All Activity

Yes Also, just simple poor management of undesexed pets. And if I didn't think that ankc breeders are just a drop in the ocean, this recent email would have gone down badly.... (I guess I'm not the target demographic. )

I suspect it’s also economic. Inflation, and especially increased housing costs, are putting the costs of pet ownership out of the reach of many people. Add on the commodification of the pet industry, with social marketing of expensive pet care products of dubious necessity, and many pet owners are mis-spending any disposable income they may have. This is compounded by another social change I’ve seen in my lifetime - the rise of the two income family. When both adults in a family are working full time, often with unpaid overtime or a second job, who finds the time to care for a pet? Even if people get a pet at a stage of life when they have spare time and money, their lives will change and evolve over the next fifteen years. Unfortunately. I think pet ownership is a cultural relic that is becoming increasingly impractical for many people. I agree, but attempts to control breeding seem to have done more harm than good. To a large extent, demand dictates supply, so when well-intentioned breeders of the type who breed small numbers of puppies and match them to carefully screened purchasers are forced out of breeding by onerous regulation, the gap in supply is met by puppy mills, whose “mass production” of puppies covers compliance costs, or by criminals and the criminally careless, who simply disregard regulations. Education needs to address demand, by encouraging people to take a hard look at how pet ownership will affect their lives throughout the next 15 years, BEFORE they get a puppy or kitten.

Let's be real - pet ownership, abuse and abandonment are educational and social issues. I still think the RSPCA (or another peak national body) should be focussed on the educational and enforcement side of things and either improve laws or stop banging on about how the laws aren't strong enough and do something about it. They have failed at sheltering, rehabbing and adopting animals so should stop pretending they do much on that front. Councils have an important role to play in Lost and Found animals and sheltering them in a basic way until they can be reunited with their owners or moved to a foster/adoption option. I think pound fees hinder successful return of some animals and don't really encourage any compliance. The people whose dogs get out regularly are the people who lack the funds, commitment and ability to repair fences. But is the dog better off with them or dead? It seems like the animal only has 2 options and it didn't ask for either. It also gives the pound a bad name in the communities eyes of being money makers and killers. That of course leaves the unfunded rescues who do all the assessing, vet work, fostering and adoptions. What a mess! The most under rated (the 'money makers'!) in the communities eyes is doing such important work! I honestly don't know what to do there - shelters have their place but home based foster care better reflects an animal's future. But each rescue has their own value base and I really don't know if they could all come together in agreement on what an animal within rescue needs? But the biggest issues are of course the number of animals still being bred and sold every year as part of a money making business, with no warranties and no checking that the purchaser is capable of owning and raising a live creature. Or that they are even allowed a pet. We need more control on how many animals can be at risk of homelessness and who is producing and owning them for real change to occur. There are lots of genuine surrenders (owner deaths and homelessness) and there are lots of 'my pet is unmanageable' surrenders (where education and better matching of pet to human could assist) and lots of 'my pet is sick and vet care is too expensive' surrenders (again, where education and better matching could've been useful). We have to stop producing and selling pets like we are running an animal Temu. We have to change the mindset on how expensive owning a pet can be so it doesn't come as a surprise and how many years you might need to be responsible for it (you don't get to abandon it when they get old either). We have to change the mindset on the intrinsic needs of a pet so they aren't purchased like you would a t-shirt, fed on shit, then left alone outside in tiny yards or on apartment balconies for hours on end every day. We have to make it easier to leave our houses with them and for them to interact safely with each other. We need to blend our worlds more, but in a responsible way. And I say that as someone who can't even take her dog out where other dogs are. Just my thoughts of course - easier said than done. I just feel like so much needs to change on so many levels that it is disheartening. We can't even co-exist with our precious wildlife! And I think about the terrible neglect Albert suffered for his first year and what it took from his future. That's what we have to positively impact. What did he do to deserve any of that? Nothing except be born and raised by someone neglectful, ignorant or in denial. All the money spent on him will never fix everything he suffered - his eyesight is permanently damaged and he remains absolutely terrified of other dogs because of the harm they have caused him. He still eats his own vomit like he may never get another meal. We have to change how animals like him are valued in our communities or nothing will change. Maybe we even need to make it harder to own a companion animal? Like we need to sit an animal care test to get a pet license first? A bit like what rescue is doing for potential adopters with their application forms? I wish it wasn't needed, but????

