tdierikx

Funny that the payslip with the minimum wage hourly rate says "Animal Attendant"... which is fancy talk for kennel hand... *grin* T.

I worked at one of those pet resort places a couple years back. They had ONE "deluxe suite" on site... and it certainly didn't look like the ones pictured. In essence, it was a separate building sort of like a converted fancy shed that had a cutesy "bed" thing (read the kind of dog bed that vaguely resembles a human bed) in it instead of the standard trampoline bed in a regular kennel, and it had it's own "courtyard" area. Cleaning that "suite" was a bugger and took longer to do than a regular kennel - especially if the dog housed in it wasn't appropriately toilet trained... ewww! Things may have changed since then, but if they have, I'm tipping that kennel hands hate it due to the extra work involved trying to keep the "suites" presentable and clean. T.

Does snapping a finger tendon tucking in a cover on the couch count? It was on the dog couch... T.

As a female dog is capable of being fertilised more than once over a period of up to 10 days during her estrus cycle, it's entirely possible for a litter of pups to have more than one sire. The biggest issue is if she's impregnated early in that period, and again later in that period, ostensibly the later mating pups will be gestated for less time than the first mating ones, which can result in less developed pups being born. Timing matters so much when the gestation period is only 9weeks... just one week less gestation can result in some pretty serious defects. T.

The most common cause of certain issues in dogs is their owners' unrealistic expectations for them to be like furry human children... and anxiety and the like is on the rise with human children too... maybe there's a common thread? Seriously... why can't we just let dogs be dogs? Let them do doggy things instead of expecting them to act like humans to "fit in". T.

Forgive me for being a little cynical, but I wonder how many puppies they've put down due to parvovirus rather than raising them... I'm cynical about the diagnosis being used to kill them - it way or may not be 100% the case, as unfortunately we only have their word for said diagnosis, and I don't trust anything the RSPCA says. Deformities are more likely when 2 dogs are chucked together with little forethought to the timing or suitability of the mating(s) between two dogs, so I'll concede that one. T.

OK - I spoke to another friend who is an implanter, and they still have access to enter the details of the dogs they chip directly to the database, so whatever the issue is with new owners being unable to access their pet's details is not related to that, unless vet clinics who chip dogs/cats are being slack at entering those details because they are too bloody busy with everything else they do in any given day. Most likely it's when the change of ownership information is required to be entered into the database that there is some sort of delay, but I'm pretty sure that vet clinics aren't responsible for that stage of the identification process, so whatever excuse is being given for the PetRegistry portal not working as planned is probably just made up to deflect attention from the fact that the stupid thing doesn't work because they are constantly having to change how it works every time government makes legislative changes. T.

Hey @asalI heard that there have been changes made to the NSW microchip online registry whereas licensed implanters can no longer directly input the animal's details to the chip registry in NSW via the online process? I was told that this is now supposed to only be done by local councils or vets. Is this true? As an implanter, can you still access the NSW online registry to enter details for newly chipped animals, or do you have to send paperwork or an online form off for someone else to enter those details? I was told the above during a conversation about issues with new owners not being able to register their pet via the NSW online PetRegistry portal, as there is a backlog of details having not been entered by vets or councils in a timely manner. I'm thinking that it would be stupid to remove the ability for implanters to immediately enter animal details at the time of chipping, and that the backlog most likely pertains to the change of ownership form details not being entered in a timely manner when that pet is transfered to the new owner... is that more likely the case here? T.

This is what happens when proper research into exactly what they want the database to do is not done before declaring they are building one. There are other state registries (databases) that are functioning "reasonably" well in this sector, so why couldn't they look at modelling based on one of those? It's not actually rocket science, but there are some small intricacies that need sorting out before attempting to build such a database from scratch. Quite frankly, I think that a national registry/database is needed rather than different states all doing different things in this sphere - and none of them talk to each other. T.

