tdierikx

Sadly... yes it's true. T.

Not a fan of government only giving an option of filling in a survey type form. Note that they aren't giving any option to provide any other form of submission. The questions in the form/survey also require a considered and articulate response if proper change is going to result, so I suggest downloading the form and filling it out in your own time, so that answers aren't rushed (as often happens with online form responses) - most of my answers to the questions run to several paragraphs. Read the Discussion Paper before doing the form, as it gives a very clear insight as to what areas they are looking at specifically for changes, and what other sources they are looking at for recommendations for change - so maybe you might want to look up the reports from the listed inquiries to see what they recommend, and whether you agree with them. This is our chance to try to make the NSW government think long and hard about the realities of pet ownership, and not allowing them to make stupid kneejerk reaction type legislation that will only make pet ownership harder - simply based on the worst case scenarios that are usually highlighted in inquiries - worst case is NOT the norm, but is widely reported on in the media, so government feel the need to be seen to be trying to solve issues that may not necessarily be as widespread as the media will have you think. Case in point, the coroner who recommended making ownership of larger and more powerful dogs much harder, based only on his inquiry into ONE fatal attack - a fatal attack that had numerous failings from people other than the owner of the dogs in question that led to the death of a child. We have MILLIONS of pet dogs in this state, and fatal attacks, while tragic, are quite rare, so to make sweeping legislative changes/restrictions for ALL pet dog owners based on a rare occurrence is not something I'd wish to encourage. Cats are another issue that requires a multifaceted response if we are going to make effective changes. Take note that State governments are being encouraged by the Federal government's plan for managing cats, and the Federal recommendations are draconic - basically, if a roaming cat is not chipped and registered, it will be targetted for destruction under the Federal recommendations from the Cat threat abatement plan. At the very least, we will most likely see the NSW state government look to enforcing pet cat containment in some form. This is a chance to have your say about changes that may be coming... I suggest that you take the time to at least have a look at the Discussion Paper so you have some idea of what those changes might be. All that said, this is still only the first step in the process. What happens next is hopefully the NSW government will look at the responses thoroughly and propose legislation that might be workable - and then we'll have our chance to look over those actual proposed changes and again have our say before the end result is put to parliament for a vote to enact those changes. The wheels of government move slowly, so the next stage could be some months away... T.

Ummm... I find "show" Labradors are generally heavier set than some pet Labradors... just sayin'... and no offence intended here. T.

It depends on why your dog is becoming destructive. If he is suffering from some form of separation anxiety, that would require one approach, but if he's just bored, that would require a different approach. Maybe a cctv type setup might indicate what is actually going on with him while you are away? The knocking over of items and scratching at doors seems to me that he's possibly looking for you or a way out of the house, so maybe separation anxiety? If that is the case, then he needs to do activities to build up his resilience to being alone... start with very short periods, and as he masters those, extend the time you are away in small increments. Make sure he has things to do that divert his attention from chewing furniture or scratching at the doors. I have found crate training to be quite beneficial if you are only leaving the dog for shorter timeframes (say less than 4 hours), but if you are away a lot and for longer timeframes, containment to a crate might be a less attractive option for the long term wellbeing of your dog. If that is the case, then maybe a pen option could work, so that the dog is contained to one area, and you can leave him with puzzle toys, chew toys, interactive toys to exercise his mind and chewing instincts while you aren't there. T.

I did the fee calculator thing on their website, and having the RDOL didn't reduce the fee at all. The biggest reduction was desexing your dog. The lowest renewal fee I could get it to give for a desexed dog with an RDOL and a microchip was $162 - if you aren't on some form of concession or own a working dog. I reckon that an annual renewal fee of more than $100 is a bit steep - here in NSW it currently costs a $78 once off lifetime registration fee for most pet dogs, less if you are a concession holder, and $0 for service or working dogs. Note that there are people who think that one off fee is too expensive (and they can't afford it). We also require dogs to be microchipped BEFORE registration, unlike NZ that requires it AFTER. T.

