New Dog And Cat Laws In South Australia

[Pjrt]

Its such a big huge topic with so many things to factor in and think about. The miore one thinks about it, the more your head feels like exploding!

As far as looking at new dog and cat laws, i really think the primary focus needs to be on the actions and in-actions of the actual pet owner. To me it is the actions and in-actions of the actual pet owner that have the biggest bearing on the outcomes of health and welfare for the animals in their care. That is not to say that other parts of the supply & demand chain don't need attention too.

[Steve]

We need council rangers who are in positions which are only dedicated to dog and cat laws. Not where they also do rubbish dumping and parking tickets where they check that people have their dogs registered,microchipped where they check that fencing is adequate for the breed,or type of dog, where they fine people for breaches of off leash laws and every other dog or cat law. They need to be educated and encouraged to be proactive and advise dog owners on preventative methods, recommend acceptable solutions. We need the media and society to focus on the spectacularly great stuff dog owners do for their own dogs, other people's dogs and the dog owning community to encourage others to see the difference and the rewards they can get if they approach it as they would a family member . This start with and ends with dog owners regardless of whether they breed them, work them, do competitive things with them or just have them hanging around for company .All dogs should be well looked after and their welfare considered important regardless of whether they have a litter or not.

[Pjrt]

We need council rangers who are in positions which are only dedicated to dog and cat laws. Not where they also do rubbish dumping and parking tickets where they check that people have their dogs registered,microchipped where they check that fencing is adequate for the breed,or type of dog, where they fine people for breaches of off leash laws and every other dog or cat law. They need to be educated and encouraged to be proactive and advise dog owners on preventative methods, recommend acceptable solutions. We need the media and society to focus on the spectacularly great stuff dog owners do for their own dogs, other people's dogs and the dog owning community to encourage others to see the difference and the rewards they can get if they approach it as they would a family member . This start with and ends with dog owners regardless of whether they breed them, work them, do competitive things with them or just have them hanging around for company .All dogs should be well looked after and their welfare considered important regardless of whether they have a litter or not.

Oh dog yes! Out here in the rural environment the poor old ranger has to issue and police everything from parking notices to controlled burn notices and camping licenses. I was actually thinking about quitting salon life and applying for the local ranger position out here until I found out that it has very little to do with animal management. If it were a dedicated animal management position i'd be all over it as a second career.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Steve

It is pretty easy to find stuff on the net about the problems associated with removing puppies from their litter and their mother at 6 weeks.

The RSPCA says it adversely affects their immunity.

http://kb.rspca.org.au/How-old-should-a-puppy-be-before-they-are-adoptedpurchased_311.html

But this one sums up the most damming problems.

That puppies need to be with their litter until at least 8 weeks AND they need lots of human contact at the same time - so that they grow up knowing - good doggy manners, bite inhibition, how to play nicely with others and not to be scared of humans.

Ones taken at 6 weeks to a pet shop - are far more likely to have behaviour problems. Most of the studies I looked at were based on interviews with puppy owners doing training with their puppies. And doing training - helped reduce the chance of puppies ending up in shelters - but the problems arrived with the puppies and are PREVENTABLE in most cases by the breeder.

It's a bit hard to compare a Maremma or livestock guardian which is not originally bred to live as a family pet - unless the family lived in the barn with their flocks... dog to dog manners and even human friendliness is much less important with a dog that lives with its herd out in the paddocks. I would guess a Maremma that understands and speaks "dingo" would be a better guard dog than one that doesn't. And if it leaves the litter too young - it's not going to be as good at reading signals like "I'm no threat" and sending ones like "piss off, these are my sheep".

Prevalence of owner-reported behaviours in dogs separated from the litter at two different ages

The Veterinary Record 29 October 2011: 468.

