Frankston Council (vic)

[Erny]

I'm with Kelpie-i on this. In addition to what she has said, what's to say that dog (purebreed or otherwise) was actually let out. Or stolen and got away. Or being cared for by someone else who made a mistake and the dog got loose? It's not all about owners not being vigilant. What if the person trained their dog in drive and needed what the dog had for the best performance? What if the dog had unknown health issues where the affect of GA wreaked havoc on its system? What if, what if, what if.

This decision is NOT up to the Council. Should NOT be up to the Council. Or whichever shelter it might be transferred to.

I am really sick and tired of the so-called "authorities" deeming me so stupid that they think are entitled to be arrogant enough to make all my decisions for me. In fact, I'm just sick of authorities deeming me stupid, period.

Erny stamps foot; pouts; hands on hips; storms off, swearing under her breath.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Erny

[Cosmolo]

But Kelpie i- why would that dog not be registered with the council? The criteria is double unregistered- not registered with the CC AND not registered with the council.

Erny- the dogs aren't desexed before the owner comes forward!

What if peple contained their dogs?

What if people REGISTERED their dogs with the local council?

If people did EITHER of these things, they won't find themselves in the predicament where the council insists the dog be desexed.

ETA I understand the frustration with regards to over regulation, i really really do. But having seen first hand what kind of people and dogs this law relates to, i do support it. BYB puppy machines were previously released to their far from responsible owners with the council/ shelter KNOWING the dog would be back, knowing the dog would be BYB. This measure gives the council power to stop that WITHOUT impinging on responsible owners- is it really that hard to register your dog with the local council???

Edited January 21, 2010 by Cosmolo

[Erny]

Erny- the dogs aren't desexed before the owner comes forward!

Are we clear on that? It's not the way I've read the opening and initial posts. I take it that the owner steps forward but dog won't be released to owner unless dog is desexed.

What if people contained their dogs?

What if padlocks are broken?

What if a storm blows down a fence in the absence of the owner?

These things may not commonly occur, but the list of possibilities are endless.

What if people REGISTERED their dogs with the local council?

What if the dog was picked up in a different Council to where the dog is registered?

[shells]

You could put this slant on it - most responsible PET owners desex their dogs, most irresponsible PET owners dont. It could be said that these desexed dogs are the same ones used for BYBing or out roaming mating with other dogs. There is a whole heap of people out there who cant be bothered/afford to desex their dog or be bothered to keep their dog safely contained - I grew up in an area like this.

TBH I dont understand why (unless you are a breeder) you would want to keep your dog entire.

[Cosmolo]

If the fence blew down and the ranger picked the dog up, provided the dog is registered- no problem! If the dog was registered with another council and the owner could provide proof of that- no problem!

I was at a seminar where a representative from Frankston City Council spoke and the dogs are only desexed once the owners come forward for many reasons-

1- if they didn't and the dog did have an issue and died on the table, the council would be liable. They need to get the owner to sign something but the law allows them to compel desexing if they don't meet any of the requirements for an exemption

2- the dog is not legally the property of council until after the impound period anyway so no work of a permanent nature can be done during this time

3- if the dog was desexed on entry, and unclaimed= wasted council funds.

The list goes on..

I fail to understand why people with registered dogs (local council rego) would be in any way concerned about this type of legislation?

Edited January 21, 2010 by Cosmolo

[Erny]

You could put this slant on it - most responsible PET owners desex their dogs, most irresponsible PET owners dont. It could be said that these desexed dogs are the same ones used for BYBing or out roaming mating with other dogs. There is a whole heap of people out there who cant be bothered/afford to desex their dog or be bothered to keep their dog safely contained - I grew up in an area like this.

TBH I dont understand why (unless you are a breeder) you would want to keep your dog entire.

What if it was a younger dog and the owners wanted the dog to reach maturation before desexing?

What about those who opt for chemical castration instead?

I've already mentioned about drive training. And GA wreaking havoc with existing health issues.

I disagree on the blanket statement that (even though you said) "most" irresponsible pet owners don't desex their dogs. Simply because I don't know what the stats are on the correlation between "undesexed dog + responsible owner" -vs- the other.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Erny

[Cosmolo]

I think to really understand what this legislation is trying to achieve, you need to stand behind the counter where people come to reclaim their dogs. And watch Bogan Joes come in week after week with his entire cross breed dog who he uses over his mates bitch because its 'cool' and they can make money. And you'll wish you could desex his dog but in most places you can't- and so the cycle continues.

With regards to being a younger dog- register the dog with the local council and it won't matter if the dog is 10 weeks or 10 months or 10 years.

[Kelpie-i]

I fail to understand why people with registered dogs (local council rego) would be in any way concerned about this type of legislation?

Not all farmers register their dogs with local council. A working dog works best entire. These days most councils charge higher rates for undesexed dogs or you need to produce proof of desexing. You get the picture.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Kelpie-i

[Cosmolo]

Most councils won't register dogs unless desexed?? Which councils do this, genuine question?

I will see if i can find my notes because i vaguely remember something about exceptions for working dogs but i am not sure if i am mixing up another speaker as there were many talking about different strategies.

Putting aside for a moment the farmer with his working dog (and really- the simple solution to ensure this legislation is never enacted on a dog like this is to contain him/her. In all the suburban pounds and shelters i have worked in, i have never seen a real working dog that was reclaimed so i question how often such a scenario would arise- if ever, especially given the council areas of Frankston and Kingston are suburban areas) are there any other responsible owners that legislation like this would adversely affect?

