute if I can. We've only started recruiting today, so I'm not sure how many people have contacted Tiffani to be honest. We had a small handful of people already signed up after a diabetes conference that Tiffani attended recently (including some diabetics), but beyond that I'm not sure. This first round of testing is a proof of concept phase - as such we don't need huge numbers and are hoping to get at least 15 owner-dog teams, so that in the event that a few people need to pull out for some reason we will still have a dozen dogs participating. In regards to the Nosework, we've chosen Myrrh as the scent so that people competing in Nosework are unlikely to have introduced it yet, but can hopefully use the training as a foundation for the Myrrh work later on in training (depending on who you are training with you might not even use Myrrh). The type of indication is flexible, as we only need to know if the dog is indicating, not how. That said, we are aiming to train dogs that will indicate whenever the scent is present rather than on cue, so the final steps in training will be a little different between the two.

Grumpette, we already have a couple of Type 1 diabetics on board so we'd love to have you. We are using a different scent for this stage of testing, so that we can trial and validate the method and equipment before adding the extra complication of knowing what the dogs are actually indicating on. Silentchild, Emma from Scent Dogs Australia will be running the training for us. I'm still trying to hunt out a venue that we can use, but we are aiming for somewhere in the northern suburbs (hopefully Hume area). Mita I'm not sure if they are doing epilepsy dogs (yet) but the Australian Centre for Service and Therapy Dogs have an autism dog program and I'm pretty sure that Yariv, the head trainer, has done work with seizure alert dogs. It might be worthwhile inquiring further if your friend is interested in pursuing it :) Medical Alert Dogs in the UK definitely have an awesome program though!

Hi everyone, I'm just sharing this on here in case some Melbourne based DOLers may be interested in taking part. The Dog Cognition team up at LTU Bendigo are currently recruiting for a study being conducted in early-mid 2015. The study is specifically looking at a possible training method for Diabetes Alert Dogs, with a view to measuring and hopefully improving longevity of DAD training. Potential participants would need to be based in Melbourne or surrounds, and already be using rewards based training methods with their dogs. There is no need for previous Nosework or scent detection training, as all participants will be provided with professional training and all of the materials needed. If you are interested, please see the attached flyer and contact Tiffani for more details or to sign up. Thanks Diana

To add to that, I was taught and now tend to teach myself, that the variation between herbivores, omnivores and carnivores is more of a spectrum than distinct categories, with ruminants and obligate carnivores at opposing ends. In that way, dogs are carnivorous omnivores whereas we are herbivorous omnivores.

I'm not sure that you can use either of those studies as evidence that dogs are obligate carnivores. The wolf observations were on a different species (or sub-species depending on your POV) which is known to have nutrition-related genetic differences with domestic dogs (primarily amylase gene polymorphisms). The other simply shows that a scrap-based vegetarian diet leads to malnutrition in domestic dogs, in much the same way it does for people, and we are not carnivores simply because we need to attend to our protein intake to remain healthy. Physiologically, cats are obligate carnivores and dogs are not because cats cannot synthesise proteins which both dogs and people (and other omnivores) can. That said, dogs have a much shorter digestive tract than most other omnivores (even bears) and carnivore dentition (like bears) which means they can do much better on a low fibre, protein-rich diet than us. In short, dogs can survive on a well-designed and balanced vegetarian diet, they just prefer and do better with animal products in there too. Must admit I find the idea of vegetarian diets for dogs odd (medical reasons aside), but if done 'properly' the dog won't die from it.

If you have faith in your local pound system and they allow you to put a 'finder hold' or similar on the dog, I'd suggest surrendering the dog, waiting out the hold period and then formally adopting it yourself. If the dog is not chipped, she probably won't even realise what's happening until you are the legal guardian, and if it is, let's see how keen she is to pay money to get the dog back from the pound. The other options are waiting her out, or directly pulling her up on her behaviour and demanding she do something. It's not a nice situation to be in

On the breed risk vs breed management thing, I don't think anyone (at least anyone with a bit of education and experience in area) agrees that all breeds are 'created equal' and therefore are suitable to every owner. Perhaps the wording is sometimes a little off, but the focus of 'deed not breed' is more the outcomes (risk?) of the dog-owner combination. If we expect and enforce that ALL owners contain their dogs, ensure that their dogs are under effective control in public etc. (regardless of what that owner needs to do in order to achieve that outcome), variation a DOG'S requirements becomes the owner's responsibility and the conversation moves away from breed. It probably helps to think of bite risk like traditional risk management. That is, likelihood vs consequence. Owner behaviour in raising, training and managing their dog is 100% related to the likelihood of a bite, and highly related to the consequence of that bite (through bite inhibition training, management of the dogs arousal levels in higher risl situations etc.). The size, strength and personality of a dog have an influence on consequence too, but if the dog is managed properly (and in accordance with the outcomes we as other dog owners should expect them too), the likelihood of a bite is so low as to pose neglible risk regardless of the theoretical consequence.

