Frankston Council (vic)

[sandgrubber]

In principle, I'm in favour of mandatory desexing . . . having breeders hold permits to keep entire dogs. But this is an awful way to do it . . . generates a maximum amount or resentment . . . haphazard in implementation. . . . poor opportunity for education . . . doesn't create an opportunity to maintain some low level of health and welfare check on breeding dogs.

On the other hand, when my bitches come in season, I'd be stoked to know that if I call the ranger on a wandering dog, he'll loose his nuts. Great incentive to entire dog owners to make sure their fences are tight.

Btw, what do they do with bitches? Just open her up without knowing if the bitch has already been done? I would be really irritated to find that someone had opened up a girl who had already been done.

Edited January 22, 2010 by sandgrubber

[all that glitters]

I dont understand, the first thing I hear on here when someone mentions their entire dog is causing trouble is "desex it". Then a council does what a lot of you would reccommend anyway and you are up in arms.

I would imagine the number of breeders dogs picked up by the council is pretty low, and I agree there should be some way of ensuring these dogs are not desexed, but with the number of boguns in and around Franskston this is probably doing the community a service.

Agree!! I think it's a good idea mostly, and I worked in frankston for 3yrs, not exactly a responsible and bright cluster of people on the whole, most of the people I saw with dogs were scummy and I doubt their dogs were desexed and I bet they were going to breed it just to 'get puppies' and cos 'its cool'

So a law that involves desexing like that, well it can only do more good than bad i think.

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.

Agreeed.

[BJean]

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'm not quoting him

I'm suggesting to dog owners living with mandatory desexing, that Dr Corbett could be sympathetic

and therefore well inclined to write a letter to procure exemption.

NB: How do you know that 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?

NOTE: Council wil NOT accept new registrations unless the dog is desexed. So if Council wont let you register your dog, then the dog will remain unregistered, and if the dog gets out and Council subsequently get their hands on it, then they will force you to desex the dog.

Edited January 22, 2010 by lilli

[BJean]

I dont understand, the first thing I hear on here when someone mentions their entire dog is causing trouble is "desex it". Then a council does what a lot of you would reccommend anyway and you are up in arms.

I would imagine the number of breeders dogs picked up by the council is pretty low, and I agree there should be some way of ensuring these dogs are not desexed, but with the number of boguns in and around Franskston this is probably doing the community a service.

Agree!! I think it's a good idea mostly, and I worked in frankston for 3yrs, not exactly a responsible and bright cluster of people on the whole, most of the people I saw with dogs were scummy and I doubt their dogs were desexed and I bet they were going to breed it just to 'get puppies' and cos 'its cool'

So a law that involves desexing like that, well it can only do more good than bad i think.

... nah cant be bothered ...

Edited January 22, 2010 by lilli

[BJean]

..

Edited January 22, 2010 by lilli

[Kirty]

lilli, because he writes in to any local paper he can (which is frequently mine) and sprouts misinformation about how cruel it is to desex kittens (likens it to desexing a human baby), how many supposed poor people have brought their kitten in to him that has died from being desexed, etc. Never mind all the research that has been done on kitten desexing and how safe it is, etc. Or how many breeders and rescues have had thousands of kittens desexed and never lost one. He also believes that stray animals cause pet overpopulation, not owners. Sorry, where do stray animals come from? The fairies?

[menacebear]

It wouldn't matter if the vet did write a letter unless his letter was of a valid medical nature. Just writting a letter because the owner doesn't want the animal desexed is not enough. There must be a reason the animal can not under go the surgery such as age, heart murmur etc. Something that means the animal is high risk for desexing.

In the case of bitches they arent just opened up. You sign a vet consent form allowing the surgery to go ahead. If you know your bitch is already done you obvioulsy won't sign it. Instead you will supply a certificate of desexing or a letter from the vet who did it.

[menacebear]

Thanks for that, menacebear.

Can you keep an entire dog, which is not registered with VicDogs, and register it with the council? Or do they insist on you desexing it before it can be council registered?

I understand that if dogs are impounded, council will not relase them unless they are desexed prior to release. This only applies to dogs which are not registered with the council, yes?

