Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    All things animal related

Extra Info

  • Location
  1. I'm not necessarily a fan of this approach - there is a very fine line between what is "truth" and what is considered a legal defence against defamation and/or libel. Also, this sort of knee-jerk reaction to a rescue making mistakes (and occasionally even the very best rescues might make a mistake) only results in public distrust of ALL rescues, which is certainly not desirable. I will go so far as to say that most rescues are set up and run with the very best intentions with regard to tackling the problem of pet animal homelessness, just that some may over-simplify what their role actually should be in that sphere. Some have a focus on how many animals they can rehome as quickly as possible, ostensibly so they can take in more animals needing help, but this approach has some rather serious flaws in the way it may be applied, and the long-term welfare outcomes for the animals rehomed. Some rescues may focus on the harder cases that may take longer to rehabilitate before they can be rehomed, but that can also lead to issues if more animals are taken in than can adequately be cared for - and possibly become "hoarding" type situations if carers become too attached to the animals in their care. There really is no "one method" approach that is 100% perfect when it comes to rescue, as each animal taken into care will have it's own individual requirements before it should be considered for rehoming to the general public. Regulation of the industry would be able to set basic codes of practice for those operating within it. Those who don't follow those codes would then be accountable for breaches of those codes in a very real sense. Regulation is the sensible option now that the industry has become such a large part of the pet animal sector. T.
  2. I would certainly prefer education over legislation, but when the only "education" getting out there is that of the bleeding heart sob stories that "all" rescue animals have some kind of issue, then I think something needs to be done legislatively to ensure that not fit for purpose animals are not being rehomed irresponsibly by well-meaning, but essentially clueless, people calling themselves "rescue". There are constant calls to ban all breeding of companion animals while our pounds and shelters are full, but the reality is that a very tiny proportion of the animals ending up with that fate are bred and homed by registered breeders - but it's those ethical and responsible breeders that become the easy target for authorities enforcing current and proposed legislation. Meanwhile the largely "underground" practice of backyard breeding carries on as normal, because apparently it's too hard to even attempt to sort that issue legislatively. As for the rescue industry, one only has to look at the OLG list of approved rescues - those who get exemptions from desexing and registration costs when taking animals from the pounds - there are only some 90-100 groups on that list, but just in Sydney alone, there are MANY more than that number operating. In order to get the OLG approval, rescues must commit to keeping a range of records about outcomes for animals in their care, and submit details about their foster carers - so those who don't bother with the approval process aren't required to keep any records at all, can have unsuitable foster homes that may be overwhelmed by having more animals foisted on them than they can appropriately care for in order to "save" as many as possible, and then there are those who are simply disguising other practices, such as hoarding and/or backyard breeding the animals they take in. In what sense of the word are those practices actually "saving" the animals in question? I'm sorry to harp on about it, but it's beyond time that the rescue industry was regulated legislatively. Those operating ethically and responsibly already will not have any issue with this concept. T. T.
  3. People looking to rescue to source a family pet need some guarantee that the animal they are receiving is suitable for the task. Making excuses for poor socialisation or reactivity and expecting someone else to take that on is just not fair on the animal, or the new family it goes to. The aim for anyone rehoming any animal from ANY background should be that it is fit for purpose... T.
  4. Let's not forget that breeders are in the same boat as rescues when it comes to adverse outcomes for animals they sell. Just as not all rescues are cowboys fixated on churning through large numbers of animals rehomed in order to classify themselves as "great", not all breeders are pumping out puppies and fixating on the dollars they can make from them. It's a bit of a minefield really, in this day and age where outrage is the standard response to any perceived "wrong". Both reputable rescues AND reputable breeders get tarred with the same brush as their disreputable (and publicised) counterparts... the big difference is that the breeding of dogs is regulated, but rescue is not... leaving the door open to even more abuses of the (unwritten) "rules" by dodgy rescues. T.
  5. I have a similar issue with dog poop on my front (unfenced) yard... and most of it is by dogs on extendable leads - I have actually watched them do it... grrr! At least the person you mention was trying to clean up his dog's mess, which is somewhat commendable... T.