You could also try Kat from K9 Kompany. She has worked with dogs from Animal Aid before and runs classes in the Greensborough/Eltham area (and private lessons out Coldstream way).

Have you spoken with Nicole from Planet K9 (the trainer who runs from the front of Lost Dogs)? It sounds like they are convenient to you and both Nicole and Nola (a trainer that works with Nicole) can assess the dog and give you a plan. They are also both happy to refer to a VB (they work with Deb Calnon and Co as the first point of call). You should have done a post adoptive session with someone from Planet K9 after you got Tippi, so use the same contact details if you still have them.

Train the dog you are with, not the dog you want - he'll always tell you his truth in that moment if you are willing to listen.

Further to the points Steve has raised, it's important to remember that stats aren't the best or most informative way of assessing org performance too. They don't reflect population make up at each step, welfare of the dogs while at the org (a huge one), welfare of staff and volunteers, or how successful placements actually were (although you can sometimes get a feel for this from return rates, really bad orgs won't necessarily have high return rates regardless though, as people simply don't take the dog back but rehome it in other ways). Most importantly, stats will never reflect how good a job an org does at keeping pets in their homes, so they don't become a statistic. Community support pre-surrender and education and support programs (for new families, victims of domestic violence, owners who struggle financially etc) are a huge way that pounds and sheltrrs can improve welfare... but none of that is reflected by stats. Just my opinion, but I worry that the focus on stats will lead to more effort being expended on keeping the public happy with 'good' numbers, while taking already limited resources away from other important issues (I know this already happens in several facilities in my state).

Sorry!

Arghh - triple post!

Can you give me a link to this law? Not being a smart arse but I can't find one. In Victoria, it's spelt out on the DEPI website that this is the case, though I can't find it spelt out in the DAA I assume it's been interpreted as such previously (the DAA is pretty vague in how the containment section is written), though it could also be in the DA Regulations as I haven't looked through those. You can also be fined for not properly containing your dog if your fences are currently containing your dogs (i.e. they are still in your yard), but they COULD get through (including under or over) your fence. If this had have happened in Victoria, the dog owners would also be liable as they weren't complying with containment laws. DEPI website summary of our containment responsibilities http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/pets/dogs/legal-requirements-for-dog-owners/confine-your-dog

I thought that some DOLers might be interested in participating in this survey - it's from the UK but they are looking for participants worldwide. It only takes 10 minutes or so, but you'd be best off on a computer or tablet to complete it as it requirese you to watch some short videos. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/DogBodyLanguage Cheers Diana

Yep, there seems to be a few sections of CBARQ that multiple people would like some more flexibilty or options in. DIAS, CBARQ and the Monash DPQ are all published surveys that are currently being used in dog personality and behaviour research. As I'm looking at how well the results of each of the surveys correlate to each other and to how owners describe their own dogs (in their own words), I can't change anything or the results won't mean much. I am keeping all of the feedback in mind though, as it's useful to help understand where the biggest issues for owners are when filling them out and to give an indication of where validity or reliability problems might crop up (if they do), so keep it coming as I appreciate it!

Thanks so much for all of the responses everyone! Currently at a touch under 300 completed surveys, so it's going really well :D Just a quick question for anyone that's been having trouble with Qualtrics playing up - from my end it looks like a lot of people are stopping at Q44, which is the very last question at the end of the DIAS section. Is the software dropping out when you attempt to move onto the next section, or are people stopping there because they see that they are less than halfway and it's taking too long to complete? I've currently got about 100 surveys that aren't finished and it looks like at least a third have stopped at the same question - I've got a little bit of feedback that suggests that it's a software issue so will chase it up, but I want to know if there's anything else that I can do to make it less difficult for people to participate. For those who are having problems with it dropping out, it should save all of your answers for a week from when you started so (fingers crossed) if you go back in, you shouldn't need to re-do the start.

Thanks for all of the replies and sorry that it's not behaving in a stable manner. I'll check on Monday if it's an issue at our end, or if Qualtrics just doesn't like certain browsers, as I can't see anything obvious in the set up. In case anyone needs to, it should save your answers and allow you to come back up to a week later and finish on the same computer.