Abstract

http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/169/18/468.abstract

Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate whether the age at which the dog was separated from the litter might predispose it to developing undesirable behaviours. The odds of displaying destructiveness, excessive barking, fearfulness on walks, reactivity to noises, toy possessiveness, food possessiveness and attention-seeking were significantly greater for the dogs that had been removed from the litter earlier during the socialisation period. In addition, dogs purchased from a pet shop at 30 to 40 days of age were reported to exhibit some of the listed behaviours with a significantly higher frequency than dogs purchased from a pet shop at two months. No significant differences were observed with dogs obtained from other types of sources. The dogs in the youngest age group (18 to 36 months) had a higher probability of displaying destructiveness and tail chasing. These findings indicate that, compared with dogs that remained with their social group for 60 days, dogs that had been separated from the litter earlier were more likely to exhibit potentially problematic behaviours, especially if they came from a pet shop.

[Steve]

Yep I reckon it would be a good business proposition to go in and offer to their job as a subcontractor .Walk down one street here and you would earn enough money to pay your wages with fines for non registration, and non microchipping if you got to keep the fines.

At the end of the day the radicals have been shouting and stirring up the voters so even though they know its not going to do anything to lift welfare etc they make new regs, new laws and be seen to be doing something and everybody shuts up until next time . If they start picking on ordinary dog owners who break the law they might loose votes - but none of this is about the dogs. Breeders have become a soft target.

[Pjrt]

It seems to me that the pet shop environment is the bigger problem.

Puppies who go from a breeder directly into a home between 6 -8 weeks would stand a much better chance of exposure to novelties than one put in a glass box at 6-8 weeks.

I still believe that 6-8 weeks thing has lesser bearing on the outcome for the adult dog than the actions and in-actions of the owner.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

I still believe that 6-8 weeks thing has lesser bearing on the outcome for the adult dog than the actions and in-actions of the owner.

There was more than one study that claimed different and they were not all quoting the same source for that info.

I would agree that a puppy taken at 6 weeks to a puppy broker and then a pet shop glass box - has the worst chance of being a well adjusted puppy. And it would do better if it went at 6 weeks to a home with people that are home most of the time. It's not going to do so well if everyone is out from 8am to 5pm. Those ones can get very fearful - or it makes the nervousness they were born with worse.

But the puppies that do best are ones that live with their litter and their mum in the breeder's home (not out in the paddocks in sheds away from people), and go to their new home at 8 weeks or older.

That is a point - if breeders knew they could not sell their puppies to pet shops or brokers - that might do a lot to cut the profit out of it too. But with the internet classifieds - breeders don't need brokers or pet shops as much as they used to. And puppy buyers do not have to learn anything about puppies before they get one.

[Steve]

Steve

It is pretty easy to find stuff on the net about the problems associated with removing puppies from their litter and their mother at 6 weeks.

The RSPCA says it adversely affects their immunity.

http://kb.rspca.org....chased_311.html

But this one sums up the most damming problems.

That puppies need to be with their litter until at least 8 weeks AND they need lots of human contact at the same time - so that they grow up knowing - good doggy manners, bite inhibition, how to play nicely with others and not to be scared of humans.

Ones taken at 6 weeks to a pet shop - are far more likely to have behaviour problems. Most of the studies I looked at were based on interviews with puppy owners doing training with their puppies. And doing training - helped reduce the chance of puppies ending up in shelters - but the problems arrived with the puppies and are PREVENTABLE in most cases by the breeder.

It's a bit hard to compare a Maremma or livestock guardian which is not originally bred to live as a family pet - unless the family lived in the barn with their flocks... dog to dog manners and even human friendliness is much less important with a dog that lives with its herd out in the paddocks. I would guess a Maremma that understands and speaks "dingo" would be a better guard dog than one that doesn't. And if it leaves the litter too young - it's not going to be as good at reading signals like "I'm no threat" and sending ones like "piss off, these are my sheep".

Prevalence of owner-reported behaviours in dogs separated from the litter at two different ages

The Veterinary Record 29 October 2011: 468.

