Frankston Council (vic)

[BJean]

I have more of a problem with the compulsory vaccinating than I do with the desexing issue.

Well for the greater good you are just going to have to get your dogs vaccinated each year

despite your own volition and veterinary health care advice, notions of your dogs health

because

this is how we get all the naughty dog owners to do the right thing.

But dont fret!

just think how good it will feel to know that you are doing your part to stop the overpopulation and suffering of pets.

[Erny]

I've heard many times on DOL people say that pet owners should be licensed too, which I dont disagree with, but the same reaction would happen, all the responsible owners would feel like they were being unfairly treated, everyone would complain that it is revenue raising and forget that there was a reason for it to happen in the first place, oh and the people who are going to abuse animals wouldnt bother to get the license anyway

That was discussed at length in a thread here on DOL, quite a long time ago. It sounds good in theory, but in terms of practicality, it won't work. And yet again I think you'll find it will only be the responsible and law-abiding people that it will hurt.

I mean, what about the old lady who lives on a farm in the middle of whoop whoops - self sufficient, grows her own vegies, has a bulk food order delivered once a week or fortnight and rarely leaves her property unless she can get a lift from a friend/neighbour/relative.

Should that person be precluded from owning a companion dog?

What would the terms of the licensing be? Have to train the dog? Have to socialise the dog? What about people who don't have transport?

But then, who will chose the training establishment that will be recognised as the place that decrees the dog is trained and behaves well? And behaves well in whose environment? In what situations? What about the elderly dog who is rescued or rehomed by personal avenues - a dog who is living in an environment that is suited to its temperament and prior experiences? And will that 'establishment' be easily accessible for all?

What would the license really control? Will it make people better dog owners? Will it prevent them from doing the wrong thing? Will it make them do the right thing? Or would it be the same as it is now - that they'll do what they do unless and until they are actually caught and monitored?

The anomalies go on.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Erny

[SpikesPuppy]

I have more of a problem with the compulsory vaccinating than I do with the desexing issue.

The "compulsory vaccinating" where? Kennels? Shelters? Sorry - not sure what you mean.

From the Frankston council website -

Vaccinations

Part of responsible pet ownership is to ensure that you provide your cat and dog with full vet care which includes immunisation, regular worming including heart worm treatment, flea treatment and a yearly immunisation booster.

Does this mean that if you dog is picked up and isn't vacc'd, that they make you have the dog vacc'd before picking it up etc?

That looks more like a guideline than compulsory vaccinating???

Oh, someone mentioned earlier about not knowing if a bitch was desexed- not all vets tattoo and you can in fact request it not to be done

[Purpley]

I have more of a problem with the compulsory vaccinating than I do with the desexing issue.

Well for the greater good you are just going to have to get your dogs vaccinated each year

despite your own volition and veterinary health care advice, notions of your dogs health

because

this is how we get all the naughty dog owners to do the right thing.

But dont fret!

just think how good it will feel to know that you are doing your part to stop the overpopulation and suffering of pets.

I do anyway despite my beliefs - have to for flyball and obedience training.

[Erny]

From the Frankston council website -

Vaccinations

Part of responsible pet ownership is to ensure that you provide your cat and dog with full vet care which includes immunisation, regular worming including heart worm treatment, flea treatment and a yearly immunisation booster.

Does this mean that if you dog is picked up and isn't vacc'd, that they make you have the dog vacc'd before picking it up etc?

I don't read that as meaning it is compulsory. They are just accusing in a round-about way, people of being irresponsible if they don't annually vaccinate their dogs and cats.

In response to that, I say the Council needs to read the AVA recommendations pertaining to vaccinations, at the very least. That, and spend some time here on DOL - THAT would provide a very good source of information pertaining to vaccinations (and other regular, frequent and often unnecessary application of drugs) and the affects they can and do have on our dogs.

[BJean]

Jed, as i said earlier Frankston have done this not to combat supposed over population but to try and reduce a big problem with BYB.

Well woops someone forgot to tell Frankston that.

Overpopulation propaganda plays a big part in their community pacifier for MDL

So no good saying 'oh well we dont mean that now'

because they very well did use the emotive persuasion and scare mongering of overpopulation to act on dog owner's guilt.