ETA The working dog exemption i referred to applied to a rural council where many farmers do live, not in VIC. I think this is fair and that different demographics like this should be taken into account.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Cosmolo

[Kelpie-i]

When I registered by dogs initially (many years ago) desexing wasn't compulsury and you were charged a higher rate of registration if your dog was entire. Today you need to produce a desexing certificate before registration is accepted (I believe this is the case).

Some councils handle both suburban and semi-rural areas like ours. It might be rare as hen's teeth to see a working dog in a suburban area, but there are plenty of working dogs on large hobby farms in semi-rural areas. If once council introduces legislation, there is a good chance other councils will too.

Like Erny, I am over the power play coming from the hierarchy and it's extremely unfair to place blanket legislations when there can be so many variables. But I do agree with where you are coming from, I just cannot see it being effected as correctly as it should be.

[Cosmolo]

Kelpie i- if there was an exemption for working dogs, would that sway you in favour?

I know education is the answer to many problems instead of legislation. I too, don't like knee jerk reactions of legislate, legislate! But we also have to find solutions for those people who don't want to be educated, who don't care and don't listen and i can't think of another way that does not involve some kind of legislation.

I actually think Frankstons model and exemptions are really appropriate and workable and aside from the issue Kelpie i mentions (which isn't an issue in Frankston but i agree could be an issue elsewhere) i think they've done a really good job. I think they are targetting the right people with this.

[Kelpie-i]

Kelpie i- if there was an exemption for working dogs, would that sway you in favour?

It would certainly make the legislation fairer, yes.

[BJean]

FRANKSTON council will NOT accept any new registrations for non ANKC dogs over 12 weeks of age.

They will not register your dog unless it is desexed.

http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Animals/De...ions/index.aspx

Refusing to release impounded unregistered dogs to their owners unless the dogs are desexed, effectively makes this law retrospective.

This is mandatory desexing no matter how you butter it up.

And why anyone would clap and yay the further erosion of dog owners' rights is beyond me. Will be interesting to see how many clap and yay when Councils decree that only Registered Domestic Animal Businesses can own entires.

Wont affect me because I can get a DAB reg.,

but I would be perturbed and less inclinded to clap and yay about Franskton and Kingston et als new council laws

if I was a non breeder who enjoyed their right to own an entire dog.

Edited January 21, 2010 by lilli

[BJean]

If you are unfortunate enough to live under Frankston or Kingston rule,

and do not want your dog desexed, perhaps this guy can help:

Vet Condemns Forced Desexing

Edited January 21, 2010 by lilli

[Steve]

Well, we have had some members who have had to move house to be able to own their dogs and keep them entire.

Not all breeders are breeding ANKC recognised breeds and the fact that a local government is telling people they have to be registered with a non state purebred org in order to be able to make decisions on what they want to do with their dogs is pretty out there isnt it? How can they discrimminate with members of a community based on whether their dogs are recognised papered purebreds?

The MDBA applied to be able to be one of their recognised orgs so we could get an exemption for our members dogs as Vic dog members do and the reqirement became the dogs had to be registered with an approved org. We dont register dogs.

I wonder if Vic dogs is paying them a commission on dog registrations?In Victoria to date most people who bought registered puppies never joined Vic dogs or changed over the owner details now if you want to keep your dog entire you have to pay Vic dogs to change the details.

Its no wonder the cross bred breeders are putting together a group which will register dogs to be able to apply for an approved org.

That should make them a pack of money too.

Sounds like restriction of trade and discrimmination to me.

[Cosmolo]

I would love to hear alternatives- what do we do with Bogan Joe who does not want to be educated? And what changes to the legislation would make it fair- or do we want no legislation at all of this nature?

[greytdog]

Sister found a GR and turned it in to Keysborough Animal Shelter. She followed up (b/c she would have adopted it if the owners weren't found), and found out that the dog will be desexed even if the owners are the ones that claim it.

I don't think this is correct either, I think it has been suggested that she have her dog desexed to stop it from getting out again and she has opted for that to happen, but AAPS can't just take in a dog and desex it before doing it's mandatory time, I think that is illegal.

No, it wasn't her dog. She turned the dog into the shelter after she found it. She was told this is what would happen before it was released to its owners. She would not have been suprised if it had been before she adopted it (if that was to happen; now it won't), but was suprised that the owners also had to have the dog desexed before release.

[Bluefairy]

What a great idea, its one way to get the unwanted strays down in numbers. I wish all councils did it.

Lynn

How is this going to get unwanted strays down in numbers?? Any captured/desexed dog could be a repeat offender time and time again. It's not his balls that he uses to escape with

Agreed, silly idea.

I meant keeping these undesexed dogs from roaming and mating, making more unwanted dogs/puppies ending up in the pound or rescue centres

Its a great idea. If you don't plan on mating your dog then there's no reason not to desex it.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Bluefairy

[claireybell]

Did you also know that all dogs have to be registered by 4 months of age?

My cocker was not registered until 7 months becuase I waited until I had her desexed her. If I registered her before desexing it was about $120. After desexing it was $30.

I mentioned to the council that most vets will not desex until 5.5 months (unless the animal is from a shelter/pound and they already come desexed) and that their laws for registration should be changed. Frankston Council didn't care and they wanted to fine me for not registering my dog earlier. They didn't get to fine me though because I kicked up stink

[Kirty]

lilli, I would not be quoting or referencing Dr Corbett. He is totally uneducated about animal welfare and simply likes to throw his opinion around.

I think the law is fantastic. The law in Victoria says that dogs must be chipped and registered by 3 months of age. If your dog is chipped (regardless of whether it is desexed) you get the discounted registration rate. If your dog is registered with the council, you have nothing to worry about. if your dog is less than three months old and is picked up, you have nothing to worry about. If your dog is roaming and unregistered, well what do you expect?