Not yet, about the equivalent of 2 year's coverage. I probably wouldn't get it for Border Collies again. I think you make a good point, if there aren't really any health issues expected in the breed in the first few years, there isn't much point as once they get older the cost of the insurance just goes up so much higher.

Yes! Just this week, the regular proposal from an MOP that if we stopped rescuing quote 'doing the council's job for them', then things would change and rescue wouldn't be needed. A catch 22 as old as Methuselah.

@Little Gifts Overcommitment is a real thing isn't it. It's so awful to have to say no. No matter how many times, it never gets any easier. But saying yes every time is a trap.

The unspoken fact of the matter is that government has effectively outsourced their responsibility for unwanted/stray animals to a completely unfunded system of private rescues. They are reluctant to change this model, as they refuse to spend the money required to do something constructive about the issue when they know that big hearted volunteers will do it for them. The only way to change this is for rescues to basically stop all operations until government steps up and deals with the issue... but that's not going to happen because no-one wants to see euthanasia rates soar due to space constraints in the few pounds we do have operating nowadays. The government are banking on rescues continuing to do this work for free... so we are caught in a terrible Catch 22 situation if we want the current system to change in any significant way. RSPCA have decided to scale back their shelter business section (in NSW), and to focus more on their inspectorate activities... meanwhile, government refuses to be locked into any significant funding for that part of their business - and until the inspectorate does their job properly and fairly, I wouldn't suggest giving them any more funding either. The NSW government has finally put in some measures to make the inspectorate more accountable for the funds they do receive, but those could still go further, like maybe some KPI's that can be used to measure value for money spent... don't you think? T.

Minxy, that's known as Sod's Law. Have you since saved the equivalent by not having insurance? I never used pet insurance because my breed never developed anything particularly expensive until their teenage years, so not worth the cost. I recently read of a man who pays to have a lot of stuff in storage.He recently needed some water tumblers and knew he had some in storage. He called them the $40,000 glasses.

As a foster carer for a long long time with both RSPCA and a couple of independent groups I think something has to give. RSPCA can't continue to be the funded body and not doing the work. All these independent rescue groups would not even exist if they were doing the job the general public thinks they are with all their donations. Its one big scam. The last rescue group I was with is constantly screaming out for foster carers to the degree that it is putting me off them now. I know it is hard but you can't commit to dogs and then guilt people into taking them. You can't recruit new carers by banging on at the same group of supporters and you can't keep bringing in dogs if you have nowhere for them to go. And the risk of bringing in dogs and sending straight to carers is that their behaviours are unknown. There have been several badly matched fosters (we had one that I felt would physically harm me if he stayed any longer) and that doesn't help retain carers either. I've ended up with a foster fail that I did not plan and who is terrified of other dogs. He was so ill at rescue they did their first ever Go Fund Me to cover his vet bills. If I had my way I guess I'd still be fostering as many as I could. And I'd be in the thick of fundraising for them (or other rescues). But I'm not doing either because I'm definately still burnt out after things went south with Craft for Paws. So yeah it's a hard emotional slog that continues endlessly and I'm in my down cycle about it all still...

Yes, T, we both wanted to know what the problem was. In many years and many dogs (he was a greyhound vet) he said he'd never seen that problem before.