Edited to answer your earlier post - I do think dogs which are not being used for breeding should be desexed, but I do not think it should be mandatory. There are plenty of undesexed dogs out there doing no harm to anyone, and provided someone has the will and the facilities to keep an entire dog, it should be their choice.

Yes - I know how everyone feels about desexing. I do too, but I don't think this should be forced. Education is good, cheaper registration is also good. And draconian measures like this simply drive more people underground, so they have dogs which never go to training, are never socialised, blah blah, and probably that is much worse than not desexing them. There are other problems too, but I don't have time now.

We have too many regulations, and too many problematic regulations, so people simply avoid them. Government doesn't seem to understand that. Yet there are numerous studies showin the problems which arise, not just with legislation of this type, but general legislation.

No you can not keep an entire dog that is not registered with VicDogs and register it will the council. They will not accept the registration without a desxing certificate supplied. There is pretty much no such thing as a full price council registration anymore as all animals are required to be microchipped and desexed which means all reg is now reduced.

[BJean]

It wouldn't matter if the vet did write a letter unless his letter was of a valid medical nature. Just writting a letter because the owner doesn't want the animal desexed is not enough. There must be a reason the animal can not under go the surgery such as age, heart murmur etc. Something that means the animal is high risk for desexing.

If nothing else, dog owners can stop their pet being desexed too young, and get a letter to waive the desexing requirement until the dog matures and/or another suitable age.

Lol wouldn't it be funny if there was a council rule that said no dog will be registered or released unless it has its tail docked -

oops how cruel of me!!!

Edited January 22, 2010 by lilli

[menacebear]

It wouldn't matter if the vet did write a letter unless his letter was of a valid medical nature. Just writting a letter because the owner doesn't want the animal desexed is not enough. There must be a reason the animal can not under go the surgery such as age, heart murmur etc. Something that means the animal is high risk for desexing.

If nothing else, dog owners can stop their pet being desexed too young, and get a letter to waive the desexing requirement until the dog matures and/or another suitable age.

Lol wouldn't it be funny if there was a council rule that said no dog will be registered or released unless it has its tail docked -

oops how cruel of me!!!

As far as I know desexing a dog too young won't kill it. And if it is under 12 weeks old it would be released unregistered anyway. Most shelters do inmature desexing so the council wouldn't accept a letter from a vet stating that the dog needs to mature first. There has to be a life threatening reason.

Edited for spelling

Edited January 22, 2010 by menacebear

[Bluefairy]

Btw, what do they do with bitches? Just open her up without knowing if the bitch has already been done? I would be really irritated to find that someone had opened up a girl who had already been done.

Anyone, vet or pound can see if a dog male or female is desexed as they have a tattoo placed on the ear. They also tattoo the other ear if it is microchipped, but not every vet does this. Our vet does, and its great when you only have to look to know for sure.

Lynn

[Howl]

Is anyone who lives in Frankston council area aware that if owned dogs and cats are impounded, they will not be released until they are desexed?

It is illegal.

NO. Check 84M of the Domestic Animal Act 1994.

[BJean]

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?

I think you first have to establish what you envision mandatory desexing will achieve.

ie: If it is to counteract the number of dogs in pounds ie to stop people 'not wanting' their dogs

(not that I see many puppies in pounds, most are adult dogs. You think if there are no BYB adverts

in the papers that DAM (more) will not spring up to produce these puppies?)

It still hasn't been proven to me that dogs in pounds are an 'overpopulation' problem and NOT an

'unwanted' ie community attitude problem. It also occurs to me that while we continue to make the

little person count even less, and engineer our society into being mere parts of corporate machines,

that it is highly likely we wil get people to value their pets more, while we are increasingly

required to value humanity of the individual less. For the most part people are what the community

creates of them, and if the community throws away their pets, its probably because members of the

community have been thrown away when they lost their job, or were no longer efficient, or were to

old, or to difficult etc.

Mandatory desexing seems to rely on three fallacies:

the first, being that if pet owners are forced to desex their dog it will make them value their dog

more, treat it better so it will not end up in the pound.

second, if the average 'back yard' litter becomes less probable because most backyard dogs are

desexed, then people will stop wanting dogs. apparently people are dumping their dogs because there

is an 'overpopulation'.