Edited January 24, 2010 by lilli

[Longcoat]

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?

I have to agree with you Cosmolo. I don't understand the harshness of the legislation either as it primarily targets only dog owners who don't play the game. There is really no excuse not to register your dog with council other than to flaunt with the laws

Because (according to some DOLers who live in these councils), you cannot register a dog that is undesexed (with the exception of VCA reg'd pups or with a letter from the vet so it seems), meaning you MUST have your puppy desexed before it reaches 3 months of age.

Call me cynical or paranoid if you wish but I also see this kind of 'power' that the councils are putting over pet owners as another step toward zero or at the very least, heavily regulated pet ownership. We can't own the breeds we want, we can't own entire dogs, you wait and soon there will be NO exceptions to this desexing rule in certain areas. There will probably be height and weight restrictions in some areas too.

I understand from this perspective, but seriously what is the likleyhood of getting caught with an unregistered puppy pending de-sexing over 3 months of age in those councils???. Never can I recall in my lifetime a ranger knocking on my door or being questioned over dog registration. In fact, I know several people owning two or more dogs of the same breed only ever register one dog with the council and nothing has ever come of it???. These practices are legally wrong, but how intense is the policing of such crimes???

[SpikesPuppy]

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?

I have to agree with you Cosmolo. I don't understand the harshness of the legislation either as it primarily targets only dog owners who don't play the game. There is really no excuse not to register your dog with council other than to flaunt with the laws

Because (according to some DOLers who live in these councils), you cannot register a dog that is undesexed (with the exception of VCA reg'd pups or with a letter from the vet so it seems), meaning you MUST have your puppy desexed before it reaches 3 months of age.

Call me cynical or paranoid if you wish but I also see this kind of 'power' that the councils are putting over pet owners as another step toward zero or at the very least, heavily regulated pet ownership. We can't own the breeds we want, we can't own entire dogs, you wait and soon there will be NO exceptions to this desexing rule in certain areas. There will probably be height and weight restrictions in some areas too.

I understand from this perspective, but seriously what is the likleyhood of getting caught with an unregistered puppy pending de-sexing over 3 months of age in those councils???. Never can I recall in my lifetime a ranger knocking on my door or being questioned over dog registration. In fact, I know several people owning two or more dogs of the same breed only ever register one dog with the council and nothing has ever come of it???. These practices are legally wrong, but how intense is the policing of such crimes???

Earlier in this thread someone mentioned being fined (although the fine was evenutally overturned) because they failed to register their puppy at 3 months of age... the pup was registered once it was desexed at 6 months old. It's not about the likelihood of being caught, the point is- people shouldn't have to be caught between such a rock and a hard place- who do they do right by??? Their council regulations or their puppy???

And what if, like many of us, they have read & understand the potential for health problems in desexed dogs and choose not to desex at all. They then cannot register their dog ever unless it fits the (very narrow) criteria.

Edited January 24, 2010 by SpikesPuppy

[Erny]

I understand from this perspective, but seriously what is the likleyhood of getting caught with an unregistered puppy pending de-sexing over 3 months of age in those councils???. Never can I recall in my lifetime a ranger knocking on my door or being questioned over dog registration. In fact, I know several people owning two or more dogs of the same breed only ever register one dog with the council and nothing has ever come of it???. These practices are legally wrong, but how intense is the policing of such crimes???

I had a client who came to me and informed me that she hadn't taken her (now) 6 month old pup to training before, because the schools that she enquiried with in her area would not accept dogs unless they were registered, and that she was unable to register her pup unless it was desexed, but she didn't want to desex her pup before the age of 6 months. That was about a week or two ago - before I heard or knew of all of what is being discussed in this thread. I queried this owner, as I'd not heard of any school insisting on Council registration as a pre-requisite to accepting it as a member. But this is definitely as she understood it - to her it was made very clear. This is third hand. I still don't know the accuracy of the information, but given what we are discussing here, it now doesn't surprise me as much as it did then.

