Mother Locks Herself And Five Children In Dog's Cage

[Souff]

btw Em Gem, there are 5 little children involved and Souff has not ignored this fact.

A 25 year old Mum of 5 cannot hold a full time job, I appreciate that.

However, I have just been thinking about another young family of similar size (4 kids under 6)and similar age of parent and they don't have a dog because they are in rented accommodation in a town and they are not allowed a dog. They have guinea pigs, a cat, chooks, birds and fish. Pets galore. Mum works 3 evening shifts a week at the local takeaway while her parents sit with the kids. The 2 older kids are at school and two littlies are not. Mum also takes phone messages for the local tradesman, whose number is diverted to her number while he is at work and she is paid for that. She also minds children at her home for a small fee. She is on government benefits but she works and saves money as well. They have somebody else's old TV and other people's old furniture, gratefully received and now painted in bright colours. If I were to ask this lovely young Mum about your suggestion, I am quite sure that you would not be pleased with her reply either.

She too would like to have a dog.

Later.

Souff

It's not about the children or the mother, but about the dog. I am not advocating that people should be encouraged to take on animals that they cannot afford or control. What I am suggesting is that assitance be provided in a few extreme cases so that fewer dogs get killed each year. Looking over the history of seized dogs financial difficulties seems to be the main reason that people don't comply with council requirements. There are very few dogs declared dangerous each year (from the NSW stats). The numbers and the number of people in that kind of finacial difficulty would probably equate to less than one case per council per financial year. Hardly, a huge expense.

I do think that the ability to have a pet is a necessity rather than a luxury. I don't think landlords should be able to discriminate on the basis of whether or not people have pets anymore than they should discriminate based on whether or not people have children, and I say this as a landlord myself. I also think that pet ownership should be taken into consideration as a necessity when setting benefit limits and I made the direct comparision to TV because the government already considers that a necessity (as they do personal computers).

Personally, I think that providing assistance to people so that fewer pets are handed in to shelters and at risk of death is a good thing. But I can see you think differently.

Em Gem

I partly agree with you about one thing: PET ownership is a very good thing but ... A PET does not have to be a DOG.

When you have been a landlord and seen what damage some dog owners have allowed to happen to the house that you have worked hard to build or buy, then you will be in a position to say whether or not landlords can call the shots over dogs.

There is a link between money spent on dogs needs and the dogs that are siezed.

Very often money is spent on other things ... and boring old fences and gates are not on the shopping list.

The same people who don't have these things on the shopping lists are the ones who often think that the worst will never happen and that nobody will call them to account if their dog causes havoc or tragedy while out loose.

btw, this is also about the 5 kids. They were the ones also locked in the pen with the dog ... by their mother.

Souff

[Lhok]

At the risk of being flamed, I think a lot of these type of problems arise due to people viewing pet ownership as a right and not a privilege. With this particular case there is so much about it we don't know and that in itself is a problem. I don't like the idea of governments (local or not) handing out money to people who aren't responsible pet owners. There are a few issues I see with that type of idea: One is that the person receiving the handout won't actually learn to be a responsible pet owner as it only adds to the mentality that someone else will pick up the slack and they don't have to do anything. Another is local governments budgets more then likely won't be able to cover it so it more then likely would see animal fees going up and they probably won't be able to afford that (that's even if they register the animal in the first place) and if the fees don't go up the money has to come from somewhere so it would most likely come out of road repair etc, and if that is the case then the whole community suffers due to people who aren't responsible for their pet which is unfair and causes resentment to all dog owners.

--Lhok

[Guest lavendergirl]

Where does the government state that it considers televisions and personal computers as "necessities"? Just wondering.

With many people the issue is not the dog at all. It is rather that they have a problem with any sort of authority. They have the "nobody has the right to tell me what to do" attitude. In their world rules and laws don't apply to them and they expect everything to revolve around their convenience. Unfortunately they teach their children the same attitude and on and on it goes.

[aussielover]

The idea that the dogs life is so important that the government should provide assistance to enable the owner to keep it, is ridiculous imo. There are children in this country who barely have enough to eat and don't get a good education, who require financial support. WHat are ado you suggest we cut back on fudning etc so that the government can help pet owners?

Owning a dog is a privilege NOT a right.

If my dog gets hit by a car and requires $$$$$ of expensive surgery to save its life and I can't afford it- the government should pay??? Or someone else should pay? Maybe the vets should do it for free?

Of course its sad that so many dogs are killed each year I don't think anyone here wants to see a dog put down. However there are cases that necessitate it. The owner had the appropriate opportunity to contain her dog, was known to the council and was presumably given warnings etc. The dog is proven to be aggressive so rehoming not an option and the owner in not able to keep the dog appropriately/.

Until people start acting responsibly- containing their dogs, doing as best as possible to be able to afford to care for their pets adequately etc we are not going to see a reduction. Simply handing out money is not the soltuion and doesn't address the root of the problem.