This is reported as coming from Randwick council. The actual figures, which took me 5 minutes to find and fact check, are... 65 attacks reported for the whole year of 2024 in Randwick LGA - and 5091 for ALL reported attacks in the whole state of NSW for the year 2024. The stats are published by quarter on the OLG website for anyone to find btw. So, 65 attacks (also broken down into attacks on humans or other animals) recorded in an LGA with 26,254 dogs microchipped as living in that LGA, doesn't seem like a massive statistic to use to claim that there seems to be a chronic issue, does it? Maybe the fact that the current fines don't actually cover the man hours spent chasing up the reports of attacks might be more to the point? The other fact that most LGA's haven't got the staff to functionally enforce the laws couldn't be an issue either, could it? Interestingly, the Randwick stats actually show a decline over the 2024 year for the number of reports made. Jan-March was 19, Apr-Jun was 18, Jul-Sep was 17, and Oct-Dec was 11... which doesn't really gel with what the article is inferring, right? As for the total NSW attack figure of 5091, when you break it down as a proportion of the total number of microchipped dogs (and this doesn't factor the numbers of non-microchipped dogs) in the state which is 3,094,312 (as at Dec 2024) - the numbers, while not great, are still a very small percentage, yes? Just remember, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics... all of which seem to be apparent in this article. Check the stats for yourself here... https://olg.nsw.gov.au/public/dogs-cats/responsible-pet-ownership/pound-and-dog-attack-statistics/ T.

If that were the case then surely the fine would have been much larger, and the dog would have been seized and euthanised, don't you think? T.

While I agree that there is no excuse for the dog attacking the little girl, the above line in the article stands out... it implies that the child's mother (or any other adult) wasn't necessarily paying close attention to her child while they were in the dog park. Honestly, children should be closely monitored in such places, don't you think? I'm not a fan of young children running around in dog parks... too many opportunities for things like this to happen if/when adults aren't closely monitoring interactions with strange dogs. That said, $300 seems a very small fine for a dog actually causing harm/injury to a person... maybe there are facts we aren't being told in this story? One would think that at the very least the dog would have been impounded while investigations into the incident were taking place? T.

Perfect summation of society today... unfortunately... T.

Seriously... after how many news articles and TV coverage of same regarding dingoes on K'gari are people going to understand that it's not a great place to be taking your kids to for a holiday? As the article states, dingoes are opportunistic hunters, and children are by nature not all that clued in about self preservation, not to mention that parents seem to have so little control of them in most scenarios. Seriously, why would you take a child to a place known for wild animal attacks? T.

The Invasive Species Council always advocate killing as many non-native species as possible, by any means - despite that approach not being successful in any way, shape, or form to date. They are strong proponents of widespread baiting, which also tends to kill non-target (read native) animals. They are not interested in any other form of population control, only killing is on the table as far as they are concerned. The aerial culling of brumbies specifically is new, but aerial culling of other species - deer, pig, fox, dingo, etc - has always been one of the "population control" methods utilised in national parks. No matter the species, it's not the most humane method, with animals not always killed outright, and terrain is too hard to get into to correct a non-kill shot, so wounded animals are left to die a slow and painful death, be that by bleeding out from, or by infection of those wounds. Despite the use of all the different lethal culling methods, we still see adverse numbers of the non-native animals in the park, so obviously that method isn't actually very effective for those species, is it? Probably because after a cull, there is no follow-up with any other control methods until numbers go up again and another mass killing is ordered. The original count offered as evidence for the need to enable aerial culling of brumbies was between 12,000 and 22,000 individual brumbies in the park. They have killed around 6,000 of them, and now state that the count is between 3000 and 4000... ummm, anyone here think that maybe the initial count may have been a bit off? Regardless, now that brumby numbers are down to the legislated target, what actions are they looking at to keep control of numbers? Now we see the Invasive Species Council petitioning to kill the rest of them... no interest in non-lethal means of control at all. Is anyone also interested to hear that the number of signatures on their current petition (11,300) is almost exactly the same as the number of pro-forma submissions (11,200 from memory) to the consultation as to whether this barbaric cull should be considered in the first place? Essentially, the Invasive Species Council stacked the consultation with thousands of identical "submissions" that they provided for their followers to use to submit to that consultation - 11,200 copies of the same single submission. This practice is usually curtailed by combining all such pro-forma submissions as a single submission, which stops such large group actions being used to sway the legislative process unfairly - but the NSW government decided that in this particular case, they were counting them all as individual submissions, as they had already decided to enable aerial culling, and they needed the "support" of those pro-forma submissions to get it happening. Anyways, as we see much support for keeping the heritage status of the brumbies in Kosciusko, they are still aerial shooting other non-native species at regular intervals with little public resistance... are not Bambi, Babe, or Basil Brush as worthy of a humane passing as a brumby? Dingoes are native animals, yet they are also targetted for culling everywhere in this country... endorsed by the Invasive Species Council... double standards much? T.