Abstract

http://veterinaryrec...18/468.abstract

Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate whether the age at which the dog was separated from the litter might predispose it to developing undesirable behaviours. The odds of displaying destructiveness, excessive barking, fearfulness on walks, reactivity to noises, toy possessiveness, food possessiveness and attention-seeking were significantly greater for the dogs that had been removed from the litter earlier during the socialisation period. In addition, dogs purchased from a pet shop at 30 to 40 days of age were reported to exhibit some of the listed behaviours with a significantly higher frequency than dogs purchased from a pet shop at two months. No significant differences were observed with dogs obtained from other types of sources. The dogs in the youngest age group (18 to 36 months) had a higher probability of displaying destructiveness and tail chasing. These findings indicate that, compared with dogs that remained with their social group for 60 days, dogs that had been separated from the litter earlier were more likely to exhibit potentially problematic behaviours, especially if they came from a pet shop.

Mrs Rusty bucket over the last 40 plus years I have whelped and raised over 400 litters, 7 different breeds and every single day of my life I speak with other breeders. To make statements that a bitches milk up until after 8 weeks of age is important for the pups immunity is crap and doesn't take into account how the bitch has made it through the whelping and rearing and about a hundred other variables which will impact on how or if mothers milk up to 8 weeks helps or hinders the immunity of the pup. You can feed em mums milk up to 8 weeks all you like but if she hasnt been wormed, if the pups havent been wormed , if the environment sucks, if the other nutrition sucks , if the bitch is in poor condition you dont have to think too hard to see that could be worse for the immunity rather than better. keeping puppies on the property in cold concrete kennels in a breeders property without handling or much else isnt as good for them as going home sooner either. Anti bodies in the bitches milk run out within 48 hours after birth. Some puppies will benefit from going home after 8 weeks others wont and its not going to convince me that there is enough to justify giving breeders the inability of making the choice depending on what they are dealing with.

Maremmas are bred to bond with the species they are to guard but they are also expected to be non aggressive and live with people too. In Italy they worked with shepherds and also came down from the hills with them and lived within the human family .How they cope with such things is genetic and even if my beagle puppies never met another dog they still would never be aggressive to people or other dogs . Im simply saying that there are many variables and what it should be about is doing what we can to have more people bonding with their puppy so we shouldnt place regs on which dont allow the breeder to make informed decisions.

[Steve]

I still believe that 6-8 weeks thing has lesser bearing on the outcome for the adult dog than the actions and in-actions of the owner.

There was more than one study that claimed different and they were not all quoting the same source for that info.

I would agree that a puppy taken at 6 weeks to a puppy broker and then a pet shop glass box - has the worst chance of being a well adjusted puppy. And it would do better if it went at 6 weeks to a home with people that are home most of the time. It's not going to do so well if everyone is out from 8am to 5pm. Those ones can get very fearful - or it makes the nervousness they were born with worse.

But the puppies that do best are ones that live with their litter and their mum in the breeder's home (not out in the paddocks in sheds away from people), and go to their new home at 8 weeks or older.

That is a point - if breeders knew they could not sell their puppies to pet shops or brokers - that might do a lot to cut the profit out of it too. But with the internet classifieds - breeders don't need brokers or pet shops as much as they used to. And puppy buyers do not have to learn anything about puppies before they get one.

There is nothing new here people have always been able to find a puppy without having to learn anything about them. Puppies don't learn to be fearful from their Mum - Goddard proved that in his study - its about selection, genetics the heritability of temperament traits - whole new argument about breeding dogs. A pup that is well bred and gets a fair shot at it by 6 weeks will cope just as well as its litter mates will at 8 weeks if not better if all things are equal and it should be something judged by the breeder not by people who don't breed dogs . I dont believe that whether a pup goes to a new home at 6 or 8 weeks impacts much on whether its likely to be dumped at 1 year - certainly not enough to justify taking the decision off all breeders.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Steve

That's what the RSPCA said about the milk. I didn't do any extra scholar.google.com to see if it's supported. I have a vague feeling that immunity is mostly passed along by the milk in the first couple of days and not so much after that. But I could be wrong about that.

