tdierikx

Not all ethical breeders will want strangers traipsing all over their property to "see the parents and the conditions they live in"... but in this day and age of video calling, you can have a breeder do a tour of their place via facetime or similar method in real time. I wouldn't buy any dog from someone who wants to do the handover of the "goods" in a public carpark... in what universe is that ever going to be kosher? During the last NSW parliamentary inquiry into puppy farming, there were witnesses who inherently knew they were buying their pup from a puppy farm, but considered that they were "saving" is, so went ahead with the transaction... and one lady even went so far as to state on record that she wanted a puppy right then and didn't want to wait for one from elsewhere, so she bought a pup she knew was from a puppy farmer. Then there was the witness who didn't have any actual experience with buying from a puppy farmer, but she had seen stories about how evil they were on TV, which had formed her opinion... wtf?? T.

They do that everywhere... the rescue I'm with has worked with RSPCA NSW more than once for puppy farmed animals... the most recent being an intake of over 20 oodles. And we weren't the only rescue who took in such numbers, as the farm in question has to remove around 400 dogs as part of their deal with RSPCA to avoid prosecution and fines. 2 of my recent foster mums and bubs also came to us via RSPCA seizures, and my current lot came from AWL, although AWL supplied us with a whole pile of stuff when we took her and the babies in (including that Alice had been desexed when she had her caesarian, she was also vaccinated and chipped by AWL, so we have no actual medical costs to pay for her before rehoming) - RSPCA just hands over the dogs and all the costs relating to their rehab and rehoming fall on the rescues. In the grand scheme of things it's probably better that independent rescues take in animals that RSPCA cannot adequately care for, as at least their chances of survival and responsible rehoming are higher. It would be fair that if RSPCA receives donations for the animals it no longer has, that those donations should be forwarded to those actually incurring the costs, but that is never going to happen... *sigh* This is my concern too... too many animals are rehomed from various sources (including RSPCA) with behavioural issues, which are fobbed off as "it's a rescue and had a hard life before we saved it", rather than making some attempt to rectify the issue... grrr! T.

Warning... do not search for the story that contains footage of this incident... it is highly disturbing. Also note that articles describing the incident are also disturbing. That said, the footage actually shows that the child accompanying the woman also hits the dog at least once, yet that is not mentioned in the articles, just that she was accompanied by a child. There is a special place in hell for people who commit this kind of act on animals... T.

I'm with @Rebanne- initial puppy vaccinations and first adult booster, then no more unless needing to go into boarding kennels, and only then as most kennels demand it and won't accept titre test results showing immunity. Studies have shown that the C3 vaccine can have immunity results for all 3 diseases covered for up to 7 years, longer if the dog is exposed to small doses of the diseases at intervals during their life (such as would be encountered on daily walks, etc). Note that the kennel cough strains covered with the C5 vaccine only actually have good immunity effect for up to 6 months post vaccination. Instead of annual or triannual vaccinations, you can titre test for immunity levels once the initial puppy course and first adult booster have established some immunity if you are concerned, and then vaccinate if those levels are below what is required for continued immunity. As Rebanne says, the symptoms of parvo also can apply to other diseases, such as canine coronavirus, which is kind of a poor cousin of parvo, but can usually be treated more successfully, and the virus doesn't stay in the environment as long. Parvovirus spores can live in the environment for up to 2 years even in extremes of hot or cold temperatures, which is why it is imperative to vaccinate at least for initial immunity to get established. A single parvo laden dog turd has the potential to infect over 10,000 (and possibly double that number) animals... it is that potent... T.

And they hadn't done a simple blood test in all that time that would have shown that the dog was suffering from both conditions? Not to mention that the liver mass was most likely a haemangiosarcoma which is not caused by overfeeding. As for the claims of overgrown nails and conjunctivitis... his eyes look clear and normal in the seizure photos... and his nails look longish, but not markedly overgrown. In fact, apart from his immense girth, the dog looks pretty well kept. T.

Ummm... reading the linked article about the 70 charges, it states that one bitch had 6 litters in under 2 years... huh?? That is technically impossible... As for asking for donations of 300k to deal with this seizure that they instigated... grrr! They can recoup that in the adoption fees, which you know will be around 1k (or more) each, as the dogs are labradoodles, and 1k is cheap compared to getting them elsewhere. T.

