Seems Its Not Just Mandatory Desexing

[Souff]

Aidan2 ;) you are almost doing Souff's head in .... I thought I was on a doggy forum, not on the Hush!-how-not-to-talk-about-political-parties forum.

They are all big people in those political parties Aidan and they are used to being roughed up verbally, Lord knows they GIVE as good as they GET, and they can certainly dish out far worse than Shortstep's new signature. One day I might tell you a few stories of what some of them get up to and how they talk about the poor suckers who voted for them.

Souff

I'm not sure why you think I'm worried about the politicians? That's not even close!

There are a large number of people using these forums, and each will have their own unique perspective. Writing deliberately inflammatory, misleading, and needlessly political views based on a gross distortion of the truth is offensive to anyone who has a different view (or anyone who values integrity). How do you think Greens supporters, or vegetarians feel when they see this? Or Labour party supporters? Should this be a Country Alliance or Liberal only forum?

The last time I checked it was a forum for purebred dog owners. If a political party proposes a bill that affects purebred dog owners, let's discuss it - sensibly. Let's not use the opportunity to bash or belittle others with nonsensical, paranoid rubbish. If you think the Greens have put forward a bill that stinks, of course that's fine to say. That's not "needless politicising" nor is it inflammatory, misleading or a gross distortion. Shortstep has a valid point, you just have to look very hard to find it.

Aidan2, :p you will upset somebody!

[Aidan3]

remember we were just about on track :p

or at least on topic

Well yes, we just about were, and then Aiden2 tiptoed back in ... ;)

Green? Nice touch.

Good luck with your battle. I think it's more than evident that I'm not worried about upsetting people, but I don't do it for kicks, there has to be a valid reason. Tell me Souff, why are you trying so hard to upset me? Do you have a valid reason, or are you just doing it for kicks? You don't seem to be putting any argument forward.

Sorry to the legitimate posters for my contribution to the derailment of this thread. I'd like to think it wasn't in vein, but I suspect it was.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Aidan2

[Souff]

remember we were just about on track :p

or at least on topic

Well yes, we just about were, and then Aiden2 tiptoed back in ... ;)

Green? Nice touch.

Good luck with your battle.

Green is Souff's favourite colour , it is very calming they say.

[Annie99]

Shortstep, How old are you?

This is a very interesting discussion, but for all your childish comments.

I am new to this forum. Can someone tell me if there is an ignore or block function I can use?

I can't handle reading any more rubbish comments.

Mita - I am finding your contributions very interesting. Only about a third of the way but don't want to keep reading the same silly rot from one poster in particular.

[Annie99]

So why has anyone got a problem with Shortstep giving THE GREENS all the publicity they deserve?

The extra rubbish that has been added and the attack on Mita were out of line.

So is the implication that all vegetarians vote green

So is the implication that all people that vote green are vegetarians!

[Souff]

I am new to this forum. Can someone tell me if there is an ignore or block function I can use?

Well, welcome to DOL

I've never used an ignore or block function .... just tend to skip over the boring bits really.

I am not sure but there could be something in the site rules that prohibits the asking of age .... some people are very sensitive.

Souff

[Annie99]

I am new to this forum. Can someone tell me if there is an ignore or block function I can use?

Well, welcome to DOL

I've never used an ignore or block function .... just tend to skip over the boring bits really.

I am not sure but there could be something in the site rules that prohibits the asking of age .... some people are very sensitive.

Souff

Thanks for the welcome.

I've worked out the block/ignore.

[Annie99]

Michael and Margaret Engel vs Esk Shire Council (9th September 1998)

Will make some interesting reading if you can get hold of the full decision. It refered to S.106 of the Australian constitution where the states cannot enact a law the commonwealth has no power to enact. The court ruled that the local council, in this case, had no head of power to introduce it's local law dealing with the keeping and control of dogs. This was in Queensland in 1998.

I don't know if this case has been retested since that time.

If I ever had problems with the council then a constitutional lawyer would be the one I'd be seeing.

Interesting.

[Diva]

Can someone tell me if there is an ignore or block function I can use?

Sure is. Go to 'my controls' in the top right of any page, then look for 'options' in the bottom left, and 'manage ignored users'.

Very handy function.

Edited: oops, too slow!

Edited December 16, 2010 by Diva

[*Bones*]

Michael and Margaret Engel vs Esk Shire Council (9th September 1998)

Will make some interesting reading if you can get hold of the full decision. It refered to S.106 of the Australian constitution where the states cannot enact a law the commonwealth has no power to enact. The court ruled that the local council, in this case, had no head of power to introduce it's local law dealing with the keeping and control of dogs. This was in Queensland in 1998.

I don't know if this case has been retested since that time.

If I ever had problems with the council then a constitutional lawyer would be the one I'd be seeing.

The citizens were asked if local government should have power at the 1988 referendum. They said "NO", so local government has had no power since then. Which is why the Engel v Esk outcome was as it was. Searches don't reveal any other court action. When citizens seriously question the councils' Heads of Power, the councils seem to be very concerned and no further activity on behalf of the council takes place.

[Are You Serious Jo]

I think the biggest hurdle to a challenge based on the constitution is funds, the council obviously have a larger budget that the average breeder. Would be good to have a clear document outlining what councils can and can't do, as they do as they damn well please now and we all have to basically comply.

[poodlefan]

I think the biggest hurdle to a challenge based on the constitution is funds, the council obviously have a larger budget that the average breeder. Would be good to have a clear document outlining what councils can and can't do, as they do as they damn well please now and we all have to basically comply.

