tdierikx

Unfortunately, many submissions are created and shared out to followers of the extreme animal rights agendas/groups. They flood pretty much all such calls for submissions on animal welfare stuff, and count towards "community expectations" in all such legislative changes/updates. It matters not that submissions may be pro forma copies of the exact same thing, it's the number of them that seems to count. If you read the Hansard of Tara's second reading speech on this bill in the NSW parliament, take note of the stakeholders she expressly names... most of them have pretty extreme animal rights agendas... agendas that are working towards no-one being able to share their lives with animals. The NSW Labor government went to the last election with the promise of updating our animal welfare legislation... and this is how they are doing it. No doubt there are a few back-room deals made during the process also... scratch my back and I'll scratch yours sort of thing. T.

There may have been consultation with the various groups undertaken, but it's fairly obvious which ones were actually listened to when it comes to this draft of the proposed legislation. Some of the new stuff is much welcomed, yet there is also a whole lot wrong with it, and some areas that were pointed out as being in dire need of fixing have been left out completely. I haven't gone through it all yet, but some of what I'm seeing so far is concerning to say the least. T.

Here is a better idea... if your pet's symptoms are alarming you enough to want to look up cheap alternatives to actually getting a diagnosis from a vet... get a bloody diagnosis from a vet! T.

Note that the 2024/25 Annual Report for RSPCA NSW also says they had 1032 foster carers (doesn't say whether they are included in or separate from the 2094 volunteers listed). Considering how many dogs/cats a small private rescue can rehab/rehome with only 10 or more foster carers (and absolutely no government funding), it's a bit of a mystery as to what the 1032 RSPCA foster carers are being used for. Is it to get adoptable animals out of the shelter and ready for new homes, or are they caring for seized animals that can't be rehomed until after any court case is completed (if the defendant hasn't surrendered them)? The numbers look great, but without any backup data as to activities behind them, those numbers are actually moot, yes? As part of Animal Care Australia's submission to this year's inquiry I made a table comparing intake and euthanasia rates of cats and dogs at RSPCA NSW, and the results are "interesting" to say the least... intake numbers for both species has dropped dramatically, but euthanasia rates for both have increased. Eg. in 2017 FY, 12703 dogs were taken in, and 20% had a non-live outcome, and in 2025 FY, 5922 dogs were taken in, and 31.5% had a non-live outcome. Non-live outcomes have steadily increased since 2021, and intake has steadily decreased. Interestingly, in 2024 FY, 6383 cats were taken in and there was a 34% non-live outcome, and in 2025 FY, only 2757 cats were taken in, with a non-live outcome of 32%. Compare that to 2022 FY, where 9145 cats were taken in, and 27% had a non-live outcome, or even 2021 FY where 13399 cats were taken in for a non-live outcome of 29% (and we were still in Covid mode that year). Note that the intake numbers do not distinguish between surrenders and seized animals. I can't find any information as to the capacity for dogs/cats or other animal types for RSPCA NSW, but if you look at the Yagoona site alone via Google maps, it appears that there could be well over 100 dog kennels and possibly a similar number of cattery spaces on that site. The Rutherford (Hunter) site has a good number of kennels onsite also. T.

RSPCA NSW is also a Registered Training Organisation (RTO), and deliver some accredited courses - Certificate II in Animal Care (ACM20121), Implant Microchip in Cats and Dogs (ACMMIC401), and Provide Basic Animal First Aid (ACMGEN309). They also run a few online short courses. Other educational activities appear to be reliant upon government funding to conduct same, rather than spending their own funds to conduct educational activities - which seems to be the model for most of their activities really. RSPCA NSW claims that government funding for their inspectorate activities is/was less than what they actually need/spend on same, but they don't break down where funding comes from or goes for those activities in their publicly listed financials. Based on questions posed by the committee in the inquiry, it doesn't appear that such a breakdown is furnished privately to government either, just claims that they had to use x amount of their own funds to complete those duties. Apparently they are around $10M underfunded in the current financial year, by their claims in the inquiry. Quite frankly, if I were being asked to provide $20M plus to conduct activities, I would expect to be providing details of where/how I spent every dollar of that money, don't you think? I think RSPCA NSW might have been asked to provide that level of detail on notice by the inquiry committee by Abigail Boyd, I believe... although Steve Coleman rattled off a vague-ish breakdown of where the 2023/24 $20.5M was spent (on pp9 of the hearing transcript - https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/transcripts/3683/Transcript - PC 4 - POCTA 2025 - 2 April 2026 - UNCORRECTED (1).PDF ) Interestingly, Coleman says that funding for inspectorate activities basically is only to cover wages, infrastructure, and the like... but doesn't extend to costs associated with actually housing/treating seized animals... interesting conundrum there if that is true. T.

