Victoria to consider child pet ban

[Bryony]

i agree with you peteresue
its not fair to the people who arn't as 'well off'
they really should have an exam...if you fail = no pets for you!!!!
if you pass you can have a pet
if your pet isn't looked after proplerly instead of fines.....they can work in an animal refuge place as comunity service

i know a bit harsh but....some people need it....BAD

 

[BROWNS]

Yep well said pr,i think many people who may not be able to afford it would appreciate them even more...jmo

 

[bigguy]

Personally I think it sucks. What you are all failing to see is that slowly but surely we are losing our rights. The RSPCA wants more power , and they are gradually getting it. In the UK they are trying very hard to have the keeping of reptiles completely banned. If they get more and more power in this country than it will be only a matter of time till they try and ban reptiles here as well. And its not just the UK. There is a huge push underway now in the USA to ban keeping reptiles. Some counties and states in the USA have even tighter control now than we have in Australia, and its only going to get worse.

$100 licence fees for unsexed animals is just a waste of time. What they need to do in this country is to make it law that unless your cat or dog is a registered breeder, then they MUST be desexed. Problem solved instantly.

 

[Slateman]

Personally I think it sucks. What you are all failing to see is that slowly but surely we are losing our rights.

It is all about money. You will newer lose right to pay your taxes and fees to goverment bodies.

We do not have many civil liberties left anyway. They like to legistlate all activities for fee or some type of levy.

 

[spottedpython]

its a good and bad idea. good idea is that the children can't hurt the animals or give them away when they don't want them anymore. or just let them go in the wild or flush them down the toilet.bad idea is that children won't learn the resbonsebllity of looking after animals. and greg if humans didn't have children there would be no more of us left.

 

[HATCHMASTER]

And I would build on this topic. Gowerment should charge small fee for farting. Something like 50c pe fart.
That can be defended as protecting our ozon layer. Boy that would cost me.

But It will happen one day.

would this be tax deductable and would G.S.T aply

 

[Greg]

Some counties and states in the USA have even tighter control now than we have in Australia, and its only going to get worse.

Have ya's seen that show on the telly where the SPCA officers actually carry guns and handcuffs? Imagine arming the RSPCA inspectors here. What a joke.
Typical Yanks though.

 

[soulweaver]

Personally I think it sucks. What you are all failing to see is that slowly but surely we are losing our rights. The RSPCA wants more power , and they are gradually getting it. In the UK they are trying very hard to have the keeping of reptiles completely banned. If they get more and more power in this country than it will be only a matter of time till they try and ban reptiles here as well. And its not just the UK. There is a huge push underway now in the USA to ban keeping reptiles. Some counties and states in the USA have even tighter control now than we have in Australia, and its only going to get worse.

$100 licence fees for unsexed animals is just a waste of time. What they need to do in this country is to make it law that unless your cat or dog is a registered breeder, then they MUST be desexed. Problem solved instantly.

you raise a good point bigguy, problem is that not everyone registers their pet fullstop! therefore it will reduce numbers but can't stop it totally........dogs are a bit different harder to hide a dog.....

 

[zoe]

i agree with you peteresue
its not fair to the people who arn't as 'well off'
they really should have an exam...if you fail = no pets for you!!!!
if you pass you can have a pet

the exam is an awesome idea bryony! i think a $100 licence fee is a great idea too. sure it may not sound fair to people who arent as well off but if you can't afford $100 a year for a licence then how do you afford the $70 a year for a vaccination plus added costs for worming, flea control, food, desexing as a puppy/kitten etc etc, ALL of which should really be done as basic care for your pets anyway.

You can have all the money in the world and still be a rubbish pet owner.

true, but my experience at the vet has told me that the people who do have the money will spend it where needed on the things as mentioned above, where as the ones that dont obviously wont. i might have told this story before but we had a bloke come in to weigh his boxer once - the bloke smelt like he hadn't bathed in about a week - and when he put his dog on the scales it was about 10kg underweight. its spine and ribs were sticking out and looked disgusting. when i told him he said "oh so what i should feed it more?". i would bet my bottom dollar that this guy would not have bought the dog (he probably got it free somewhere anyway) if he had to pay any amount for a licence. and imo, harsh and even snobby as it may sound, the animals are way better off not being entrusted to the care of someone who clearly can't even take care of themselves. oh and of course, the dog wasnt desexed :x

 

[michaelh]

Slateman, what if we declared reptile keeping a religion, a la Hare Krishnas etc then we could opt out of taxes all together.

We could have some great initiation ceremony and worship reptiles.

We could fund ourselves by voluntary recognition of the Slateman fart and miscellaneous hot air contributions and life would be rosy.

 

[Sdaji]

What big guy has said is very important. If the RSPCA had its way it would be illegal to keep reptiles, or any native animal in captivity (although I'm sure they wouldn't go too strict on birds). The RSPCA is really a hideous organisation which does a hell of a lot of harm and very little good.

