tdierikx

This is a major issue with many rescues... the cost of doing what they do is often overlooked as they rarely recoup costs expended with the adoption fees they charge. My opinion is that the entire rescue industry needs to be regulated by law, and in doing so, those rescues may be able to access government funding to do their work. Regardless, rescues also need to be mindful that they are actually running a business, and to run a business at a constant loss is not a great model for continued success. Most vets I know don't allow rescues to have an account unless or until they can prove that they pay their bills in full and on time. Rescues that don't pay soon get blacklisted as word gets around the vet clinics about rogue operators. Most vets will give rescues discounted rates for their services, often making no profit at all from those services to rescue, so there should be no excuse for non-payment - vets still need to cover their own basic costs just like any other business. T.

@asal- the fee is as for a desexed dog up until 6 months of age, when an additional one off fee can be charged if the dog isn't desexed by then - or a vet certificate exempting desexing until a later date (or never) is provided. For cats the additional fee is an annual expense if the cat hasn't been desexed from 4 months of age. Interestingly many suburban vets won't desex cats until they are over 4 months of age so that kind of messes up that one... *sigh* Theoretically, if you never desex your dog, the maximum registration fees you will pay are $80 + $189 (both once) = $269 If you don't desex your cat, you'll pay $70 once and then an annual $99 extra until you show proof your cat is desexed. The additional undesexed fees do not have any pensioner rebate either, which severely disadvantages low income people as they may have difficulty finding the funds to desex their pets, and then to pay the excess (especially for cats) registration fees. As for pet number limits, those should never be a mandatory globally encompassing rule, but might be set to enable welfare compliance efforts if an issue arises that council has to get involved in, which it seems is the intent with the Eurobodalla local laws, as the limits have actually been listed in those local laws since 2022, but not enforced globally, as most residents don't seem to be aware of them actually being in place. T.

Interestingly... the suggested animal number caps have been in force in Eurobodalla Shire since August 2022, and the ONLY change in this review and consequent draft document is the inclusion of a night time cat curfew... I'm assuming the Local Orders have been working fine and as intended since 2022, as those residents with more animals than suggested don't seem to have been affected and have only just now realised that the limits are there. The document also clearly states that the limits will only be imposed if council officers deem a welfare or amenity issue to be present, it also states that generally the limits do not actually apply, but have been added to allow compliance orders to be imposed when a problem arises. I wonder if cat owning residents are aware that they will now be compelled to keep their cats indoors at night if this review is passed and comes into effect? No mention of it in the article. T.

Victorian councils have been doing this for years now, and the end result has generally been a significant drop in the numbers of pets registered with council. If you want to own more pets than the limits set, you also then have to apply for a permit to have more, which also comes with a fee. In Victoria's case, that has led to a significant drop in revenue from those registrations and permits, as pet owners try to avoid all those extra costs. Victoria charges annual registration fees for pets which are generally around $70 for a desexed pet - but the registration fees are set by each council, so could be more or less than that depending on where you live in Victoria. NSW has a one-off lifetime registration system which charges $80 for a desexed dog, and $70 for a desexed cat. Both states charge around 50% of the registration fee to pensioners. As part of my role at Animal Care Australia, I regularly contribute to submissions regarding consultation on such Domestic Animal Management Plans (DAMPs) across the country, and it's eye-opening stuff sometimes as to how far removed from reality the authors are. Funnily enough all the Victorian councils are very concerned about why there has been a steady year-on-year drop in the number of pets registered... and one is wanting to run a 2 year study into why before possibly doing anything about it... ummm, the answer is glaringly obvious as noted above, don't you think? Personally, I think that the annual fee is set too high. If they dropped those annual fees to maybe half of what they are now, then there may be better uptake, and as it's an annual fee, it still gets council some revenue to go towards animal management on a regular basis. Many Victorian councils don't have dedicated animal management staff either, their officers are tasked with all local laws enforcement and don't seem to specialise in any one of those areas. Charging such high annual registration fees and then not channelling those funds into dedicated (and trained) staff for the management of animal matters is ridiculous. Each Victorian council pays the State $4.10 for each animal registration fee they collect, so charging $70 or more each year is reaping some significant revenue for each council - if they can keep residents paying it of course. As noted in the article, the actual number of pets is not a driving factor into what constitutes an animal welfare concern - a single pet can be poorly cared for, just as multiple pets can be very well cared for - it comes down to the person who owns or cares for them, not how many they have. T.

