All Activity

https://www.9news.com.au/national/wa-shoalwater-search-for-two-men-who-stole-pet-staffy-poppy-from-home/d57169e7-2863-4e77-922f-d2ebcece6db7

Regardless of the leash, bottom line is off lead dog attacked on lead dog. I too, still have my one and only retractable leash. Very useful tool. I can get tangled in a 6 foot lead. Neither the attacked dog or owner deserved what happened to them.

Retractable leads should only be used after owners are taught HOW . Unfortunately, their use reminds me of dog park use- a lot of people just use them to give their dog more freedom....and have no idea of otherwise controlling their dog .(or ABOUT their dog's behaviour generally) When training guide dogs we used to use these , and I still use them on youngsters as a training aid .I still have my original, from the 80's!

Someone took a souvenir It would have needed a fair bit of effort, and a decent knife to carry this out ...doesn't appear to me a spur-of-the-moment decision ...it's concerning.

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.

Run over by a car, postmortem reveals head was deliberately removed (and is missing) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-16/dingo-decapitated-on-kgari-fraser-island/105538744

Should be more of it. (payment of damages) . That was obviously horrific for the poor woman. Interesting breed mix.

The victim described in detail her efforts to avoid getting bitten and to protect poor Lexi. What was the attacking dog's owner doing during all this? Glad she is being held accountable for the horrible damage her dog caused.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/animals/staffy-owner-ordered-to-pay-more-than-100k-over-violent-and-terrifying-attack/news-story/f95e27a0783d07b3aabcaaa632a48016

Wonderful news- about the dogs, and especially the new facility at healesville!

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-11/paddle-pups-detecting-platypus-in-wild-for-healesville-sanctuary/105495612

Considering its been law for over 26 years ALL puppies and kitten's must be microchipped before going to first home.... Yet over half the ones ending up in the pound ARE NOT chipped That "law's" been a fizzer of a joke

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.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/1080-bait-poison-pet-dog-owner-ban-campaign/39b442e2-e92c-40c9-add2-7911249d6a0c

that seems at odds with dog welfare ...

Oh dear ......

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.

We all have to get a license to drive a car, yet still people break all the rules on a regular basis... just saying... As for the proposed code of practice itself, here's a link to the consultation page. Have a read of the summary at the bottom, don't forget to check in all 3 tabs... https://yoursayconversations.act.gov.au/welfare-dogs-act ... then read the actual proposed COP... https://hdp-au-prod-app-act-yoursay-files.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/7017/4908/3635/Draft_Code_of_Practice_for_the_Welfare_of_Dogs_in_the_ACT_A52614760.pdf When you consider that 2 of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) members are the CEO and head vet from RSPCA ACT, and another is a prominent animal rights lawyer, is it any wonder we are seeing such changes to legislation and codes of practice. In the explanatory opening paragraphs on the consultation page it explicitly states... "The draft code is underpinned by an updated animal welfare framework that recognises: animals are sentient beings who can feel and perceive the world around them animals have intrinsic value and deserve to be treated with compassion and have a quality of life that reflects their intrinsic value people have a duty to care for the physical and mental welfare of animals." and "Proposed changes include: - introducing a new animal welfare framework which recognises dogs as sentient beings who can feel and perceive the world around them" @persephoneyou may be interested in the change that forbids tethering of working dogs for longer than 2 hours also... as the proposed COP also applies to working dogs. I'm thinking that if you were subject to this COP, the Boss would have to build fancy kennel blocks at the farm to house the dogs when not working, and take temporary kennelling with him if out working on other properties, so he doesn't tether the dogs when they are not working. Interesting to note that all disease prevention stuff - vaccinations, parasite control, etc - are only mentioned as guidelines (read NOT mandatory). Microchips and registration ARE mandatory, yet the basics like vaccination or parasite control are not?? Yes, I understand that over-vaccination is a thing, but titre testing can be used to check immunity levels to ensure that doesn't occur. Note that RSPCA can do you over for your dog having a worm burden or lack of adherance to a schedule of preventative measures for same... so worth noting that the guidelines may also be used against you in a legal sense if RSPCA wants to mess you up. Then note the guidelines for feeding your dog... "G2.3 Dogs benefit from a range of foods which should contain all the proteins, fats, carbohydrates, fibre, vitamins, and minerals to maintain good health. This is most easily and safely provided by a complete commercial dog food which, if used, should include all the essential ingredients for a healthy diet and be fed according to the manufacturer’s recommendations or nutritional analysis as performed by an animal nutritionist or registered veterinarian based on metabolic needs of the dog. G2.4 Although home-prepared diets may consist of a variety of fresh food including meat, vegetables, fish, and rice or a similar carbohydrate, it is unlikely to provide complete and balanced nutrition without vitamin and mineral supplementation. Before feeding dogs a home-prepared diet, advice should be obtained from a veterinary nutritionist or a registered veterinarian. Vegetarian diets pose particular risks; therefore, registered veterinary advice is essential to ensure such a diet is complete." This inclusion basically pushes the idea that processed foods with chemical supplements are the "best" diet for your dog, and beware if you choose to feed them anything else. The last bit about vegetarian diets must have been hard fought against the vegan animal rights input - as they would argue that simply adding chemical supplements to "make up" the shortfalls should be ok... note: they are NOT. I suggest that everyone read the proposed COP, as if it passes in the ACT, other states will follow suit... T.