I just found a coat in my dog goodies stash that fits Alice my foster dog, and she is wearing it in the mornings when the temps are around 5 degrees. She sleeps in a nice heated room with me at night, so doesn't need it until I get up and start moving about and the rest of the house is cold. We take it off once the day warms up. T.

Trust me, I've tried making friends with the dog in order to be able to catch it and take it to the pound myself, but it's a smart little turd and won't get within arm's reach... and I'll be buggered if I'm getting bitten trying to lunge for it. The compromise is shooing it home when it comes onto my property. I have spoken to the owners numerous times, the latest being yesterday after it nearly got skittled by a car when it came rushing out to bark at my friend who was visiting me... but unfortunately they don't seem to give a toss, and as council can't be arsed following up after the initial visit they made back in January, the owners haven't had any consequences applied for not keeping the dog on their own property, so they think they can continue to not do anything about the problem. T.

Interesting to note that from Emma's call for all papers relating to greyhound racing, this is the only one that is being touted as "proof" that the industry as a whole is rife with cruelty... generally these calls for papers result in literally hundreds, if not thousands of said papers.... surely if the industry was rife with cruelty cases, there would be more than one paper referring to it? As for RSPCA reacting to calls about racing greyhound issues, I'm not sure if they are actually tasked with that job under POCTAA... aren't racing greyhound complaints usually put through GWIC? In most animal welfare legislation there is a clear delineation between domestic dogs and working greyhounds, with jurisdiction for complaint management allocated elsewhere than RSPCA/AWL. RSPCA/AWL are generally responsible for domestic animal welfare management, and also usually only investigate or get involved in working/production animal welfare cases on an "invitation" basis by industry or government bodies if a case allows. Generally, the majority of racing greyhound owners care very well for their dogs, but as with any industry, there will be a minority component who mess it up for everyone. T.

Not sure what you are asking @JessicaLawrence... if you are asking if council has done anything about the dog across the road, the answer is a flat no... obviously they don't have the time or inclination to do their bloody job properly in this case. The dog is still being a complete little menace, and I'm still constantly shooing it home... T.

I think there are a couple of private veterinary telehealth providers active already... and at least one is connected to a pet insurance company, which could be problematic if the focus is on diverting possible claims on insurance. The only issue I have with telehealth for our pets is that unlike humans, our pets cannot accurately describe their medical situation, and most owners aren't terribly good at it either. Unless there is a physical examination of the animal, I would be loathe to allow diagnoses or prescribing of medications, however, it would be invaluable as a triaging service to weed out those basic cases that aren't urgent and can wait until business hours for an actual vet to see the animal - as is the current model referred to in the article. I'm all for a triaging telehealth service for our pets, but it's only one small tool that could be part of a larger range of services employed to deal with the situation at hand. As the article states, many graduating vet students only manage to last around 5 years in the industry before they leave for other pursuits. I personally believe that is due to the vet courses not being well designed enough to produce actual work-ready vets on graduation. Universities are constantly reducing the resources they need to achieve this goal, too much focus is on the theory/academic side of vet science, and not enough on actual practical experience because of the lack of those resources. Another issue is how prospective vet students are selected for the available courses - too much focus on academic results, rather than aptitude for the profession. And don't get me started on the sheer number of overseas student places allocated to these courses, which means that local students are competing for a smaller number of available places in the course. Then there is the ever shrinking list of procedures that are allowed to be performed by non-vets. Gone are the days when experienced vet nurses would be entrusted to do simple surgical procedures like castrations of cats and dogs (under vet supervision/sign-off of course). Vet nurses are taught how to place sutures also, but are not actually allowed to do so once they are in the workplace - surely cleaning and suturing of most non-complicated wounds could be entrusted to nurses where vets are scarce. Vaccinations are not rocket science either, yet must be performed by a vet (specifically for dogs and cats), but vaccinations for livestock and rabbits can actually be performed by anyone - not just those with any medical experience. I'm all for a registration scheme for vet nurses which would then allow them to perform more procedures legally. However, if vet nurses are legally allowed to perform more procedures, they should be paid more than minimum wage to do so... this is not a simple case of farming out procedures to cheaper providers. All that said, the rising costs of everything is also a factor. It costs real money to set up and maintain a working vet clinic, and that needs to be taken into account when discussing the cost of providing the services they do. Medicare has us complacent about what the actual costs of providing human healthcare are, and so we are shocked when that safety net isn't available when looking for healthcare for our pets. Pet insurance is a rip-off, often being cost prohibitive to low income earners anyways, so that's not a viable option for that sector of our pet owning population. We are seeing a situation where Medicare for human health is not working as intended, so I'm not of the opinion that introducing a similar scheme for pet healthcare is the answer either. Complex issues require complex solutions, and I'm not confident that the recommendations offered by the inquiry will go far enough to resolving most of the issues here... but it makes for warm fuzzies when they can announce to the media that they've "done something" about it, yes? Even if what is done is just the tip of the iceberg, and doesn't actually go far enough towards resolving the actual problem. Note the focus of the article is on the most simple and least impactful recommendation... but it can be implemented quickly and relatively cheaply, so it will probably be the only thing actually actioned IMHO... T.