Considering that amendments to various animal welfare based legislation over the time AJP has had a representative member in the NSW Legislative Council have directly helped to create the issues we are seeing with pets in general, I don't think that anything she has to say should be taken as any sort of authority. This same AJP member recently chaired the NSW inquiry into cat management, which produced a report NOT advocating keeping pet cats contained to their owners' properties - which not only means that they are free to predate on our native wildlife, but the cats themselves are exposed to the myriad dangers of life roaming the landscape (in urban ares, this leads to more cat deaths by misadventure than should be tolerated or normalised). Multiple amendments to companion animal welfare legislation initiated by AJP and the Greens has also severely limited pet dogs' exposure to and socialisation with other people and animals by imposing strict limits on where and when dogs can be out and about in public spaces. In what world is that going to make them more sociable? Add that to the requirement that any physically healthy dog or cat in a NSW pound must be farmed out to private rescue for rehoming, meaning that rescues are becoming overrun with animals that require substantial behavioural rehabilitation before they can be rehomed, and in some cases where dodgy rescues are rehoming unsuitable dogs into the community in order to make room to take in more unclaimed pound dogs. The excuse "it's a rescue" is NO excuse for antisocial behaviour, no matter the breed or size of dog. All that said, pet ownership is a privilege, not a right. If you get a pet, you have certain responsibilities with regard to that pet and the community you live in. If you are unable to meet those responsibilities, then maybe you just shouldn't get a pet. T.

Pretty sure that any vet looking at that nail will want to remove the entire nail surgically under an anaesthetic, which will result in him requiring the foot to be bandaged and protected while the new nail grows in, including regular bandage changes and vet revisits to check healing. I had a Rotti boy who'd do the same thing on a regular basis (clumsy boy) - he was also anxious, but only when confined in small spaces, so I used to have to be with him for his pre-anaesthetic, and post surgical recovery, before taking him home once he could stand... so he never had to go in the vet cages. You might be able to get a vet to make a housecall if that would be more comfortable for your boy - how is he with visitors? The vet could bring injectible sedation if that would make it easier to look at and possibly treat the issue at home, maybe a dremel might allow better access and drainage of the split while the rest of the nail grows out. Good luck... T.

As part of my involvement with Animal Care Australia, I regularly assist in our submissions relating to animal welfare policies and legislation Australia-wide. Currently looking at the draft Domestic Animal Management Plan (DAMP) for Wellington Shire Council in Victoria - https://your.wellington.vic.gov.au/domestic-animal-management-plan-review - and came across this interesting tidbit... Heads up to any of our breeder members here who might be targeted for council visits (or worse) if you live in that shire and advertise any of your pups on this site. T.

Vaccinations might cost a bit, but treatment for Parvo (or even euthanasia) is much more expensive... Maybe vets could be more active in advising that there is a vaccination for Parvo alone if owners are too cash strapped to go the full C3 or C5 vaccinations - at least they'd be covered for the more prevalent of the 3 killer diseases in dogs. Distemper and Hepatitis are around, but definitely much rarer in domestic dogs that don't come into contact with wild animals or their scat. T.