As for the 6 week, 8 week thing... I'm just not going to agree that 6 weeks is ok with a puppy intended to live as pet in someone's home. I'm just going by what I see at our local parks and beaches. The ones that don't get enough time with their litter - don't know how to behave, they do all the things that study said - bark too much, bite too much, have separation anxiety and get attacked or bullied by other dogs. Combine that with new puppy owners who are also a bit clueless and get no support from the breeder (because it's a puppy farm)... and you end up with a dog that never gets to leave the back yard.

I'm living next door to one. And I can point out heaps of others in my burb.

[moosmum]

Steve

That's what the RSPCA said about the milk. I didn't do any extra scholar.google.com to see if it's supported. I have a vague feeling that immunity is mostly passed along by the milk in the first couple of days and not so much after that. But I could be wrong about that.

As for the 6 week, 8 week thing... I'm just not going to agree that 6 weeks is ok with a puppy intended to live as pet in someone's home. I'm just going by what I see at our local parks and beaches. The ones that don't get enough time with their litter - don't know how to behave, they do all the things that study said - bark too much, bite too much, have separation anxiety and get attacked or bullied by other dogs. Combine that with new puppy owners who are also a bit clueless and get no support from the breeder (because it's a puppy farm)... and you end up with a dog that never gets to leave the back yard.

I'm living next door to one. And I can point out heaps of others in my burb.

I've got to agree with Steve on this one.The very best dogs I have owned have all come home at 6 weeks. They have been very focused on their humans and the social structure of humans, AND very good with other dogs. Much more socialy competent and easily trained.

All have come to live inside, in a family environment with other dogs and animals. No crates though they do get used to sleeping in out door runs for rare times its needed.

For your average home not so into dogs as we are, the 8 week rule is likely best. But then we are aiming a good fit for the average,currently poor common denominator as far as the dogs are concerned.

A big part of the experience that helps people learn how to better that average is shut down if you accept that rule is gospel.Its only gospel for current, average conditions that we should hope can change.

I've seen plenty of litters where it would be in the best interest of pups to get out of there fast for best development.

Mostly in very large litters, but not uncommon in smaller litters either.

Dam not coping, bullying, ill health. Lots can affect litter conditions so they are not ideal. Even with out the better results some have with younger pups.

Edited June 28, 2015 by moosmum

[Steve]

Steve

That's what the RSPCA said about the milk. I didn't do any extra scholar.google.com to see if it's supported. I have a vague feeling that immunity is mostly passed along by the milk in the first couple of days and not so much after that. But I could be wrong about that.

As for the 6 week, 8 week thing... I'm just not going to agree that 6 weeks is ok with a puppy intended to live as pet in someone's home. I'm just going by what I see at our local parks and beaches. The ones that don't get enough time with their litter - don't know how to behave, they do all the things that study said - bark too much, bite too much, have separation anxiety and get attacked or bullied by other dogs. Combine that with new puppy owners who are also a bit clueless and get no support from the breeder (because it's a puppy farm)... and you end up with a dog that never gets to leave the back yard.

I'm living next door to one. And I can point out heaps of others in my burb.