[SpikesPuppy]

The regulation ALSO poses a big issue for those who do not know the dangers of early desexing, who follow council and (some) vet advice and go ahead and desex at 3 months, maybe even 8 weeks. The very fact that the council is advocating/forcing early desexing is IMO distressing.

[Erny]

... the point is- people shouldn't have to be caught between such a rock and a hard place- who do they do right by??? Their council regulations or their puppy???

This is exactly the point (or at the very least, one of the major points). This would not be the first law that causes conflict between breaking the law -vs- animal welfare. The worst of it is that it is made under the guise of animal welfare, so there are cases that to observe the law under that Act will go against the very essence of its intentions. And this is what makes me cross.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Erny

[Rebanne]

I would just break the law and take the chance of being busted and not desex any pet of mine until I felt the time was right, then I would register it. These laws won't stop the BYB in any way shape or form. If one of their breeding dogs got out and picked up by the council they would just get another. Easy peasy.

Just another nail in the coffin for responsible pet owners, quite a few who know what they are doing. How about the council enforce the laws already in place? Oh hang on that would take time and effort, whereas a dog impounded once is an easy target. No need for any one to do much work there. At the very least there should be some leeway for the accidental escape of a dog. In over 30 years of dog ownership I have had a dog loose from my yard once! and that was because it was let out by a vindictive neighbour. And I was very pleased she was in the pound, somewhat safe, not so pleased some randy lab was trying to rape her when I went to pick her up within 30 minutes of being impounded.

[BJean]

The regulation ALSO poses a big issue for those who do not know the dangers of early desexing, who follow council and (some) vet advice and go ahead and desex at 3 months, maybe even 8 weeks. The very fact that the council is advocating/forcing early desexing is IMO distressing.

Not only that SP

Frankston Council advises owners to get their puppy/dog desexed "at the time that they get it" -

"If you do not intend to breed from a pet, it should be desexed at the time you get it"

Why?

Because according to Frankston Council:

Tens of thousands of healthy dogs and cats are euthanased each year in Victoria. This is because there is not enough homes that can be found for them. We have an 'over supply' of pets.

[Purpley]

lilli - are you saying that you don't think that there is an oversupply of pets??

[Longcoat]

'SpikesPuppy' date='24th Jan 2010 - 09:56 PM' post='4281995']

Longcoat' post='4281974' date='24th Jan 2010 - 10:21 PM']

I understand from this perspective, but seriously what is the likleyhood of getting caught with an unregistered puppy pending de-sexing over 3 months of age in those councils???. Never can I recall in my lifetime a ranger knocking on my door or being questioned over dog registration. In fact, I know several people owning two or more dogs of the same breed only ever register one dog with the council and nothing has ever come of it???. These practices are legally wrong, but how intense is the policing of such crimes???

Earlier in this thread someone mentioned being fined (although the fine was evenutally overturned) because they failed to register their puppy at 3 months of age... the pup was registered once it was desexed at 6 months old. It's not about the likelihood of being caught, the point is- people shouldn't have to be caught between such a rock and a hard place- who do they do right by??? Their council regulations or their puppy???

And what if, like many of us, they have read & understand the potential for health problems in desexed dogs and choose not to desex at all. They then cannot register their dog ever unless it fits the (very narrow) criteria.

Laws are only as good as the policing structure, bit like the dogs on leash laws in a public place I agree that people shouldn't be placed in that position as desexing puppies under 3 months in my opnion is clearly stupid. However, I would travel down the outlaw dog owner route in that instance and take the chance not registering my pup until desexing took place. The council would only know how long you had actually owned the dog if you told them. They would be none the wiser if registering a 14 month old dog that you nominated was aquired last week

Victoria seems to be the pioneers of the dopy dog legislation

[Longcoat]

I understand from this perspective, but seriously what is the likleyhood of getting caught with an unregistered puppy pending de-sexing over 3 months of age in those councils???. Never can I recall in my lifetime a ranger knocking on my door or being questioned over dog registration. In fact, I know several people owning two or more dogs of the same breed only ever register one dog with the council and nothing has ever come of it???. These practices are legally wrong, but how intense is the policing of such crimes???

