Willem

.... :D ....nah, the riddle has nothing to do with the bulls...I just use them as decoys for the normal training...

unfortunately, this is the rule....on the one side you have a test that verifies that your dogs are vaccinated, on the other side you can vaccinate and vaccinate and vaccinate ....and hope that it will do something good and not so much bad...so where is the logic in their recommendations if it is not the $$$$? A smart vet would say, this is something that becomes anyway a common procedure (see UK), think long term and lets be one of the first to demonstrate a scientific and modern approach. If he can convince the dog owners to a yearly titer test and charges AU$ 90 for it he might maintain even the same income...

nah, the cows are actually bulls :D ....but we getting closer.... :laugh:

...when the people read 'Willem' and Pavlov is sitting on their shoulder, then ....

nah,....you have to think outside the box, ...think 'Willem'...

o.k....here is the (first) clue:....Pavlov might help you :)

..all normal, 'front' (official recall) or 'side' (heel position) she recognize from where my finger points, normal (just recalling her) is front, if I don't want to use my hand / fingers I say 'place' when she is closer and she goes in heel position ....but that's all normal :)

South East WA...hm, ...a tad too far.... :)

no...princess highway is far away...it is a tricky question, I guess I have to give a clue...

...nah, that's nothing special...

nice body posture with wagging tail from Thistle...that's what you want... the whistle is a normal dog whistle from evil bay, something like this http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/1x-Pet-Dog-Training-Obedience-Whistle-Ultrasonic-Supersonic-Adjustable-Pitch-HIA-/152231606160?hash=item2371b5f790:g:IyAAAOSw5ZBWQDkm and the other things (wind etc) are obviously 'obvious' ...what I mean is not soooo obvious :)

Recall with Whistle the recall training today was somehow special...lets see whether someone can point it out....

well, most of the poo of our dog ends up in the dog poo compost drum...and once it is decomposed it goes onto the lawn or other areas in the garden (just not on the veggies)...so I'm not only using the roadkill for feeding my dog, but I use it also to add organic matter back to the environment, how good is this ...

...http://www.ava.com.au/node/5415...their earnings seem to be not so high, so loosing a substantial part of their income due to less vaccinations has an impact...

...that's all fine and I'm jealous because I don't live on a small acreage ...but regarding the humancentric approach: ...I can't see that breeding (non-native) animals for meat production is more humancentric than making use of native roadkill, and why this sickens you? ...and living in an environment that doesn't rely on any truck delivery, well, not many are so lucky, and they wouldn't be able to afford dog food prices (and other goods) if the drivers would e.g. only drive 30 km/h to avoid any collision. It is easy to climb the moral high ground if you have enough money to pay for all the goods that address an 'humancentric' approach, or if your circumstances allow to source these from elsewhere for little money, many are not so lucky, but that doesn't justify to call them selfish or profiteers.... your sheep, goats or alpacas you have to slaughter for your dog food are not even native animals, thus having a much higher environmental food print, how does this fit into an humancentric approach? ETA:...and blaming the drivers for killing animals, well, they might just obeying the rules: http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/animals.html ... If you can’t avoid the animal safely you may have to hit it to avoid injury or death to yourself and others.

...I read somewhere that they can live up to 5 days!!! in the pouch of a dead mother...so also if you think the kangaroo is not fresh enough to take it with you it makes sense to check the pouch...which might be tricky due to rigor mortis, you might have to use a knife to cut it open.

I see this sign on many gates of properties where I know the owner has a very friendly dog or even no dog at all...it serves a slightly different purpose there :) ...

http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/animals.html If the animal has been killed, remove it from the road if it is safe to do so. Be careful with native animals as they may have babies in their pouches remove it from the road ... that is what I do...

...once I picked up a straying boxer on our daily walk...checked the collar, and yes, all data there...called the owner who told me whether I could take care for him as he needed 2 hours till he can pick him up. No problem, I thought, and brought the dog to the area aside the house that has an approx. 1.6 m fence ...wasn't a good idea as the boxer cleared it with the first attempt...had to tether him to the post till the owner picked him up... No, the fence in the picture is definitely not a secure fence if you have a dog that like to escape...