I hear what you are saying but the fact that the RSPCA has used that to push for reasons as to why breeders should keep their puppies on their properties just demonstrates for me how we need to be taking more notice of breeders than we do of rescue. Those in the year 2015 who have left their litter earlier are from nuff nuff breeders who are not following regs or selecting for breed and temperament traits - so even though I think there is fair reason for re thinking stopping us from placing them earlier if we think its better for them none of us who do as we are told do let them go earlier because of laws, rules, and regs. I have never, not once, placed a pup under 8 weeks of age since it became a regulation but I have removed some from their litter earlier and have been able to tell if there is any differences with all things being equal . My point is that just waving a wand and saying "all puppies must stay with the breeder until they are 8 weeks old assumes that all puppies will be running around a breeder's home underfoot with their litter mates and their Mum .Drinking off their Mums with good wholesome bitch milk until they are 8 weeks old - That they will be socialised and kept in wonderfully comfortable and conditions which benefit them. This is not necessarily the case and its not something that it is even remotely possible to enforce. Most breeders have weaned their pups way before home time and I've known purebred breeders who remove the pups from Mum so she can recover quicker from the birth and rearing. When you see dogs running amok at off leash dog parks the variables on genetics, selection, training etc are huge and its just not possible to say that these dogs are like that because they are allowed to go to their new homes earlier than 8 weeks. There are just as many people who have wonderful dogs well bonded and well suited to them and their lifestyle who took the puppies form their litter earlier. As I said earlier this is a mute point - the chances that the regs that are in place will be reversed are minute so we are stuck with it - it just really bothers me that we are being educated and have some beliefs that are being fed to us by people who don't breed dogs and who have other agendas.

[Steve]

Steve

That's what the RSPCA said about the milk. I didn't do any extra scholar.google.com to see if it's supported. I have a vague feeling that immunity is mostly passed along by the milk in the first couple of days and not so much after that. But I could be wrong about that.

As for the 6 week, 8 week thing... I'm just not going to agree that 6 weeks is ok with a puppy intended to live as pet in someone's home. I'm just going by what I see at our local parks and beaches. The ones that don't get enough time with their litter - don't know how to behave, they do all the things that study said - bark too much, bite too much, have separation anxiety and get attacked or bullied by other dogs. Combine that with new puppy owners who are also a bit clueless and get no support from the breeder (because it's a puppy farm)... and you end up with a dog that never gets to leave the back yard.

I'm living next door to one. And I can point out heaps of others in my burb.

So if we have a study that takes 4 litters over 4 years of the same dam and sire mating .From every litter 2 pups from the litter are removed earlier and sent home, 2 are sent home at 8 weeks and 2 are kept to 10 weeks keeping all things re management the same from one litter to the next we could then be more sure about whether its making any difference even though there are still variables about what type of homes they live with - but if we are careful about what it is we are judging such as biting too much, barking too much, being dog aggressive etc then and only then could we say that we know whether it has any remarkable impact . Judging someone's puppies who breeds dogs without consideration in their breeding programs for such things against someone who does is stupid. Just randomly grabbing a whole heap of dogs regardless of their breeder to compare against each other is stupid and if it wasnt such a hard and fast regulation where breeders could test it - run their own experiments to know what is best for the puppies and the people who take them based on fact not assumption we may then have some answers that we can be sure makes life better for dogs.

I can promise you this - it is heaps easier to house train and lead train and basic boundaries etc with a 6 week old pup than it is an 8 week old one especially one that is in its home on its own .Its why taking 2 puppies at once is so much harder.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Steve

[Pjrt]

I deal daily with the pointy end of pet shop and BYB dogs. The vast majority of our grooming client base are just that. Its a rare week to see even a couple of pure breed dogs, and even rarer that those pure breed dogs are from ANKC registered breeders, as in, a Schnauzer can obviously be only a schnauzer, but not be from a ANKC breeder.

I've been dealing with this situation for 29 yrs.

In the early days back in the late 80's into the early 90's the sale of pups in pet shops was no where near as prolific as it is now, and they were still just byb pure breeds and mutts for the most part. the designer dog with the designer name started moving in during the mid 90's and has taken off at light speed. They now make up the vast majority of my client base.

I have to say, back in the 80's and 90's I dealt with a lot of mutts with terrible temperaments. I separate temperament from behaviour. Behaviour is something that can be shaped and changed somewhat. Temperament is more inherent and is almost impossible to change.