Flamesuit on. I'm prepared for all the excuses as to why rescue makes it all too hard or too expensive. I've heard them all. The rescue sector is buckling under the pressure of endless unwanted animals and the high cost of vetwork and upkeep while in care. Targeted blame on people who have chosen an unpaid and bloody difficult occupation is all too common.

https://thewest.com.au/news/animals/australias-compassion-fatigue-results-in-lowest-pet-adoption-rates-and-forced-euthanasia

Interesting. I hadn't even heard of Kogan pet cover. That certainly wouldn't be my first choice either! We're with Bow Wow Meow now for Ollie but he's only 11 months so we haven't had to use it before. When we had our Akita 15 years ago we were with Medibank pet insurance at the time and they were brilliant. He ended up having multiple surgeries and it was such an easy process to use. Was definitely worth it for him. I cancelled the pet insurance for Dash and Bonnie last year as they were both 7 and never claimed on either of them and the premiums just jumped up really high due to their age so I figured we'd be better off keeping that money in our bank accounts, and then as luck would have it, Dash got a paralysis tick 6 weeks later which cost us over $2k

If he was a fair bit older I'd suggest dementia setting in. But 7 is not the usual age range. It does actually sound like pain, which they may be treating with Meloxicam, an anti inflammatory that's usually step 1 in pain treatment - there's more specific ones available that target nerve pain. They don't always begin with NSAID if there's stomach issues. Anti inflammatory or an analgesic should begin to work within hours so please report back to your vet asap. And keep a diary of his behaviour. I'm definitely no vet, this infographic might help if you have access to FB animal wellness

I second this.

You may be right about necropsies @Mairead- I've only ever been offered it on one animal in all my years of pet ownership and working in the animal industry. I know that zoos will more often get them done on animals that have passed with little to no warning, so they can rule out issues that may affect other animals in their care, but never have I been offered one after a domestic pet has passed with little to no warning. The one animal that a necropsy was offered for was a goat kid that belonged to my work. The vet was happy to do it gratis, as he wanted to know what had happened also. The results showed an issue that could have become prevalent in our herd, and by making a few simple adjustments to diet and age of castration of the males, we never had another incident of the same nature (urinary calculi causing obstruction). Without that necropsy, we may well have seen many more cases of that problem, and deaths associated with same. The interesting thing to note is that necropsies actually don't cost all that much, and can be an amazing resource for future diagnosis/treatment of certain issues that may not necessarily present as expected during a consult, or even after most regular testing regimes. Just think of it as exploratory surgery without the need for anaesthetic (which is the biggest factor in any surgery cost really). T.

I'd be looking for a structural problem... I don't think the diarrhoea is his main problem here, and it may only be coincidental to the actual problem. If his bloods are all normal, and they've ruled out GI/internal type issues, then what remains is structural... his bones. I'd be looking for full spinal xrays to see if he's slipped a disc or similar at some point. Neck, Thoracic, and Lumbar xrays at the very least. My guess would be neck based on your description of the symptoms, but only an xray is going to confirm or rule that out. T.

Sounds very much as though he is in pain, poor boy.

Exactly which tests did he have at the ER (should be listed on your bill/invoice) and how much did all that cost? Interested because you are listed as overseas.

My dog is a seven year-old male german shepherd who occasionally has diarrhea but is otherwise healthy. Boiled chicken and rice always take care of it. However, this time his diarrhea is accompanied by strange behavior. He suddenly cannot settle, won't sit, won't lie down, holds his body in a strange way, takes a few steps, stops and stares a long time, takes a few steps and does it again. Took him to the ER this morning, all tests for bloating, flipped stomach, organ failure, cancer, etc. were negative. They sent him home with medication for anti-diarrhea and pain. His behavior is still the same this evening and he has no interest in food. Has anyone experienced a similar issue? Any advice? I'm desperate.

Last time I saw a Choice article on pet insurance, they didn't recommend any, and the entire concept may have even won a Shonky Award. Maybe they copped some flak for that. My local library has issues of Choice magazine to borrow. Each magazine has an index of the last couple of years of which issue has reviews of particular products.