I definitely hear what you are saying there @Little Gifts- when stability and structure break down, trauma is the end result. Love and caring is often not enough to help individuals to develop more appropriate responses to the world we all have to live in... structure and stability needs to be the basic building block to rehabilitation for humans or our pets, yes? In human terms, we also have a scale of mental and behavioural diagnoses available to us to determine what further needs any individual has that will help rehabilitate them, or at the very least give them the tools/assistance they need to learn to live in society without reacting adversely all the time. Dogs are not generally afforded that extra level of diagnoses or support. Interestingly, behavioural issues in dogs are not treated uniformly once a dog finds itself in "the system". What may be tolerated as "feisty" in a smaller breed of dog is certainly not desirable in a much larger dog. This does not mean that those behaviours in a larger dog should be tolerated, but it does show that different sized dogs are treated differently when displaying many of the same behaviours. Think about something simple like a dog jumping up on you for attention and love... cute and even welcomed when a dog is small, but totally not wanted in a larger breed, even when the intentions of said dog are purely looking for affection and closeness to its humans. Extrapolate that to less benign behaviours like food/resource guarding, fear biting, etc, and where some of those behaviours are listed as "quirks" in a smaller breed (which can be offered for adoption), but the same in a larger breed generally means that dog will be killed if it finds itself in the system, as retraining that dog out of those habits can be a long and resource intensive process before it can be deemed safe to rehome, and the stark reality is that there simply isn't the space, time, or resources available to rehab them all. Unfortunately, this issue is generally not the dog's "fault", as humans are the ones who control every aspect of that dog's life... from breeding choices through to upbringing and training/socialisation, or lack thereof. Our choices literally can mean the difference between life or death if/when any dog ends up in the system... and that is not widely recognised as a factor that needs serious addressing. Legislation can only go so far, but when most people are completely oblivious to said legislation, what then? Politicians can only make legislation in response to issues that arise, but legislation isn't enough, and is usually just to create consequences (often punitive) once a law has been broken... but what about proactive initiatives to try to head off those issues before they occur? The "easy" response is to curtail breeding, but that isn't working either, so what else needs to be done to address the issues we are facing? I believe that a concentrated educational effort would be more effective than simply adding more laws that people will be unaware of until they break one. The glaring problem there though is that it will cost money to implement, and government doesn't have the funds or the inclination to spend money on such things... adding legislation costs them nothing (generally), but a concerted educational campaign would require significant funds to produce printed material, pay for advertising via various media types, and putting extra boots on the ground to get out and literally talk to people about matters pertaining to their pet owning responsibilities. T.

Steve makes some valid points, especially with regard to getting a second opinion before condemning a "behavioural" issue so severe that it requires death rather than rehabilitation. RSPCA NSW, by the stats provided in their own annual report, killed 893 dogs in the last financial year... 627 of those are listed as "behavioural" as the reason. Considering that RSPCA NSW also operates 2 "behavioural centres", one might ask how many dogs can be accommodated at these centres, and how many of those had non-live outcomes. There is no mention of how many animals either centre can accommodate, so do they have enough room for the numbers of dogs needing retraining before rehoming? No mention as to the process that deems animals fit for rehab via one of those centres rather than simply killing them off either. What would be helpful is a breakdown of the intake path (surrendered or seized), breed/mix, and age of the dogs that were killed for "behavioural" reasons... as well as whether they were even considered for rehab via said behavioural centres, or simply subjected to the notorious "behaviour test" before being deemed not worthy of rehabilitation efforts. So many opportunities for helpful data gathering at the very least. Empirical/anecdotal data might suggest that most of the "behavioural" dogs killed are of a certain age, breed, or intake type (seized from adverse conditions as opposed to surrendered by owner), but there is never any truly solidly researched data to confirm same. Many may be dying due to lack of space and/or resources to effect any other outcome, but few are willing to publicly state that, are they? Steve also has a great point about dodgy rescues rehoming behaviourally deficient dogs to unsuspecting new owners, which happens way more often than anyone cares to admit. The sooner rescue is officially regulated the better IMHO. T.