Telehealth is not the only finding or solution to the vet workforce shortage... which is a global issue, not just in Australia. The full report can be found here, for anyone who wants to read it... Trigger warning: it covers some distressing topics https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/inquiries/2964/Report No. 58 - PC 4 - Veterinary workforce shortage in New South Wales.pdf T.

Vets are regularly expected to provide gold standard care, but then the cost of that is baulked at. Doesn't help that young vet students are taught to use all of the diagnostic tools at their disposal (blood tests, xrays, etc), but not much actual hands on diagnostics, so when those young vets hit the workplace, they tend to want to rely on the tools, rather than developing good hands on diagnostic abilities. Unfortunately all those tools are expensive to provide and to maintain, and staff need to be trained in their operation also... all extra expenses. Try mentioning "shelter medicine" to any vet nowadays, and you'll be met with some pretty strong resistance in favour of the expensive diagnostics... but in most cases, those diagnostic tests may not be completely necessary, especially if the vet has any reasonable idea of what to look for with common ailments. Also factoring into vet servicing costs are staff wages, rent or maintenance of the premises, cost and ongoing maintenance of equipment, consumables like syringes/needles, bandages, medications, etc, and other sundries. That said, vets and vet nurses are paid ridiculously low wages for the services and experience they provide - nurses in particular are usually on minimum wage, and are only casually employed, which keeps costs lower there - vets don't generally make a heck of a lot more than nurses unless they have quite a few years of experience. Then there are the corporate group owned clinics... those are generally much more expensive than smaller practices, and their whole goal is to make money for shareholders. Unfortunately many of the 24 hour and emergency clinics are corporate owned nowadays, so an already more expensive service is corporatised and costs more than it really should. All that said, if one has a gripe at the expense of medical care for their pets, hurling abuse at vet clinic staff certainly doesn't make their lot any easier, and as a result many are leaving the industry, which just means less of these services available, and drives up costs of those that remain - simple supply and demand... Don't get me started on the pet food / pet supplies industry... but let's just say all of those things are purely designed to maximise profit, and may not necessarily be all they are claimed to be. "Complete and balanced" on paper doesn't mean much when said "balance" consists of chemical supplements to "balance" the product... note that chemical versions of natural vitamins and minerals are not processed the same way as the natural version, and as such may be as healthy and "balanced" as a junk food meal for us. T.

Still perpetuating the myth about "wild dogs" and "hybrid" dingoes to justify killing them off... I called it, didn't I? And just days since this study found that hybridisation isn't as prolific as claimed... https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2024-07-09/ancient-dna-study-suggests-dingoes-preserve-genetic-heritage/104065490 Here's a novel thought... maybe authorities need to be looking into why there has been a sudden increase in adverse behaviour from the local native wildlife towards domestic dogs and/or humans. Or maybe they don't want to know the answer. It's easier to just kill off anything we don't like, yes? Sometimes I'm ashamed to be part of the human race... grrr!

Of all the decisions we have to make in our dogs' lives, this one is the hardest by far... The balance between quality and quantity of life is sometimes very hard to judge when we are so emotionally tied to our best mate - especially one that is high need and becomes a daily focus to keep them comfortable. If the process is stressful for you as his best mate and primary carer, it will most likely be similarly stressful for him, if not moreso. My personal stance on this situation with my own dogs is that it's better to release them early than even one day too late, but not being in your actual position, I cannot judge you or your decisions at this stage of Snickers' health battles. What I would suggest is to look deep into his eyes and he will "tell" you when he wants to sleep the long sleep, OK? And be honest with yourself when you look for his signs to you... he deserves that, yes? T.