...but that is exactly the point here! No it's not. The whole point of the thread is a pre-meditated strategy, and most of the suggested strategies require prior planning. You can't be like "I would not have thrown dog treats at the dog if I didn't think it was about to hurt someone." Why would you even have dog treats unless you planned to feed them to a dog? Assuming you are not me and thus usually have dog treats on you. My point is if you have a plan, then someone has to check it with the owner. They have to have the opportunity to consent or they will have the opportunity to kick up an enormous fuss. If the dog's owner does not okay any of the strategies people are suggesting and boss won't get involved, it needs to go higher up, and that will be all kinds of misery, but it's that or you go through all due process and make sure it's witnessed so you don't get in trouble if (when) things go pear-shaped. And make sure you are okay with the risks you are taking on behalf of yourself, the dog, and your workmates. If we are talking purely about what do you do in the moment when the dog is humping you and getting kind of growly and you want the dog off you without getting bitten, then that is a different question and most of the answers given don't apply (you know, because you didn't pack your treats/noxious scent or whatever). you are absolutely right when looking at the issue from the '99.9% of accidents are avoidable view'...that's why JSAs etc. are a crucial part of the work environment - the problem is that not everyone is so reasonable and it might well be that the dog owner, or the boss, is one of the not so reasonable people. If this is the case - I don't know - the son has two options: to quit the job (or take some leave to avoid the confrontation if he can), or deal with the risk of getting bitten...both options are not ideal, but we don't live in an ideal world...if he doesn't want to quit, but informed the owner and his boss about the issue and they ignore it, IMO he has the right to defend himself, even by using aversives as he is not trespassing.

hm, you might consider bow hunting then...to reduce the repairs for he car :)

...that's according to the VIC Welfare Act that differs (?..I didn't followed up on the Vic once I found the one for NSW) from the NSW Welfare Act (TBC)...I think the problem is 'owning / keeping it' or even 'selling' it...hence the guy in the article is asked to destroy it. So even under Vic law I think I would be fine (or fined???) as I don't keep it, but 'destroy' it in an environmental friendly manner :D ... For the NSW Welfare Act I think I can 'satisfy the court', as requested under section 5c-i that the 'animal concerned was incapable of fending for itself in its natural habitat'... In some countries the roadkill is actually sold to pet food companies and meat processors, so it has a 'specified' value you would steal from the licenced collectors if you pick it up...but here in Australia we don't put processed roadkill in our Australian made dog food, don't we? :) ...at least I'm not aware of licenced collectors, so I assume I don't steal it from someone...saying this, it is one of the tasks of this thread to find out and to clarify... ETA:...there is also the hygienic aspect to be considered: if you start transforming your garage into an abattoir processing a big kangaroo every day...well, you will likely have some visitors from the H&S department soon....I assume a Wallaby - for your own dog(s) - every 1-3 month should be fine...

..more 'science': http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jpn.12045/abstract;jsessionid=7A847A5BC2A57FD7278615FD883D77E0.f02t01 I find it shocking that even high end diet kibble that cost you an arm and a leg can be contaminated...quote from the link: Failure to respond to commercial limited antigen diets can occur in dogs kept on a dietary trial for the diagnosis of adverse food reaction (AFR). The aim of this study was to assess twelve canine dry limited antigen diets (eleven novel protein diets and one hydrolysed diet) for potential contamination by ingredients of animal origin not mentioned on the label. The validity of the two methods adopted for the detection of such food antigens was also evaluated. Each dietary product was analysed by microscopy analysis using the official method described in Commission Regulation EC 152/2009 with the aim of identifying bone fragments of different zoological classes (mammalian, avian and fish) and by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the identification of DNA of animal origin. Discrepancies between the results obtained by PCR and/or microscopy analysis and the ingredients listed on pet food packages were found. Only in two pet foods did the results of both analyses match the ingredients listed on the label. In the remaining ten samples, microscopy detected bone fragments from one or two unpredicted zoological classes, revealing avian fragments in six of ten samples followed by those of fish in five of ten and mammalian fragments in four of ten. In two samples, microscopy analysis identified a contamination that would have otherwise passed unobserved if only PCR had been used. However, PCR confirmed the presence of all the zoological classes detected by microscopy and also identified the DNA of an additional unexpected zoological class in two samples. Dogs might fail to respond to commercial limited antigen diets because such diets are contaminated with potential allergens. Both PCR and microscopy analysis are required to guarantee the absence of undeclared animal sources in pet foods. Before ruling out AFR, a novel protein home-made diet should be considered if the dog is unresponsive to a commercial regimen.

...I think I did...quote from my post: Every kg of roadkill fed straight and fresh to a dog is a kg meat/bones less that has to be produced commercially, hasn't to be shipped around the world, hasn't to be delivered by truck to the shops (thus decreasing the risk of generating more roadkill), doesn't need a shiny package or can (where cost of the packaging often exceeds the value of the content) and has therefore a distinct smaller environmental food print. ...I'm open to change my stand on this if someone comes with a reasonable argument I have overlooked.... ETA: wrt 'being humancentric': I believe that this is actually a very humancentric approach, and if we use the environmental footprint per weight unit of food as a benchmark I think such an approach is hard to beat....

...if you want it more 'scientific"....here a study about wet pet food (conversely to kibble): http://actavetscand.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13028-015-0097-z ...quote from the source: ....'However, there was detection at substantial levels of unspecified animal species in most products tested'...and the tests ruled out that these 'unspecified' animals have been cows, horses, pigs or chickens, because they only tested for this species...