I don't think that further isolating or demonising larger breed dogs is going to be the answer to the issue. Educating people about their responsibilities regarding pet ownership, and actual enforcement of current laws would be a good start. And by education, I don't think simply posting the occasional social media post is going to cut it... if people aren't subscribed or following their local councils or the like, they aren't going to see those posts. When I registered my current pup with council, all I received was a printed copy of that registration via post. What could have been included in that envelope is an info pack notifying me of what it means to be a responsible pet owner, what the local/state regulations are regarding pet ownership, locations of local vet clinics, dog friendly spaces, dog training clubs, where the local pound is, etc... so many wasted opportunities to educate pet owners of their responsibilities and how/where they can socialise their dogs. Yesterday, I went to a council "pet adoption day" held in the local Bunnings store. It was set up inside the store way down in the outdoor furniture area, which I had to ask where it was when I got to the store. There was only one very small banner outside near the entrance to the store to indicate that the event was there. They had 2 dogs and 2 cats up for adoption from the local pound (1 dog already had adoption interest - yay!), but they weren't getting a heck of a lot of attention from the passing customers really. The only handouts were free engraved ID tags for collars - which I gratefully got done for my pup - but they could have had "goodie bags" with information sheets and other useful items like poo bags, or the like. A wasted opportunity really. There is going to be a much larger event on locally at the end of May, which they could have advertised also. I appreciate that my local council does a lot more than many other councils in the animal welfare space, but this particular event could have been done so much better. The only reason I knew that this event was on was a social media post from the local council's Facebook page - which I'm only following because of my other interests/activities in animal welfare legislative processes. Every residence has a mailbox... which could be utilised to send residents information and updates to what's going on in the local area. As I noted above, not everyone follows their local government Facebook pages, so social media posts just aren't cutting it for educational purposes. Advertising council activities in local shopping centres could also be effective, as everyone needs to go shopping at some point in their daily lives, and I'm sure the supermarket chains would happily display advertising banners for council events near their entrances if asked. Unfortunately advertising anywhere other than social media is going to cost money... and that's where the problem lies IMHO, as councils don't always have huge animal related funding to do all they need to do. Some of that is due to low registration uptake, but generally state and local governments seem to look at animal welfare funding as secondary to all other facets of life that they need to cover in the course of their role in same. T.

Unfortunately there is no universe where behaviour like that should be allowed to ever happen again, and the right thing has been done about the 2 attacking dogs. Now throw the book at the owner(s) for everything that transpired. T.

I'm sorry... no second chances after that sort of unprovoked attack. The 2 attacking dogs should be given their wings, and the owner fined for everything they can throw at them. T.

Jeebus... that was very hard to watch. Someone local must know where they live? The owners need to be held accountable for this attack. No excuse for council to just say "not microchipped" and leave it at that, they need to get out there and doorknock the local area to try to find where the dogs came from. T.

Fly free with the angels sweet little Neko... you are the goodest girl and will be remembered by many. Much love and hugs to you @Kirislin- please remember her with lots of smiles for all the precious memories she and you made, I think she'd like that, yes? T.

Video of the hearing from the other day...

Note that this is in the UK... Interestingly RSPCA declined to prosecute this case due to the owners reaching out because they were overwhelmed and suffering from mental health issues. Note how many dogs from the previous case (similar circumstances) RSPCA took, and how many were sent to another rescue - RSPCA 87 dogs, Dogs Trust 163 dogs. Looks like RSPCA over there is as underprepared as they are here for large intakes. If they were in Australia, our RSPCA would have prosecuted without hesitation, and used the dogs they didn't euthanise as publicity for donations. RSPCA NSW even reports how many people have been prosecuted under the Mental Health Act in their annual Inspectorate report... and it's rising every year. T.

As it should be if an an owner is irresponsible... note chip info note up to date and not registered... possible it may have been off the property unsupervised if it bit the kid out in the street - so really throw the book at the owner by adding not under control and at large also. T.