espinay2

CRIMES ACT 1900 SECTION 132 - STEALING DOGS This legislation states: "Whosoever, having been summarily convicted under this or any former Act, of any such offence as is hereinafter in this section mentioned, afterwards, steals any dog, or has unlawfully in his or her possession any stolen dog, knowing such dog to be stolen, shall be liable to imprisonment for one year." See also for NSW: http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/viewtop/...40+1900+cd+0+N/ One of the things that can happen when the rules are not followed: http://express-advocate-wyong.whereilive.c...ed-for-helping/

It is a matter of theft and if the owner is serious about following the matter up, it will get followed up. If the owner finds out where the dog is, they have a legal right to follow it up as either a criminal matter (theft etc) or as a civil matter (issues relating to money). It may not happen every time in this situation but it legally can and does happen. Just because someone is not always caught or prosecuted for a crime does not make it ok to commit it.

What is the correlation between him not feeling well and him sleeping on the bed? Will he get off the bed when you tell him to? Will he move over when you tell him to? Do you have any other issues with him not listening to you or challenging you? If not, I personally see no problems with a dog sleeping on the bed. If you do have issues, that may be a different matter though.

I would not agree that an unmicrochipped dog belongs to noone. Ideally every dog should be microchipped BUT if a dog is not microchipped but is a very much loved member of a family and one day through someone leaving the gates open, the dog wanders out and is lost and someone collects the dog....the dog does not belong to them UNLESS they go all out to find out who its previous owners are. If they do make all attempts to search for the dog's former owners and nothing transpires then they are entitlted to keep the dog, I wouldn't be insistant that they hand the dog to the pound in that case. Heard one too many horror stories of things gone wrong with pounds. and of they don't look in the correct places? if they don't try hard enough? there is a legal process in place for managing abandoned and lost dogs and i suggest people stop advising others to break the law as you have no idea of the consequences of your advice Have to agree with JB on this one. You don't just 'find' something on the side of the road, take it home 'try' to find an owner then decide to keep it. You hand it in to the proper authorities or by law you are at the very least recieving stolen property. IF the rightful owner is then not found, often it can then be returned to you. Making all attempts to find the owner includes putting them into the 'system' to allow the legal process to take place. I find it irresponsible that people are recommending on a public forum that the law be broken.

Not true. Saying that it is fine to take and keep an unchipped dog is a bit like saying it is fine to steal a car because it is not registered or has no number plates! A microchip is a means of identification. It can make proof of ownership easier, but even in cases where a dog is stolen and then chipped by the person who steals it, it does not make them the legal owner (though it does make the case messier). The dog is still stolen and if the owner shows the dog is theirs (which they can do in all sorts of ways including photos, DNA, witness statements, other documents etc) then the person who took the dog (or the person who recieved the dog or pup from the person who took the dog) has no leg to stand on.

Depends how much grooming gear it needs to hold. I have one of those big tool boxes on wheels. There is another thread somewhere that has pictures... Thread is here: Supplies Box

I was thinking exactly the same thing. The argument that you thought something had been 'abandoned' and as a result you decided to keep it will never stand up in the eyes of the law. Even worse is entering (tresspassing) on someone elses property to remove that 'thing'. Just because the 'thing' is a dog does not make the law any different. The first thing that someone needs to do in this situation is to alert authorities that they beleive the dog (or property) has been abandoned. There is a particular legal process that needs to occur if the owner can not be contacted. If there is contact with the former owner, the owner needs to SIGN OVER the dog in writing (if they will not sign over for whethever reason, including can't be bothered, then the legal process regarding abandonment needs to occur). Without the cover of this legal process there is nothing stopping the owner returning to claim the dog and/or the puppies or to sue for money lost as a result of the sale or rehoming of the pups (i.e. "I could have sold the pups for $X amount therefore you owe me that money"). Without the legal cover it could turn into a messy legal process where the person attempting to 'do good' ends up being taken to court and charged with tresspassing, theft, and any variety of other criminal or civil charges. FOLLOW THE LAW FOLKS!!! In the end it protects both you AND the dog.