I had a client who came to me and informed me that she hadn't taken her (now) 6 month old pup to training before, because the schools that she enquiried with in her area would not accept dogs unless they were registered, and that she was unable to register her pup unless it was desexed, but she didn't want to desex her pup before the age of 6 months. That was about a week or two ago - before I heard or knew of all of what is being discussed in this thread. I queried this owner, as I'd not heard of any school insisting on Council registration as a pre-requisite to accepting it as a member. But this is definitely as she understood it - to her it was made very clear. This is third hand. I still don't know the accuracy of the information, but given what we are discussing here, it now doesn't surprise me as much as it did then.

It may be a council funded training school perhaps???, I have never heard of that requirement to join a club generally only proof of vaccination certificates

[Longcoat]

I would just break the law and take the chance of being busted and not desex any pet of mine until I felt the time was right, then I would register it. These laws won't stop the BYB in any way shape or form. If one of their breeding dogs got out and picked up by the council they would just get another. Easy peasy.

Just another nail in the coffin for responsible pet owners, quite a few who know what they are doing. How about the council enforce the laws already in place? Oh hang on that would take time and effort, whereas a dog impounded once is an easy target. No need for any one to do much work there. At the very least there should be some leeway for the accidental escape of a dog. In over 30 years of dog ownership I have had a dog loose from my yard once! and that was because it was let out by a vindictive neighbour. And I was very pleased she was in the pound, somewhat safe, not so pleased some randy lab was trying to rape her when I went to pick her up within 30 minutes of being impounded.

That's the whole point with the laws, there is no proper policing structure and they get the easy targets and the people abiding by the laws they set, are not the problem owners in the first place.

[Jed]

lilli

Tens of thousands of healthy dogs and cats are euthanased each year in Victoria. This is because there is not enough homes that can be found for them. We have an 'over supply' of pets

Which is just emotional hyperbole. Which is another word for crap

Isiss, you will have to find the real stats/ I'll have a look for you, bur they are not the same ones on some websites. there is no oversupply of dogs.

See earlier what Harry Corbett posted also.

[Erny]

It may be a council funded training school perhaps???, I have never heard of that requirement to join a club generally only proof of vaccination certificates ;)

But what requirements? Does the dog have to have a reliable sit/stay? Or a reliable sit? How does that make the dog tempermented suitable to its environment? What of the old dog (partially blind, even; or with arthritis that slows him/her down) who is happy to while away its time in the company of its elderly mistress or master around the home and home garden/surrounds? What use is a sit or a sit/stay in circumstances that don't demand them? Will that owner be declared unsuitable as that dog's owner? What will then happen to the dog? Will it be denied a home in an environment that does very well suit - instead, because he's old and a bit on the decrepid (but happy) side, be pts because the 'market' for people who might want to own such a dog is relatively small?

I mean, how do we judge? And do we have a right to judge? (Particularly with a "one-size-fits-all" rule that would HAVE to be set as a standard, if it is to be a blanket rule/law that affects all).

And from one Council funded training school to another, there are different trainers. So where a dog might pass under the tuition of one trainer, it might not under another. Some of those things are quite subjective.

I see lots of people whose dogs don't sit on the first (or even second or third) command. I see dogs who pull on the lead held by their owners. I see owners not doing much about that in the way of correct training. But many of these dogs are happy. And many are not a nuisance to others because the owners have them on a lead. Or don't take them to environments that are unsuitable to the dog's temperament. Yet, for all of that, the dogs are still happy. They play ball in a vast back yard. They might travel with their owners to holiday homes (rented or owned) and get to see a variety of life and fill their senses with new sights and smells.

Should these owners be told that because their dog doesn't sit on the first command; or because their dog pulls on the lead; that the owners are not fit to own them? That they are irresponsible owners? That they MUST attend a training school to be decreed 'fit' to be a dog owner by some (potentially) wet-behind-the-ear-not necessarily-broadly-knowledgeable person as fit or unfit?

