All Activity

pancreatitis is incredibly common in mini schnauzers so be careful of fat intake!

His name is Tan. I can’t believe you just made that assumption. You should be ashamed of yourself and your family.

Are they modifying the seat layout/structure at all in the sections allowing pets? Just today I flew back home on a plane and I can't see a pet carrier fitting there AT ALL. "Pets must be secured in a pet carrier which must be stowed under the seat in front of the owner for the duration of the flight."

In NSW, Victoria, and now WA, the AJP have sitting members in the legislative council... and trust me, they are plenty busy trying to slip in cray cray amendments to animal welfare legislation. You can thank Emma Hurst (and to a lesser extent Abigail Boyd from the Greens) for pounds now offloading as many animals as they can onto private rescues in NSW, with their stupid Rehoming Bill in 2022 - effectively outsourcing government responsibility to the rescue sector for no payment. It passed because it didn't cost the government any money, not because it was sound legislation. I've just spent the last 2 days going through Victorian council websites to compare their cat/dog registration fees and excess animal keeping permits... and let's just say I'm never moving to Victoria and owning any pets there... legislation changes have made owning pets there fekking convoluted to say the least... and it's about to get even worse! As for nutty old women... definitely not! Without us, the whole system would go to heck... T.

For an area of some 183,000km squared, and only 742 residents, one wonders how they managed to let the stray dog situation get so out of hand... T.

Absolutely devastating. That poor poor little dog. And I'm sure his owner will suffer lasting trauma.

Horrible https://7news.com.au/news/five-month-old-maltipoo-puppy-mauled-to-death-by-three-off-leash-dogs-at-auburn-dog-park-in-western-sydney--c-20077526

A tricky situation having dog packs free roaming around people is not good .

I totally understand about regulations. It's just that we're getting into decades of waiting for anyone high up to care. :/ I feel we're quietly regarded as nutty old women and the animals we rescue were 'unwanted' anyway.

The money might be better spent just having rangers round up the strays like they are supposed to. Wiluna Shire is massive in land area, but has a total human population of around 742 - most of those are in Wiluna township. One needs to wonder how they managed to get such a large population of stray dogs, to the point where their council starts making these sorts of decisions. Interestingly, Wiluna LGA has 7 elected councillors, but obviously can't afford enough rangers to police local laws effectively. Their website says that council employs 12 (FTE) staff in total. T.

Without regulation and accountability, the dodgy rescues will continue to give the great ones a bad reputation. 100% sure that no rescue want's to be saddled with extra paperwork, but if they don't have decent record keeping already, then dog help us all. As for policing... as long as government outsources that task to 3rd party charities, that aspect will always be an issue when it comes to animal welfare legislation Recently. the NSW government enacted legislation to make those charities much more accountable for their actions in return for increased funding, and one particular charity has been pushing back quite strongly because they wanted even more money than they were given. Note that the money they were given by government the last financial year to do that job was around 20 times what they'd regularly been given to do the job in years past... go figure! Also note that same charity doubling the number of inspectors on the ground also didn't lead to any noticeable increase in complaint investigations or prosecutions, and you might wonder whether they are worth any more money to do the job... Methinks it's time that government ran the enforcement themselves if it's going to cost them the kind of money that certain charity is demanding as an annual stipend ($25 million). T.

Sorry for the double post.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/dog-parvovirus-warning-issued-north-east-queensland/3cdb13ef-4d4d-4d36-bdff-9ebaca651ab4

https://www.9news.com.au/national/dog-parvovirus-warning-issued-north-east-queensland/3cdb13ef-4d4d-4d36-bdff-9ebaca651ab4

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-19/wiluna-dog-bounty-questions/105595030

I saw a tizzy somewhere on FB about the rescue mentioned? Going by comments there, and elsewhere - there's a LOT of misunderstanding and broad sweeping (often incorrect) statements about how rescues run and how terrible they are. Rather than get into full-on virtue signalling debate with people whose minds are made up, the only thing you can do is stay in your lane and do the very best you can. And admit that you don't know everything there is to know. If you're not open to learning, you and your rescue aren't going to do better. Regulation, while a good idea, and overdue, and extra paperwork, needs someone to enforce it and frankly I don't think anyone really wants to spend the money on enforcing it. Vet accounts. You're right. Vets get burned. Personally I like pay-as-you-go as a goodwill gesture, but it depends on what the vet's numbers person wants. Some prefer 30 day accounts.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-18/major-australian-airline-set-to-trial-pets-on-planes/105783886

A sad state of affairs. from disappointed adopters, to vets not getting their money I feel so sorry for ethical rescues- battling to do a good thing.

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.

I wonder what is behind the change in NSW all puppies at 12 weeks must be life registered? Rules out the desexed discount unless done before 12 weeks locking the pups into all the health problems inherent in early desexing Why are idiots being allowed the Power to make such cruel laws without challenge? It's research has been public knowledge for decades now that early desexing before puberty adds $7,000 in vet bill over the lives of such puppies

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-15/paws-darwin-leaves-pet-owners-out-of-pocket-desexing-service/105719438

What a good and useful working life he has led I am glad he is with his former handler - and has another dog , too Well Done, Sebbi.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-14/lord-howe-island-sniffer-dog-sebbi-retires-to-brisbane/105762486

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.