Add me Steve. I will help out where I can.

That may be one opinion from Facebook, but lets just say those on FB that I know from that country and others in Europe are appalled, so I don't think it is exactly a common one.

We have been flooded in around us but are high and dry where we live (on the top of a hill). Only just got home from work through the water on Thursday night and didnt get to work on Friday (was our Xmas party too darn it). Thank goodness for 4 wheel drives. Hoping everyone else is ok.

No this is not normal behaviour. Not here nor in Spain where the judge is from. I understand this isn't the first time she has done it but that this video is being used in a case against her. From what I understand something is most definitely being done about it. The video has certainly done the rounds internationally and got a lot of exposure! I think 'gone viral' is the right term

What he is likely referring to is the new AVA policy for vaccines which was introduced in June last year: AVA Vaccination Policy This policy states the following: The protocol is based on that recommended by the Vaccine Guidelines Group of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association: WSAVA Guidelines for vaccination of dogs and cats This protocol states the following (more info is in the document): And also:

I have a feeling we need to sit tight while Michael sorts out the mess. He seems to have his work cut out for him! Fingers crossed he can make a go of it. Edited to say thank you Michael for so quickly sorting out the issue with my name being associated with a dodgy breed description that I didnt write. I had been trying to get it sorted for well over six months before you came on the scene. Yes, I do agree, the breed descriptions definitely need work and it will be nice to see the website change to one that provides correct and reliable information.

OK, so actually nothing to do with the topic of this thread at all? Then why bring it up here and derail/hijack the topic?

Who is talking about crossbreds in this thread? You have me confused now.

Three large dogs at the moment, but have had up to six at one time. Food - I feed raw. I buy in bulk and have a freezer and fridge just for dog food. Bedding - some sleep in crates, some sleep wherever they want. I go for bedding that lasts and can be washed regularly. Vet bed and beds from Great Rugs - trampoline beds in their outdoor runs with heavy duty canvas covers. Walking. We have 88 acres with multiple large paddocks fenced for dog running areas so not an issue now. Previously when I lived at a smaller place though I did walk them. It usually involved multiple walks - usually divided up on the basis of ability (older slower dogs walked separately from younger more active ones and those needing individual work walked on their own). Yes it could take up quite a bit of time sometimes. Vet bills - Well, that is just something you suck up when necessary, I guess. Yes, having multiple big dogs means a bigger car/better way of transporting them. The important thing with multiple (particularly big) dogs, particularly in flood/bushfire prone areas is ensuring you have an evacuation plan so you can get all of the dogs out at once as quickly as possible. The biggest issue in relation to managing multiple dogs as I see it though is being able to separate them. I have had dogs that do not get on. Separate runs for outside and baby gates and crates inside make this easier to manage. Owners of multiple dogs IMO need to be prepared to do this (even if they hope they never have to). I do prefer to have dogs separated (at least into pairs that get on) rather than running in a big pack when I am not there to supervise too. It is also important to be able to separate the very young, very old, the injured or the ill (edited to add - yes the in season/whelp as well) and that is something that owners of multiple dogs need to take into account and plan for.

IMO while it is not wrong to charge more in general, where this sort of thing becomes wrong is as follows: a. The claim that something is 'rare' - particularly when it is not and/or when it is not an accepted colour or feature for the breed. This type of selling and claim is dodgy no matter what 'product' you are selling. b. When breeding for colour takes precedence over breeding for type/structure/health. If you breed for the good of the breed, and happen to get a dog with a more sought after colour or markings - then I see nothing wrong with selling it for more if people are willing to pay more. It is when things are done the other way around, or when they are falsely represented, or when a fault is passed off as something extra special that it becomes dodgy.