What about funding? Shall these people have to pay for the training? If not, how will it be funded and by who? Should the poor be disadvantaged? Should the very money that they religiously save so that their dogs are well looked after and happy, be spent on potentially unnecessary training? Should the 'rich' be disadvantaged by having to subsidise these classes - even though the very contents of the classes themselves don't necessarily equate with "now you are a responsible dog owner"? And what about those who live further a field, where Council grounds (or wherever the dog-training establishment shall be sited) is a considerable distance and perhaps don't own a car? What about shift-workers, where the training times and days simply don't fit in without them having to take time off?

In regards to the school/s not taking dogs unless they were Council registered - I agree, Longcoat, I'd not heard of it before either and I actually was convinced the owner had muddled up the information. Maybe she did. However, in light of what's coming through in this thread (and I think this person might have lived within the City of Frankston district) maybe there is something in what she has said. I don't know which school/s this was. Perhaps it was a Council based PPS and not a "school" as we know them? It just seems to me to be a bit too coincidental, now that the information from this thread has come to light, to be completely mistaken.

ETA: The Government and Councils need to stop trying to stop the leaks in the Dam by poking thumbs in the hole (ie making up more regulations/legislations to patch up the last). They're running out of thumbs and it is getting (read : has gotten) ridiculous and unworkable in that the majority of people they are hurting ARE the very people they should be celebrating, encouraging. The Government and Councils need to show us that when they make a law, they make it with knowledge that they will be ready, able and willing to police them and that the laws WILL work - that the laws WILL target the very people who caused them to be a necessity in the first place. If the laws WON'T work, then those laws need to be scrapped. But they never do this. Why not? Do they think they will lose face? I would cheer a Council, a Government, who had the gumption and pride in their responsibility towards service to 'their people' to stand up and admit "this isn't working - this won't work (even, perhaps "we were wrong") and agree to sit down with the people who really can and will seek to make things better for people and their dogs and for the dogs themselves. I would cheer a Council, a Government, who instead of spending the countless dollars that they do on inventing unworkable laws, spent it on an educational avenue instead.

Smoking cigarettes, not all that long ago, was a 'cool' thing to do. Now it is anti-social and those who smoke (*cough* ) often feel a social outcast for smoking when we do. The campaign that brought THAT about heavily targeted media representation to broadcast it. THAT was education. IF the Government and other orgs really care, why not pit together and spend their collective dollars on media campaigns rendering it 'not the done thing' to buy and house pups/dogs irresponsibly. Not the done thing to not be responsible.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Erny

[SpikesPuppy]

'SpikesPuppy' date='24th Jan 2010 - 09:56 PM' post='4281995']

Longcoat' post='4281974' date='24th Jan 2010 - 10:21 PM']

I understand from this perspective, but seriously what is the likleyhood of getting caught with an unregistered puppy pending de-sexing over 3 months of age in those councils???. Never can I recall in my lifetime a ranger knocking on my door or being questioned over dog registration. In fact, I know several people owning two or more dogs of the same breed only ever register one dog with the council and nothing has ever come of it???. These practices are legally wrong, but how intense is the policing of such crimes???

Earlier in this thread someone mentioned being fined (although the fine was evenutally overturned) because they failed to register their puppy at 3 months of age... the pup was registered once it was desexed at 6 months old. It's not about the likelihood of being caught, the point is- people shouldn't have to be caught between such a rock and a hard place- who do they do right by??? Their council regulations or their puppy???

And what if, like many of us, they have read & understand the potential for health problems in desexed dogs and choose not to desex at all. They then cannot register their dog ever unless it fits the (very narrow) criteria.

Laws are only as good as the policing structure, bit like the dogs on leash laws in a public place ;) I agree that people shouldn't be placed in that position as desexing puppies under 3 months in my opnion is clearly stupid. However, I would travel down the outlaw dog owner route in that instance and take the chance not registering my pup until desexing took place. The council would only know how long you had actually owned the dog if you told them. They would be none the wiser if registering a 14 month old dog that you nominated was aquired last week

Victoria seems to be the pioneers of the dopy dog legislation

Also read my post on the previous page- where I questioned about the dog owners who don't know any better and DO desex their puppies at an inappropriate/unsafe age.

I do agree, and I too would not register the dog until it was of age to be desexed, but then... how do you excercise the animal if it does not have a registration tag on it's collar?