Something like a licence before you get a pet?

Also what can you do about owners who have to work more hours to keep a roof over their heads? I have a young neighbour who works very long days and and travels a distance for work. She got herself a puppy and just continued her lifestyle. The pup's cries late at night were pitiful. It was sometimes alone for 15+ hours a day. Neighbours complained so she got it a bark collar. Then it started destroying her property so she got it a doggy friend. She got a job closer to home but then started socialising more so is still never home. Four years on and it still cries for her actual attention. Never seen it leave the property even. It still barks out of desperation for interaction and I think we talk more to it through the fence than she does. Some nights when I am going to bed I can hear her finally coming home and putting food out for it, going mad at it for something else is has damaged, then shutting the door again. She has ruined a beautiful dog. But I can see her easily claiming she had to work long hours to build her career and now as a single person has to work long hours to pay her mortgage. But she loves her dogs you know! Maybe they should just be spending the money on educating - how to pick the right dog from the right people, what it needs to grow to be a great doggo, what it costs to feed and care for it over x number of years. How to value it as a living thing, etc.

My guess is that the law would be exercised, primarily, when neighbors complain. I've lived nextdoor to neglected dogs at various times, and felt that the people shouldn't have dogs. If it were that simple, I'd be in favor of laws that made it possible for such animals to be placed with better owners. My guess is, for a lot of dogs the result would be euthanasia. I agree with others that the terms are vague. In addition, more thought is needed about what to do with offenders. Fines won't work. Warnings might work for a few weeks, but people don't easily give up their dog routines.

3 hours interacting with a dog ? 3 hours with dog in view? What a strange rule.

They can't police parents doing that with their children so there is no hope of doing it with pets. Plus, I work from home and Albert is on the couch next to me most days. Sure if he started choking I would notice, but generally while I am working I am in my zone. I'm not playing with him, I'm not talking with him and only if he comes right to me do I pat him. We are technically together most of the day and all night but it is not till I turn off from work that I really start engaging with him. Sometimes I even work through his dinner time, only stopping long enough to put food out before running back to my computer to finish up something urgent. What about people with kids who come home from school and then hubby? Five minutes of hellos to the dog before doing the things they need to do (dinner, baths, etc). So being home does not equate to engagement. I also see plenty of people (and have dog sat for them) who have a set distance they brisk walk their dog once or twice a day. Same route even. They don't let them stop to investigate or sniff anything, it is all just physical exertion and usually on concrete. Is that engagement?

The quotes in the article are spot on - in addition to how to police, is what is the definition of 'with'. Locked outside when someone us home. Put in the laundry/crate etc?. Fantastic in theory, a cot case in practice. But i am sure someone got the 'feel goods' about saving the day

Interesting concept... but very hard to police it methinks. How in dog's name are the authorities going to enforce that rule? I'd think it would be impossible to prove one way or the other unless there was 24/7 surveillance in place. Yet another example of the animal rights mobs dictating legislation (or in this case, codes of practice) without any thought as to how such stupid edicts will be policed. T.