These days I deal with, for the most part, cross breed dogs with delightful temperaments. Some of them have behaviour issues, but nothing I cannot deal with, even though putting them under fairly intense duress with extreme and up close handling. They are just 'naughty' dogs as a result of owner action/in-action, not inherently bad dogs with poor nerve etc.

I find the swing to cotton wool dogs quite disturbing. In days past, i suppose in a time when most dogs were bred for purpose and were tested for purpose, wishy washy temperaments were weeded out pretty fast. less than desirable physical attributes were also frowned upon and culled. Now we see breeders spending thousands to keep the runt alive and sell it at a reduced price to some poor bugger that will love it do death despite it bringing little else than expense and heartbreak. It makes me so angry that society seems to accept, even embrace, less than best.

ETA...... I guess I got a bit OT here, but in the end I guess what I am trying to say is as far as breeding goes, focus on breeding dogs of inherently sound body and mind will always trump whether the result leaves the breeder at 6, 7, 8, 12 weeks.

Edited June 29, 2015 by blinkblink

[Steve]

Yep agree and while we concentrate on the welfare of breeding dogs to try to ensure they have only the best quality of life and while we try to put things in place to prevent dogs being dumped - its time to stop focusing on what we are fed and told and led by zealots relating to causes and possible solutions and rethink using facts not sensationalism, propaganda and mythology. You wont get that unless you start to see breeders as having something to offer rather than needing to be controlled and legislated.

[Dame Aussie]

Having worked in shelters, if they refuse to accept surrenders people either let animals go free or kill them. I'm not comfortable with letting the guy with the litter of pups go home and bash them on the head.

I don't think this will change despite education. Humans in general are getting more and more irresponsible and throwaway in all areas of life.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Dame Aussie

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Steve

if all breeders were more like you - then maybe what you say would be fair.

But it doesn't really offer much to solve the problem of puppy farms supplying pet shops with puppies bred with no concern for their environment, their parents' environment or the future of the puppy - behaviour wise.

It is reassuring to read that most of these dogs would benefit from training - and councils do offer discounts for owners who get their dogs trained to a very basic level.

Making it harder for people to dump their dogs - is not going to solve problems into the future unless we change the laws about where you can take dogs - eg to the retirement village, or on the bus so that someone who can't stay in their current home and can't drive any more can still care for a dog. Maybe a lot less dogs would get dumped if they changed the laws about rental properties - ie that prospective tenants cannot be excluded if they have pets and they do not have to disclose up front if they do have pets.

I think if it was only about unwanted dogs in shelters that's one thing. But for me - it's about providing easy to measure and enforce ways to make sure that things like Oscar's law events do not happen. Or are easier to stop.

Personally - I'd like to see the rows of dog runs with breeding dogs and puppies that do not get nearly enough people time to be friendly - be banned. Maybe puppies removed from that kind of environment at 6 weeks do better - but they don't do as well as the ones that stay with their litter (not their breeder, their litter), until they're older. The stress on a puppy removed at 6 weeks is HUGE. And then you're depending on the training skill of a new owner. Who if they had a clue would not have bought a puppy from a pet shop or puppy farm in the first place.

[Steve]

Steve

if all breeders were more like you - then maybe what you say would be fair.

But it doesn't really offer much to solve the problem of puppy farms supplying pet shops with puppies bred with no concern for their environment, their parents' environment or the future of the puppy - behaviour wise.

It is reassuring to read that most of these dogs would benefit from training - and councils do offer discounts for owners who get their dogs trained to a very basic level.

Making it harder for people to dump their dogs - is not going to solve problems into the future unless we change the laws about where you can take dogs - eg to the retirement village, or on the bus so that someone who can't stay in their current home and can't drive any more can still care for a dog. Maybe a lot less dogs would get dumped if they changed the laws about rental properties - ie that prospective tenants cannot be excluded if they have pets and they do not have to disclose up front if they do have pets.