A friend's husband once told me that Trouble (my Labrador) couldn't be a Labrador because she wasn't fat. I reminded him that she didn't dictate how much she ate, I did. T.

It says dogs must be registered with council by the time it is 3 months old, and microchipped within 2 months after that. Interesting. How does that work for breeders who may have pups from litters that take longer than 12 weeks to get new homes? $213 for first time registering, then annually between $48 and $213 depending on desexing status, whether the dog is of a certain category (service, etc), concession card holder... funnily enough, microchip status isn't on the list of things in the calculation for annual fees, but a responsible dog owner license is (but doesn't change the annual fee at all if you have one). The average annual fee for a pet desexed dog is $162. I'm thinking the annual registration fee is a little high. Maybe a lower annual fee might attract more renewals? I'm also a bit leery of having to register by 3 months of age, as most dogs will not necessarily be desexed by that age, and thus "justifies" the $213 initial fee. I can't find anything that says cats must be registered with council though... just that they recommend microchipping and desexing. T.

Vet visit for the dog, and get a full blood test and checkup... xray if nothing shows on the blood test. I'd also suggest that your room mate might think of getting a checkup from his GP too... a blood test also. Sometimes dogs can pick up on medical issues in humans. I used to have a Rottweiler that was very sensitive to human illness, and she went nuts at a friend one day for no reason we could see. She had known him for years and loved him, but just this one day, she barked and backed away from him like he was on fire. A week later the friend had a massive heart attack and ended up surviving after a quintuple bypass operation. The next time he visited my place, the dog was back to her usual self loving on him like normal. That said, this same Rottweiler was very protective of me if I wasn't well... so something to think about for your own health as well. T.

That article applies to SA, but other states are slowly changing their tenancy legislation to allow more pets in rentals to. Worth checking in your own state as to what the law is regarding this. T.

If the Boss takes Clive to work, does that leave you without a dog yourself? That seems a bit rough... and your bond with Clive is special too. Clive helps you in so many ways, and you'd feel "less" and/or "lost" without him. Does the Boss really need a novice dog out on a feral goat trip? If Clive doesn't work well for him, he will be more hindrance than help, yes? And feral goats are very different creatures than "tame" sheep used to being herded by dogs. Clive has the same genetic makeup as Dags, so maybe he's better used as a stud with another good working female, and his pups may end up with better instinct than him and be assets for the Boss instead? T.

As horrible that situation may be, it still doesn't necessarily mitigate the fact that the child was effectively left unsupervised in a public space (a car park no less) long enough for him to try to get into the pool area, and then actually get into the dogs' yard. In that short amount of time, he could also have been hit by a car coming or going from the motel... or worse still, taken by a stranger with evil intent. As far as the coroner's recommendations on this case go, I agree with the findings that there could be stronger containment rules for dogs housed in high public access areas... but to suggest anything more relating to general dog ownership (especially what breeds of dog we are allowed to own) is way beyond his purview based on the facts of this case. T.

In all honesty, all of the reputable cat rescues are overflowing, and have been for a long time. It's almost impossible to get any of them to even answer an enquiry - let alone a phone (if you can find a phone number for many of them). One of the lost/found Facebook groups I'm on has this list of cat rescues regularly posted as maybe being able to help with found cats, so surrenders might also be taken in... Cat Rescue 901 Maggie’s Rescue DABS Desexing & Rescue (0459 410 700 Campbelltown) Westie Cats Support Lap Warmers Cat Rescue (Western Sydney) Rescue Cat Project Urban Cat Alliance Urban Kittens SAFE Animal Rehoming (0404 753 227 Roseville) Inner City Strays Brighter Future Cat Rescue Peggy’s Promise World League for the Protection of Animals (WLPA) Firefly Animal Rescue ([email protected]) Furry Friends Forever Rescue (Sydney) The Cat Orphanage Inc (Rozelle) Tommy’s Rescue, Kittie Kat Rescue (Castle Hill, Ryde & Hills District) Hills Cat Rescue (Hills District) Best Friend Fur Ever Rescue (Wollongong, Shellharbour, Hawkesbury) Sydney Cats For Adoption and Sylvia’s cat rescue. T.