Third (despite a legislative move to production line puppy breeding), in response to the removal of

'backyard bred' dogs, and in response to shifts in source supply, we will not see more Domestic Animal Businesses

producing more puppies, be they cross bred, pure bred.

But will this stop dogs/cats being 'owned' and then 'unowned'?

Unless of course they implement some licensing scheme to own a pet, possibly akin to the demerit point

system,

whereby you can't accrue more than 12 'points'or '12 pets' over a given period

but if you live in a bogan area, like Frankston

then not you're allowed to accrue more than '5 pets'.

Perhaps we could display B plates in front of rogue bogans who live outside of their designated

council zones; this will help to better identify them, and to make the community and the pounds

safer.

Edited January 22, 2010 by lilli

[casowner]

Quick question - what about dogs on breeders terms that are in pet homes, would they have to be registered with their breeder (Council rego)? what if they are in a different Council? Different State?

[Rebanne]

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.

Thank you, you said what I wanted to but couldn't word it properly.

[Rebanne]

Agree!! I think it's a good idea mostly, and I worked in frankston for 3yrs, not exactly a responsible and bright cluster of people on the whole, most of the people I saw with dogs were scummy and I doubt their dogs were desexed and I bet they were going to breed it just to 'get puppies' and cos 'its cool'

So a law that involves desexing like that, well it can only do more good than bad i think.

what a terrible, judgemental, sweeping, statement to make

[Rebanne]

Btw, what do they do with bitches? Just open her up without knowing if the bitch has already been done? I would be really irritated to find that someone had opened up a girl who had already been done.

Anyone, vet or pound can see if a dog male or female is desexed as they have a tattoo placed on the ear. They also tattoo the other ear if it is microchipped, but not every vet does this. Our vet does, and its great when you only have to look to know for sure.

Lynn

tattoo's fade and can't be seen and I have never heard of a vet putting another tattoo in the ear when a dog is microchipped. All my dogs are microchipped and they don't have a tattoo saying so, nor would I allow them to do so.

[Cosmolo]

I don't believe there is a dog over population problem but i do think there is a cat over population problem.

What do you think about mandatory cat desexing?

I don't think the aim should be to reduce the number of companion animals- but i do think changes that redirect the source of such animals is very important and i don't see how this law punishes reponsible owners who have also purchased their dog from appropriate sources and registered the dog with the local council.

I actually agree with many of your points Lilli- particularly relating to the community attitude problem. I think this legislation stops those people with the attitude problem who don't want to be educated, from breeding their dogs.

This is the kind of thing that was spoken about by Frankston council at the conference i attended- they weren't talking about over population as the reason, (except cats) they were talking about BYB and this being a way to try to stop it.

[Bluefairy]

Btw, what do they do with bitches? Just open her up without knowing if the bitch has already been done? I would be really irritated to find that someone had opened up a girl who had already been done.

Anyone, vet or pound can see if a dog male or female is desexed as they have a tattoo placed on the ear. They also tattoo the other ear if it is microchipped, but not every vet does this. Our vet does, and its great when you only have to look to know for sure.

Lynn

tattoo's fade and can't be seen and I have never heard of a vet putting another tattoo in the ear when a dog is microchipped. All my dogs are microchipped and they don't have a tattoo saying so, nor would I allow them to do so.

When my cat was microchipped under sedation for an op they tattooed her in the opposite ear to the one she got for her de-sexing. They do it for both cats and dogs. I had a dog that was tattooed and 8 yrs later it was still visible, so they don't fade at least the one our vet did didn't.

[Rebanne]

When my cat was microchipped under sedation for an op they tattooed her in the opposite ear to the one she got for her de-sexing. They do it for both cats and dogs. I had a dog that was tattooed and 8 yrs later it was still visible, so they don't fade at least the one our vet did didn't.

umm some do fade, in fact lots fade, some only after a year or two. And most animals are microchipped when wide awake so tattoo's indicating they are microchipped would be quite rare.