Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Maddy

  • Rank
    Srs bizniz with badgers

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Extra Info

  • Location
  1. If they come from the water, they're going to have died in a way that would not be considered humane for other animals. Simple as that. You can get snitty about it if you want, but the fact remains that eating fish (living, breathing, feeling creatures) does not make you a vegetarian. You. Eat. Meat.
  2. Sorry, but you are not a vegetarian. You're eating an animal that may have been suffocated to death, crushed to death under the weight of other fish, frozen to death or otherwise caught/killed in a way that would be totally unacceptable if the animal in question was cute and furry. A fish is not a vegetable. The way fish are harvested (or farmed, in the case of things like salmon) is horrendously inhumane, destructive and wasteful. And if you want to talk about environmental harm, commercial fishing is responsible for a considerable amount of it.
  3. Huh, it's almost like you do have a thing against rescues and my point in that other thread was entirely valid. As an aside though, you don't have to be a dog rescuer to give a crap about animal welfare. Anyway, the OP got the information they needed, so they don't really have much reason to come back If they were actually interested in doing the right thing by the puppies, numerous suggestions were made and information/contacts given. Help and advice was given.
  4. Don't point that out to Donald Trump. All those Mexican coyotes, coming into the US and stealing the jobs of hardworking, patriotic American coyotes, it's even more reason to build a wall. @Two Best Dogs! I've often wondered if perhaps Australia doesn't have rabies (historically) because perhaps marsupials do not readily contract it? I recall reading that opossums in the US are the only mammal in North American not known to easily contract rabies, and the only difference between them and everything else is that they're marsupial. On a continent predominantly populated with marsupia
  5. Given the potential economic impact of disease outbreak (especially for zoonotics), I'm honestly surprised that the rabies certificate is the only requirement for entry. Despite the fact that North America is crawling with interesting diseases anyway (yersinia pestis in prairie dogs, prions in the deer, fun!) you'd think they'd have some quarantine period, even if only two weeks or so. Australia's requirements might be more strict on paper, but enforcement seems to be very hit or miss. Not long ago, someone in the south of the state found some sort of turtle. Because of things like the A
  6. I couldn't say whether or not proper vaccination/quarantine happens because I don't know the details for the groups involved. That said, given it is the law in the US that dogs be vaccinated at least for rabies, I have to assume certain requirements must be met on import? I don't see it as being much different to moving dogs around interstate within Australia- there is still the risk of undiagnosed/incubating disease, and perhaps even more so because there is virtually nothing in place for movement of dogs between states of Australia. The only real exception is Tasmania and hydatids, but
  7. This. My aunt is currently living/working in Kazakhstan and the situation for street dogs there is terrible. Recently, she posted pictures of two stray dogs she'd been feeding, both dogs had newborn litters in a nearby culvert. Only a few days after birth, most of those poor babies are already dead. Any survivors will face a short, brutal life on the streets. If they are impounded, they may die immediately due to horrendous care conditions and if they survive that, no one wants to own mongrel dogs, and so they will be killed anyway. In some of these countries, things like humane societies simp
  8. That was pretty much the experience I had. Maybe it does work if you can get enough of it into them or have a garbage guts dog who will eat it willingly, but the taste seems to be so bad, that even a small amount mixed through peanut butter and smeared on a big slice of honey ham, it's still not palatable.
  9. Pete Evans is crazy. Anyone who thinks feeding homemade bone broth to babies, instead of correctly balanced baby formula (in cases where breastfeeding isn't possible) should not be allowed to have care of children. End of story. And that one is probably the least of his crazy. The "evils" of big pharma sunscreen, the autism garbage, the scare campaign against fluoridated water, etc., etc., etc. Regardless of the quality- or otherwise- of the food, buying it is supporting Pete Evans in putting other peoples' health (and children) at risk. Then there's the hypocrisy of him
  10. Obviously it would be just like most things related to animal welfare, people would have to lobby for it to happen and to get resources. If rescues don''t bother to have a voice in the conversation, organisations like the RSPCA will lobby, and small rescues will not come out better for it
  11. It seems like what happened at Storybook would have been uncovered a lot sooner if someone was allowed to go there and just have a good look around. And you'd think.. let's say yearly inspections, wouldn't be too hard to write legislation requiring that rescue premises be inspected once a year, just to make sure everything is okay. It doesn't need to be a restrictive, cumbersome system (like legislating down to the minutiae), just basic checks to make sure everyone has adequate food, water, shelter and care, and that no one is walking around with only three and a half legs. It shouldn't b
  12. It seems you* have edited your post, so who knows? *Or aliens. In all seriousness though.. claims of "unwanted attention" are pretty serious. If you're going to make a claim like that, be prepared for people to ask questions. This shady "Oh, can't name anyone, because *dundundun*" thing (which includes the business about not naming the dodgy internet diploma mill you're getting a "qualification" from. Which was weird in itself- bad enough to complain about, but won't name them in case of mysterious repercussions but also staying in the course that was bad enough to comp
  13. Not wanting to sound snarky, but if you're going to claim that you're receiving "unwanted attention", you really need to be willing to back that up with some actual details, rather than posting vague, mysterious warnings and then disappearing dramatically (presumably to pack a few things for a new life on the run, barely one step ahead of Big Pet Food, who have presumably sent out the Kibble Yakuza to assassinate some random person over their opinions on dog food, on a forum) If you're not willing to actually say what the unwanted attention was, I'm going to have to assume the mate
  14. She was the founder of the group. And I'd be willing to bet money that whoever is named as the new contact for PR, is someone very close to her.
  • Create New...