It might also pay to bear in mind that here in the ACT, we're dealing with the ACT Government, not councils.

[Are You Serious Jo]

True, had my mind stuck on council and forgot it was a state thing (territory). So does the constitution override the state in the same way it overrides the council by laws? I would assume it does, but harder to fight?

[Christina]

I can see what they hope to achieve by mandatory desexing of pet dogs but permits, inspections, licenses for the small average hobby breed/show people what is that going to achieve ?

The people with a few cats or dogs who breed occasionally, stick to the code of ethics & most registered cat breeders desex kittens before they leave for new homes anyway, are not the largest part of the problem re welfare, stray & dumping issues.

For small hobby breeders it would mean getting rid of all our old pets when they are past their use by date or stopping doing it. The expenses & hassle involved for a hobby would not be worth it all.

That would leave just the commercial large scale enterprises.

How is this going to help ?

I can't understand at all.

[*Bones*]

Check the Notices on the Dogs ACT website. The proposed animal welfare legislation is there. Please submit comments to Dogs ACT so they are able to take the comments into the submission they prepare and submit to government. The more support they have, the better.

[Frenchfire Frenchies]

I hope these new Laws do not come in, as this will be the end of many wonderful years of Dog Breeding ,

I still don`t understand the reasons for doing this, the people who pay to register their pups & Dogs arent the ones who abandon their animals.

It is the ones that are sold as crosses or unpapered that are the ones "PUPPY FARMED". People who buy our puppies buy healthy, vaccinated, well socialised, family friendly (cuddled). Babies, we only do it as a hobby, a hobby that we all love.

But it then is put into the hands of your shire & where you are situated, depending on "HOW MANY REGISTERED BREEDERS ARE ALLOWED WITHIN HOW MANY KILOMETRES OF WHERE YOU LIVE."

This is the Laws that they are speaking about on the Gold Coast and surrounds.

ONE DOG PER HOME. Special application required if you have another dog, fee paid, council decide. And when one of your dogs dies, You CANNOT replace it with another. I knew a breeder who lived near Dreamworld she had three dogs, several cats she bred, Her husband breed exoitic parrots. they had a big yard, proper housing for all concerned. They were dobbed into council by their neighbours. Eventually sold up and move inland from beenleigh, a large property, acreage.

So she applied for a Kennels lincence. They were only 5 KS from a Catery. They were DENIED!!! They only moved so they could do this, they moved for NOTHING!!!

Don`t be fooled by these laws, It will affect EVERYONE!

Please lets do something.

And again I say, WHY aren`t the Canine Councils sending us out info on this in the monthly mag???

[Souff]

And again I say, WHY aren`t the Canine Councils sending us out info on this in the monthly mag???

Because printed magazines are prepared and printed many weeks before you receive them. A magazine that you received in November was probably prepared in late September, proofed and printed and mailed in October so that you receive it by November.

"Clever" politicians and bureaucrats know this, and they also know that you will be totally preoccupied with Christmas and January holidays and that is why they deliberately choose this time of year to call for comment on proposed legislation. It is sneaky and grubby and all of those things, but they know that they CAN do it and this is how they CHOOSE to do it.

This is not just something that happened by accident, the timing of this was by design. It is not a coincidence.

Remember the sneaky green politicians next time you go to the polling booth and dont vote for them and then later tell them why you didn't vote for them.

Don't tell them before you vote, that just gives them a heads up and the opportunity to let people down again.

Denying their party a vote on election day is far more productive than attacking canine organisations who are caught in the middle of this like you and me.

The ACT Canine Association are on to it, Christmas or no, so that is a good thing. And breeders are making use of the internet, so keep spreading the word.

Souff

Edited December 17, 2010 by Souff

[Frenchfire Frenchies]

Yes, I know, and rest assured I will be trying to tell people and I have printed it off to take to our Local Pet shops. I know I don`t sell there, But maybe ''They are unaware of what is going on, A friend told me that the Councils will be relying on the Vets to let them know who is breeding etc. But am wondering if they be so keen to 'CUT OFF THEIR NOSE TO SPITE THEIR FACE', We occassionally require a C-sar for one of our girls and just don`t know if the Vets would want to loose all the Breeders money. I MEAN IT IS ONE THING TO STOP S SHADY BREEDER KNOWONE WANTS THEM, But a reputable people, who genuinely cares for their dogs?cats. HMMMMM Maybe the vets is worth talking too also.

All I know is once it goes through in one state, Whats to stop it in EVERY other State in AUSTRALIA???HUH?

Arent we the Country everyone want to come to?

Soon we will have NO RIGHTS....

HOW DO WE MAKE PEOPLE LISTEN? Tell me that?

We all sit back and just watch everything happen, Why?

Nite

[OSoSwift]

Vets are not allowed to tell councils anything about a person and their dogs. It is a breach of client confidentiality.

It is only in recent years that vets could disclose peoples info to the RSPCA in relation to animal welfare issues and not be in breach of client confidentiality.

Edited December 19, 2010 by OSoSwift

[Souff]

Yes, I know, and rest assured I will be trying to tell people and I have printed it off to take to our Local Pet shops. I know I don`t sell there, But maybe ''They are unaware of what is going on, A friend told me that the Councils will be relying on the Vets to let them know who is breeding etc.

Well as vets can also be dog breeders they might be waiting a while for info ..... :rolleyes:

ouff