[Souff]

At the risk of being flamed, I think a lot of these type of problems arise due to people viewing pet ownership as a right and not a privilege. With this particular case there is so much about it we don't know and that in itself is a problem. I don't like the idea of governments (local or not) handing out money to people who aren't responsible pet owners. There are a few issues I see with that type of idea: One is that the person receiving the handout won't actually learn to be a responsible pet owner as it only adds to the mentality that someone else will pick up the slack and they don't have to do anything. Another is local governments budgets more then likely won't be able to cover it so it more then likely would see animal fees going up and they probably won't be able to afford that (that's even if they register the animal in the first place) and if the fees don't go up the money has to come from somewhere so it would most likely come out of road repair etc, and if that is the case then the whole community suffers due to people who aren't responsible for their pet which is unfair and causes resentment to all dog owners.

--Lhok

Totally agree with you LHOK. And picking up the tab for irresponsible dog owners is never going to teach responsibility.

I know of a few young long tailed dogs who have broken their tails since the tail docking legislation came into force and they could not be docked as pups. Using the logic that EmGem has put forward the government should have paid for the surgical removal of those tails after they were broken ... because the government brought in the legislation that banned the procedure they needed to have done shortly after birth.

Hey, EmGem, you have given Souff some fresh ammo! Thanks!

Souff

[Sandra777]

Personally, I think that providing assistance to people so that fewer pets are handed in to shelters and at risk of death is a good thing. But I can see you think differently.

Say just for the sake of the argument it costs $1000 to build the required enclosure. You think that spending $1000 on ONE dog is a good way of "providing assistance to people so that fewer pets are handed in to shelters and at risk of death"???

Sorry IMO this woman doesn't deserve any sort of assistance. Right at the start of the problem she could have contained the dog, BEFORE it was declared dangerous, by buying a $5 dog chain and .50cents worth of fencing wire to make a running line. Not ideal but thousands of dogs have been kept safely at home using a chain and running wire and survived perfectly well.

[Rebanne]

the only assistance this woman requires is to get her tubes tied so she doesn't breed anymore.

[WreckitWhippet]

If she really wanted to keep the dog off the street, she could have purchased a chain and tied the bloody thing up.

[RiverStar-Aura]

I totally agree with Souff. I think the problem with dog ownership is that the irresponsible owners fail to recognise the commitment, which goes into raising a dog. It is totally a privilege not a right.

If this particular woman cries poor and that she couldn't afford to fence it as per regulations, then she should never have had a dog. If you cannot afford a dog, you don't buy one -- regardless of how much you want it!

The same goes for children (well it should in my opinion). You should never have more children than you are financially able to support and in this case, 5 kids under 9 years is not cheap. My mother was in the same position (I'm one of 5 kids and there are 8 years between us), however, my parents made sure they could afford to keep us and a dog. We were a typical working class family (we're all adults now) with a stay-at-home mum and one wage coming into the house but we always had everything we needed.

Our number of dogs was limited to one only as much as I pleaded for a second because our extra curricular activities meant we weren't home a lot of the time and we knew we couldn't afford a second dog.

Although now I'm still living at home, I'm working and can afford to keep my two dogs and would do anything to keep them with me. If that means putting up a 1.8 metre high fence then so be it.

The biggest problem with people is that it's so much easier to blame other people than to accept responsibility!

[aussielover]

Wow, I admit to being somewhat flabbergasted at the miserly responses here. I disagree that governments, particularly local governments do enough to assist those who are socially and financially disadvantaged. However, I did think since it was the dogs life at stake rather than the mother or children's happiness that people on this forum might have been more compassionate. Yes, people should be responsible and no, they should not get a pet if they cannot take care of it. But pet ownership is a long term thing and unfortunately people's circumstances change. Sometimes the law changes. Don't forget once a dog has been declared dangerous or a restricted breed ownership cannot be transferred, so if the current owner cannot afford the new fees or security measures the dog is killed. I think there are measures that councils could take to help people keep their pets, particularly in the case of dogs who have never been aggressive but have been declared a restricted breed and dogs who have only displayed agression toward other dogs. Councils could reduce the fees, give payment plans for the fees, provide loans so people could afford fencing, allow the once of transfer of dog ownership so the dog could move to a more suitable home and in rare circumstances provide money for fencing etc. I really do not think it is too much to ask in exchange for a life, even a dogs life.

Also when they calculate benefits for people, they make the assumption that people should be able to have a TV or they would be materially (read socially) disadvantaged compared to the rest of society. Since more than half the Australian has pets and pet ownership has clearer benefits than TV ownership, I think it should be considered a right.

What do you mean by "only" displayed aggression towards other dogs. This is very serious and can lead to a dangerous dog declaration (rightly so).

Since when is owning a TV a right?

You get a TV if you can afford it. As far as I know not everyone has a TV... I don't.

I think it is rude of you to suggest we don't care about the dog, I am 100% sure every person who reads this feels sorry for the dog (not its fault it was brought into such a irresponsible family).

[Chris the Rebel Wolf]

In no way shape or form does an irresponsible owner such as this woman deserve government handouts. If however the government were to launch a responsible pet ownership program, with school programs, that would have my support.

As stated, she could have made a run, a tie out chain, or simply brought a bit of chicken wire to container her dog. The fact the dog was restricted in the first place (eg that is attacked/menaced people or other pets) is the first clue that responsibility has not been seen in this dog's life... and that the rap sheet has multiple offenses is a bit telling.