I had a runt puppy, low birth weight. Behaved as the others, shiny coat, but not growing at the same rate after about four weeks of age, and thin. Blood tests revealed only low haemoglobin. Did tests for every condition ever known to have occurred in the breed, with nothing conclusive. When she was desexed she didn't come out of the anaesthetic, in a way or at a stage that was apparently unusual. The vet was very upset. I told him that we knew she had something wrong, could he now try to find out what it was? He discovered she had an abnormally small diameter connection between the small and large intestine "size of a drip tube". I can imagine that in today's "furbaby" attitude to pets, as well as not being able to say euthanasia, perhaps they are not allowed to suggest necropsy (autopsy), or if suggested it may result in a one star review.

This article popped up in an email from Choice https://www.choice.com.au/money/insurance/pet/articles/pet-insurance-policies-to-avoid

There are very justifiable reasons for veterinary costs outpacing inflation. The failure of some vets to communicate about prognosis, options and costs is less justifiable. When my 14 week old puppy started vomiting and stopped eating, I took her to a local vet who, I had been told, provided emergency care. After some initial scepticism, the vet ran blood tests which indicated advanced kidney failure. She told me my options were either “um” or take her to a specialist veterinary hospital an hour and a half away. After phoning the hospital, she told me that my puppy needed to be cared for at the specialist hospital but would not actually be seen by a specialist until Monday. (This was early on Friday morning.) The vet at the specialist hospital told me, one again, that my puppy would not be seen by a specialist until Monday, or possibly Tuesday. In the interim, I could either opt for “um” or leave the puppy to receive supportive care at the hospital over the weekend. What would that cost, I asked. Reluctantly, she told me that it would be at least $6000 for care over the weekend and another $6000 for diagnostics before treatment started, if her kidney failure was treatable. What was the prognosis? She didn’t know and/or wasn’t allowed to say because she wasn’t a specialist. Had she ever seen a puppy with such severe kidney failure respond to treatment? No, but she was only an about a year out of University. I opted for euthanasia. By the time they brought my puppy to me for the euthanasia, she seemed close to death… a little, semi-conscious bundle, huddled against the pain. I saw nothing to indicate that she had received any care except inserting a catheter in preparation for euthanasia. I’ve owned dogs all my life and had quite a bit of experience talking to vets, so I was able to get at least some information on which to base my decision. I think a younger, less experienced owner would not have gotten that information. I had the very strong impression that neither the local vet nor the specialist vet was allowed to say the word “euthanise”. I also had the impression that the local vet and the specialist hospital were under the same corporate umbrella. Referring a patient to another part of the same corporate entity without mentioning conflict of interest borders on unethical. The two vet consults, testing and euthanasia cost just under $1500. I could afford that but it would have been unaffordable for a lot of people. For many people, a $12000 bill would be catastrophic and it might put them on the path of spending even more money that they didn’t have, due to the “sunk cost fallacy.” Although, in this case, that point would have been moot. I don’t believe my puppy would have survived the weekend. (Background information for those who might find it useful: My puppy was one of two runts in the litter. The breeder told me that they had been born at the same size as their litter mates but stopped thriving at around 3 weeks old. My puppy would eat a food once, then refuse it at the next meal; I think that was because the food made her feel ill. )

Reinventing the wheel here... as there was a similar inquiry in NSW in 2023 - https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=2964 A myriad of findings and recommendations were made in that inquiry... no real action has been taken as yet though. WARNING: if you read through the submissions to the above inquiry, please note that some are quite distressing. The problems are many, ranging from inadequate education given to vet science students as budgets are tightened at universities, vets preferring to stay in urban areas and dealing primarily with desexing and dentals on dogs and cats, massive HECS debts necessitating staying in urban areas to sustain repayment of those debts, lack of mentorship for livestock veterinary practices, etc... then all of the emotional and business related issues that arise in the profession... it's a minefield really. Even the government hasn't got enough in-house vets allocated to biosecurity issues/monitoring, instead relying on reporting from already overstretched regional and rural private vet clinics. T.