This idea is pretty good, but it's scarey that the RSPCA is behind it, getting more power.

 

[Guest]

Zoe,
Just because they cant afford 100 dollars extra for a [edited] licence, doesnt mean they cant afford vet bills, vaccinations etc.. What if all up all they could afford was an extra 100 bucks? Would you rather run the risk of the animal getting sick, and dying by paying 100 bucks for a licence? No animal lover could want that. I know a few families that in total, bring in 500 bucks a week BEFORE tax, and they have up to four kids, yet they ALWAYS manage to pay the vet bills, and properly care for their dogs.

 

[Slateman]

Slateman, what if we declared reptile keeping a religion, a la Hare Krishnas etc then we could opt out of taxes all together.

We could have some great initiation ceremony and worship reptiles.

We could fund ourselves by voluntary recognition of the Slateman fart and miscellaneous hot air contributions and life would be rosy.

That religion would include snake holding in church. I personaly do that few times a day. You all know that toilet is my church. I am so religios.

But I am sure that they will come with some type of licence fee for holding the snake in church too.

 

[Slateman]

the exam is an awesome idea bryony! i think a $100 licence fee is a great idea too. sure it may not sound fair to people who arent as well off but if you can't afford $100 a year for a licence then how do you afford the $70 a year for a vaccination plus added costs for worming, flea control, food, desexing as a puppy/kitten etc etc, ALL of which should really be done as basic care for your pets anyway.

I don't understand the logic. If you pay $100 to goverment you are better to keep pet?
We should licence children like Greg said. Child cost close to milion dolars to bring up to adult age today, so goverment should introduce licence fee $1000000 to all parents? Becaose if they can't afford that how they will pay for the other costs?

Just leave people along and reinforce existing laws instead, if crulety is involved.
By licencing everything and collecting more and more money from people, you do not fix the problem.
Bad people find the way around as allways, and good people just end up paying more for byrocracy of goverment usles organisations.
Did you noticed people that they are always happy to do something about it only if they can justyfied to colect some financial revenue and get some profit?

 

[zoe]

I don't understand the logic. If you pay $100 to goverment you are better to keep pet?

its not a matter of who you're paying it to, its the fact than you CAN afford to pay it - its like $1 every 3 days or something to get $100 a year and i really dont think that there's many people out there that cant afford 30 cents a day. its more a matter of weeding out the people that aren't willing to do the best they can for their pets - or even the LEAST they can for ther pets. i hate to be harsh but im trying to get my point across - i have seen a lot of complete drop kicks come into the vet with their underfed, flea ridden animals that they got free from their buddy who didnt bother desexing their pet, and you try and explain to them basic health care such as how to properly FEED them and they ignore you and walk out half the time. if a $100 licencing fee prevented those people from owning pets then i would be a very happy lady. i'm not saying poor people can't own pets (i myself am not very well off) because i have seen MANY families that aren't very well off put EVERYTHING they can into looking after their pets. those people would happily pay the fee. the bottom line that i'm trying to get across is that most people that would be willing to pay the $100 would be willing to get their pets desexed.

Just because they cant afford 100 dollars extra for a [edited] licence, doesnt mean they cant afford vet bills, vaccinations etc.. What if all up all they could afford was an extra 100 bucks?

and what if their animal gets sick? where does that money come from? if you dont have emergency money available to take care of your animal if it gets sick (and i know people that have had $1000 and over vet bills) then i dont think you should have an animal. is it fair that the pet gets euthanased because you cant afford it to have minor surgery? i'm not saying anything against you brodie because i know you're one of the best pet owners around who would do anything needed for your animals .

 

[Guest]

if you dont have emergency money available to take care of your animal if it gets sick (and i know people that have had $1000 and over vet bills) then i dont think you should have an animal

Do you have over 1000 for each of your animals Zo? I bet you dont. What if they all got really really sick on the same day If you dont, well according to what you just stated, your not a responsible pet owner

 

[Slateman]

I know what you mean Zoe. But money should not be taken from people for everything they do.

 

[zoe]

Do you have over 1000 for each of your animals Zo?

what are the odds of all of your animals getting so sick they all need surgery at the same time lol. let's not go overboard hey...

I know what you mean Zoe. But money should not be taken from people for everything they do.

i agree. but when it comes to taking care of a living being then i think it should be. but hey thats just me . i'm done trying to make my point now lol

 

[Guest]

What if there was a fire zo? and your your animals were severly burnt?? You should be prepared for the worst.

How many people ya rekon anticipate their animal getting so sick they have to pay over 1grand?

 

[peterescue]

Ok Zoe. I give up. Only rich people should have rights. Money is the passport to everything. poor people who dont have the money for any possible emergency should be executed now for being parasites and a drain on the finances of the well to do.
Hang on. You dont have the emergency money if all your animals get sick at once. Give them up now before its to late. You made your point and I think less of you for it. (not really)