I think if it was only about unwanted dogs in shelters that's one thing. But for me - it's about providing easy to measure and enforce ways to make sure that things like Oscar's law events do not happen. Or are easier to stop.

Personally - I'd like to see the rows of dog runs with breeding dogs and puppies that do not get nearly enough people time to be friendly - be banned. Maybe puppies removed from that kind of environment at 6 weeks do better - but they don't do as well as the ones that stay with their litter (not their breeder, their litter), until they're older. The stress on a puppy removed at 6 weeks is HUGE. And then you're depending on the training skill of a new owner. Who if they had a clue would not have bought a puppy from a pet shop or puppy farm in the first place.

The stress of a puppy removed from its litter at 8 weeks when it isn't properly weaned and has been in the constant company of its Mum and litter mates until the minute it goes home is liable to be much more stressed about going to a new home than a 6 week old one.

You win all puppies have to wait until they are 8 weeks to go home but based on what I have seen and what I know it is a stupid inclusion based on little more than assumption. All that is needed is to ensure all puppies are vaccinated before they go home and that there has been enough time between needle and home time for the vaccine to be activated. The main reason for this is that it is the only thing you can do to cme close to introdcing something that can be regulated and enforced. The breeder can then take into account the variables they are working with have the right to make informed decisions on what is best and puppies and families live happily ever after. You may be able to get close to all puppies being 8 weeks before they leave the property but you will never ever get near determining what a breeder does with those puppies between birth and 8 weeks .No amount of over regulation is going to make a breeder keep the pups with the litter for that long if it doesnt suit them. No amount of over regulation is going to make a breeder socialise a puppy with humans or other dogs if it doesnt suit them.

If you dont want breeders to keep dogs in blocks of kennels like boarding kennels and pounds then we had better stop telling them that this is what is required for best management, easy cleaning blah blah blah. No person who loves dogs , no person who wants to breed puppies humanely would want to keep their animals like that but in some places because of over regulation the breeders have no choice. Take a good look at codes and development application requirements then reconsider who is to blame for breeding dog to be kept in this way.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Steve

[Steve]

By the way Im not looking to making it harder for people to dump dogs. In fact if I had my way there would be hundreds more small rescue groups who could act as advisers and work at prevention and accept dogs before they go to God or the pound. If anyone is interested in starting up such services where they could help dogs but also make a good living doing so Im eager to help. I would like to see rangers give dogs a free ride home when they are picked up - with no fines the first one or two times. I would like to see breeders, rangers and rescue and trainers,groomers, vets, pet stores all working together to identify problems unique to local areas to come up with solutions for the individual issues they face.

i would like to see good breeders more rewarded and encouraged,I would like to see hundreds more small hobby breeders and small business breeders eager to learn and get it right. Where they are not spoken of or treated as pond scum based on what some hoarder or criminal might do somewhere or sometime into the future.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Steve

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

I would like to see rangers give dogs a free ride home when they are picked up - with no fines the first one or two times.

My council does this. I think it's easier on the ranger and costs less than locking the dog up until the owner pays the fine.

I agree - I don't want to see the good breeders doing the right thing punished for the bad actions of some breeders.

And I also agree about the rules relating to concrete breeding pens and hosing them out every day. Yes if they're being farmed intensively - you'd need to do this but if it's one litter in the breeder's home... and that can be kept clean - I'm all for that. They're even putting carpet in hospitals these days so it must be possible to keep those environments sufficiently clean.

It is a bit like all dogs being banned from the park because some owners don't pick up after their dogs. And that's a clear and measurable offence that strangely does not get enforced... I think I'd make it that dogs have to be on lead at the park after dark because I suspect that's where the majority offences are happening - owners can't see their dogs pooping and what they don't see they don't have to pick up (hope they step in it - karma crap).