The footage shown is disturbing for sure. What stands out is that it looks like the owners of the dogs in question are there and trying to help get them away from the target, but the lack of leads and collars is making that difficult. At no stage do the dogs seem to be targetting any humans, and appear to be being handled by at least 2 individuals with no aggression shown. The target is solely the on-lead dog, which is clearly not impressed at being approached in an aggressive manner and is trying to retaliate. Notably, not one of the 3 off-lead dogs is of any bull breed mix visible to the eye. This sort of reporting both highlights the issues that are becoming more prevalent, but also incites negative reactions to dogs being out in public spaces - especially larger breed dogs. Dog are increasingly being restricted from more and more places other than their own homes, which in turn reduces the opportunities to socialise them to multiple scenarios and experiences. Is it any wonder that we are seeing less sociable behaviours? Legislators are all too happy to enact laws without considering the long term effects of that legislation. Also, it's far easier to legislate a ban on anything they don't like than it is to legislate anything that requires policing/enforcing. The problems we are seeing here are a result of poor legislative application - especially in the policing/enforcing of said legislation. The article highlights the lacklustre responses from police and local council officers when called to deal with an incident - time matters here, and neither enforcement agency mentioned seems willing or able to allocate resources in a timely manner when an incident occurs. What we have here is not simply a "dog problem", it's a policing resources problem. I fully agree that there is no room for antisocial dogs in public spaces, but we also need to consider the statistics here. Consider how many pet owners have larger breed dogs in relation to the number of negative interactions with larger dogs in public spaces. What is less likely to be reported (or factored into dog attack data) is the number of negative interactions with smaller breeds of dog, simply because the damage incurred is less than that of a larger dog. The data is therefore skewed to one particular premise - that is that larger breed dogs are all inherently dangerous - and can lead to knee-jerk reactionary legislation based on that skewed data. T.

I rented when I owned 5 Rottweilers... never lost a cent of my bond at any place I rented, and always got glowing reports from each agent as to how well I kept the places I lived in. I always left a place in better condition than when I'd moved into it. T.

They probably wouldn't knock them back... The reality is that carnivorous animals need a constant supply of meat and it has to come from somewhere. Any means that reduces financial costs involved with that would be considered I would think. The fact that this zoo isn't candy coating that fact is commendable, if a little disturbing to our way of thinking. Would it surprise you to know that the farmyard section in many Australian zoos is not just there for visitors to enjoy domestic animals? Ever wondered what happens to excess piglets, goat kids, lambs, rabbits, guinea pigs, etc? Excess kangaroos and wallabies from the Australiana sections? Not that those sections make much of a dent in the overall feeding requirements for larger carnivores, but every little cost saving helps. Another fact to remember is that European zoos are run slightly differently to our zoos here, and they don't sugar coat the fact that their carnivores eat meat and it has to come from somewhere. The public killing, dissection, and consequent feeding of the young giraffe to the lions some years ago at another Danish zoo probably went too far, but only because they did it in public... the reality is that it was going to happen anyway, and they made the decision to show the public that aspect of their practices. It's interesting to watch people who think nothing of picking up a tray of meat from the supermarket for their own consumption getting all righteously indignant that carnivorous animals in zoos need a source of food too. Just putting it into perspective here. That tray of meat in the supermarket was once a living being too, yes? Are their deaths any less meaningful just because we don't see it happen? For the record, I eat meat, and know exactly where it has come from, but in knowing that, I also don't waste any of the meat that animal died to provide me with. T.

What a fluff article... virtually no information whatsoever except for the fact that the show was on May 3, and he'd been arrested yesterday in relation to it. Would be useful to know why he'd been banned from attending the shows and what his banner said. T.

Interesting that they report that she had her dog on a retractable lead, and that she tangled herself in it and tripped over during the incident. Those leads should be banned, as they are a hazard in more ways than one, and no-one using them ever has any actual control over where their dog is going. I certainly don't condone the larger dog attacking the smaller one, but I note that we are only hearing one side of the story of this incident, and have no idea what the actual circumstances leading up to the attack were. I've had people walk their dogs on retractable leads by my house, and many of those dogs have decided to toddle up my driveway while the owners were oblivious to where they were walking until the lead hit it's end point, or they heard my dogs going mental at the arrival at my front door of a strange dog. I've also had small dogs on those leads rush up at my dogs when we've been out and about too. T.

Unfortunately, because 1080 is relatively cheap and easy to disperse, the authorities are not likely to stop using it - despite it not actually being terribly effective in the long run, affects non-target species with the same efficacy, and is generally a nasty way for any animal to die. Remember, government at all levels need to be seen to be "doing something" about non-native animals in the environment... grrr! T.

Oh... and the AWAC has 11 members, but it only takes a quorum of 6 to constitute a meeting in which decisions are made. If 3 of those 6 who actually turn up to a meeting to discuss changes to legislation or COPs are animal rights advocates and/or representatives for RSPCA, you can see how changes would be slanted towards their agenda. As it stands currently, we can see summaries of all AWAC meetings, but it doesn't mention who or how many attended each meeting. Food for thought... T.