All depends on perspective doesnt it. Two colours - you charge more for one than the other - which charge is your 'base price'? If you say it is the higher one, then you are lowering the charge for some dogs, and if you say it is the lower price you are raising it. Why is it if you say one instead of the other you automatically become more 'ethical'? In my breed what breeders charge for pups can vary by about $1500 (with pups being sold for from $1500 to around $3000). The interesting thing is there is absolutely no correlation to quality. It is simply what the breeder decides personally to charge. We dont really have a colour issue though! (although the all whites can be popular with first time Pyr pet owners - I have never heard of a breeder charging more for one though) I do wonder though why some insist that all in a litter should be sold at the same price. Walk into a white goods store for example and I can guarantee you that any large appliance will not be sold at the same price to everyone. There may be a 'base price' but sometimes how much you pay can depend on a range of factors including how well you get on with the salesperson! If I want to charge less to someone I am selling a pup to (and as a result charge someone else more), then why not? Why is that considered somehow unethical if both the buyer and the seller are happy with the price? If they are not happy with the price, there is always the option of seeking a better one elsewhere.

Not much I can add on the technical side, but as the talk is of Bassets, I thought I would add this here - a fantastic resource for the breed: Basset Hound University Presuming the Basset owner is a registered breeder?

Sadly that is very much the case. Have one here. A good student. But has never owned an animal in his life and has no real clue how to handle them. Practical skills and understanding almost zero As for the Bondi vet. Lets just say it is interesting to hear what former classmates have to say :D

Commenting from the point of view of my own breed at least, that presence can be seen whether the dog is au'naturale out in a paddock somewhere or in the show ring. It is in the dog - you can see it in its outline, its movement and its attitude. Certianly good presentation and training can build on that, but good presentation and training doesn't create it - it has to be there to begin with.

indeed, i have seen a few dogs that have taken my breath away and not just me either, people who aren't dog people had the same reaction...the dogs were magnificent eta the last one was an amstaff and i went over to ask what sort of dog it was i had never seen such a well put together amstaff before. i then researched them more thoroughly and it really was one of the best And THAT is what it is all about. Appreciation of a well bred dog.

There is a difference between cute and WOW!! And no, not all purebreds (within the same breed) will have the 'wow factor' either.

I have just been picking my way through this thread, and geez folks I am not sure how many people are actually getting it? From what I can see, the original post was about APPECIATING AND ADMIRING A WORK OF ART. It is about recognising excellent construction, combined with good health, packaged together in a beautiful outline. It is about admiring the efforts of someones dedication to their craft - in this case the breeding of purebred dogs. That sort of thing stands out. It is like standing and admiring a beautiful piece of architecture and respecting the person who designed it. It is technical precision that because of its correctness becomes beauty. It is about appreciating it when you see it and reveling in the moment. And wishing there were more like it. If it is elitest to enjoy a beautiful scene or poem, or piece of music, or building or painting or to admire the joy and beauty and technical precision that shines from a truly well constructed and heathy animal, then call me elitest because I too enjoy seeing and admiring these things. They make me look and they make me stop to enjoy the moment. They catch my eye, make me smile and sometimes take my breath away. And in no way am I ever going to apologise for that.

I think if a survey is run, perhaps it needs to be more 'attitudinal'. For example - focussing on what they really want out of their dog. What they would like to be able to do. Asking them about their dogs behaviour - what is good and what they would like to change. I personally see training as being about helping owners to have the relationship they want with their dogs. I hear people say too that owners are stopping after a certain point and you dont see them at classes again - that they dont continue to take the dog to classes throughout the dogs life. I often see this said in a negative way. To my mind, if owners can achieve a relationship with their dogs that they are happy with after attending a basic puppy and/or beginners course, why should they continue to go to classes? If a trainer can assist a family to a good relationship with their dog in one session of classes I think that is ideal. Dog owners dont need to take a lifetime of classes to have a pet with good basic manners. Definitely some may need more help. Quite a few years ago I was in the US and visited a training school a friend worked at. I liked their setup. In addition to the puppy and beginners classes they ran a 'terrible teens' class to try and bring people in at that next crucial stage in development - and the point when things often go wrong. Back vto the survey - I think asking people to rate the training they have recieved is the wrong approach. Rather asking people what they want and need from training. That would help trainers better target what they provide. But I would think there would be a raft of studies out there already in this respect?