The ABC coverage of this story says that the mother of the little boy had been supervising him playing in the car park, and had just gone inside for a "few minutes" to get a drink, and that's when he wandered off and got into the yard with the dogs. CCTV footage shows him trying the pool gate, but when he couldn't open that, he went to where the dogs were and managed to get in. Ummm... wouldn't most people think that an unsupervised toddler in a car park of a motel was probably not a great parenting choice either? And a "few minutes" is enough for an active toddler to manage to get into a life threatening situation. What is telling is that the owner of the dogs was not charged with any offence, but he did surrender the dogs for euthanasia immediately after the incident. I think the Coroner is exceeding his purview in his recommendations about pet ownership as a result of this particular case... where are the recommendations about "child ownership"? If the child's parent had made a different decision about leaving her child unattended in a public place, this incident would never have occurred. Remember, the dogs were contained on private property when this happened, they did not escape and do this of their own accord. T.

Posties have a job to do, and if you want your mail to keep being delivered, then please ensure the postie has safe access to do that. Councils also need to step up in this area, as quite frankly, they are not doing that right now. Complaints about free roaming dogs are often met with total inaction. We have laws about free roaming pets, but if they aren't being policed effectively, then incidents will only keep happening with increasing frequency. I'm all for posties boycotting houses where a dog is not effectively contained to prevent injury to passers by... and for them to bombard local councils with complaints about properties (and pets) that cause problems for them to do their job. Complaints from posties should also be prioritised for immediate action. T.

Am I reading correctly that the dog owner had not only a secure enclosure he kept the dogs in, but a fenced and gated yard that he exercised them in also? And that the child in question had managed to enter that yard while he played unsupervised? The dogs in this story were not free-roaming... but the child was. Where is the accountability for an unsupervised child? What happened here is tragic, but in all honesty, the dog owner seems to have done the right thing by containing his dogs in areas they couldn't free roam among the public. The last tenants next door to me had young children who would regularly kick their footballs over the fence into my yard. When I caught one of them attempting to climb over the 6 foot colourbond fence into my yard, I luckily stopped him before he succeeded and returned his ball to him. I then went around to the front door of their house and spoke with the parents. I told them I'd happily return any stray balls if the kids came to my front door and asked for them back, but please don't allow them to climb into my yard, as I had a large dog that might be unpredictable when faced with a stranger in her yard. As a dog owner, I am legally required to keep my dog contained effectively on my own property, and I do that. I should not be accountable for the actions of others who decide to enter my property uninvited. My dog stays in her yard, and your kids should stay in theirs. Personally, I'm sick of the total lack of accountability for those who let their children roam at will. Children are not always capable of assessing danger to themselves, and should be supervised (not unlike dogs) when out and about. Yes... larger breeds of dog are capable of inflicting horrific injury to a human body, and the smaller that body, the greater risk of that damage being fatal. Let's not forget though that ALL dogs are capable of inflicting serious damage by biting, and again, the smaller the target human, the more extensive that damage could be. A friend of mine who works in a pound had her top lip ripped off by a small maltese... she was an adult and well versed in handling fractious, frightened, and stressed impounded dogs, yet still suffered this injury... a child would have suffered much worse injuries in that scenario though. Legislation over the years has seen the opportunities for dogs to become properly socialised diminish significantly. There are already so many restrictions on where and when a dog can be out in public, and adding even more restrictions on dog ownership isn't going to make the problem any better. I'd like to see any future legislation include accountability for human action that may contribute to an attack happening. This is especially significant if the dog owner has to all intents and purposes contained their dog so that it cannot escape into a public area. If a dog is contained on private property, then uninvited or unauthorised access to that private property should be a mitigating factor in the event of an attack occurring on that private property. T.