  6. This situation is why the rescue industry should be formally regulated... so many new groups popping up in response to the homeless animal situation, often with big hearts, but no real clue as to the complexity of rehoming animals that may have come into care with certain issues. The mark of a good rescue is not how MANY animals they have rehomed, but how WELL those animals have been rehomed. The rescue I was with for some years previously specialised in special needs dogs. I have seen things I will never unsee, but have also had the privilege of rehabilitating "broken" dogs from many backgrounds and finding them their own perfect homes... and I have also had to make decisions about animals that simply would never be safe to rehome. Sometimes the kindest, and most responsible, thing is to release them from their demons. One thing that really irritates me is the notion that rescue dogs tend to have issues, or are scarred somehow by their past lives. Back stories told about those past lives are being used to "justify" all manner of problems with an animal, rather than concerted effort going into rectifying those issues before placing it with a new family. This needs to stop. I know that this is simply NOT the case with most dogs, and they CAN be rehabilitated in many cases, BEFORE being rehomed. Rehabilitation takes time however, and there are a lot of rescues who feel the pressure to "save more", and then fall into the trap of offloading under-prepared dogs in order to make room for more needing rescue. My last foster was with me for around 4.5 months. She came to us pregnant, so had to whelp and raise her babies before she was ready to rehome. The pups also had to be old enough and made ready for new homes themselves. Luckily, she was a beautiful natured dog who had very few issues, and she passed on those traits to her babies, who in turn grew into happy, healthy, and confident little canine citizens.... but ensuring all 5 of them were suitable to be rehomed responsibly took time. I have had my current foster for 5 weeks now, and will have him for a lot longer, as he has to lose more weight before he can have cruciate surgery to fix his knee. There will be a recovery period of a good number of weeks after he has that surgery. The rescue will not recover the costs associated with rehabilitating this boy, but he WILL be rehomed responsibly to an awesome family who will love him for the rest of his life once he is fit for the next step in his life journey. My foster boy has the most amazing temperament though, so once he's physically ready, he will rehome easily once we find the perfect home for him. The only real "issue" we have with this boy is that he's averse to eating any form of dog food, and because he requires a metabolic formulation that helps him lose weight, I have to sit on the floor and hand feed it to him while giving lots of praise until he's had his daily required amount... but I have plenty of time to sort that issue before he is ready to rehome. My hope is that once he is down to a decent weight, we can change up his diet to things he likes better, and simply work out how much of that is fed to maintain a healthy weight. T.
  7. You will need to apply to Council for a permit to breed... and that will cost you for the application AND for the annual permit IF they grant approval. New legislation was passed in December 2021 which makes it harder to breed dogs in WA. You can try, but if your dog is not pedigreed and you are not a member of any breeding association, your chances of getting approval are slim at best - and if you breed your dog without approval, the fines are quite hefty. To be really honest with you, non-pedigreed AmStaffs are over-represented already, and they can run the risk of being identified as pitbulls, which are a restricted breed in Australia... which can lead to destruction orders being made for the slightest infringement. The safest option for your girl is to be desexed and treasured as a loving member of the family. T.
  8. @Adrienne- it IS already law in WA... ALL non-breeding dogs MUST be desexed by 2 years of age... at least they've not mandated early age desexing like other states are proposing... *sigh* There is also very strict (and expensive) legislation (and currently proposed regulations) relating to those who wish to keep an entire dog - only restricted to licensed breeders (so attract a licensing fee), or to those with veterinary signed documents stating that desexing is not recommended for individual dogs. Link to the current WA legislation here... https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/law_a147325.html Link to the recently closed consultation relating to the regulations that will accompany the above legislation... https://www.dlgsc.wa.gov.au/local-government/community/cats-and-dogs/stop-puppy-farming Victoria is currently in the process of drafting their new "Animal Care and Protection" laws (note that "animal welfare" is not in the title of the proposed Act) - essentially redrafting virtually ALL animal welfare legislation from it's current state into one compendium Act. Some interesting reading here... https://engage.vic.gov.au/new-animal-welfare-act-victoria - have a read of the submissions, some are quite eye-opening, and a large number of them have been cut/pasted from an Animal Justice Party callout for followers to make submissions, complete with what to include in those submissions. This is "community expectations" at work in it's very worst form, and gives disproportionate credence to the vocal minority with regards to these matters. This whole redraft is contingent upon recognising animal sentience, but it does not specify what their interpretation of "sentience" is, as it does not define the term at all. The NSW Labor government is also looking to "reform" current animal welfare legislation into a similar compendium as Victoria, but may leave a couple of the current Acts in place (like research legislation and other single themed legislation) - and there WILL be a "stop puppy farming" element to their new legislation proposal when it finally gets released for consultation. SA has the following in it's legislation (Dog and Cat Management Regulations 2017)... ... and you can bet that other states/territories have or will propose similar desexing mandates in due course. Just a bit of light reading there... errr! T.
  9. Well... if we are worried about the restrictions to sourcing a well-bred pedigree dog (or cat) into the future, we need to be a LOT more proactive politically. There is a trend of ever-increasingly restrictive legislation being introduced all over the country which will see ALL breeding of dogs and cats heavily restricted. Those doing the right thing are already legislated to the back teeth right now, and are regularly targetted by animal welfare enforcement authorities because they are easy targets in that regard. Meanwhile the essentially underground supply of backyard bred pets is harder to police, and is actually the root of most of the issues with overflowing pounds and rescues. Governments are looking to mandate desexing of all pets not registered for breeding - and licenses will be required for EVERY breeding of ANY dog (or cat) - with those licenses being hard to get approved due to how they are being legislated. The backyard breeders will carry on as normal however, as they aren't really easy to address with legislative methods. T.
  10. 804 people surveyed... I'd hardly call that a sufficiently large representation of the whole population. 70% were from urban areas, 30% "rural" (doesn't break down further to regional/rural/remote) - the gender breakdown is male 49%, female 51%. I would like to see a further breakdown of which urban areas elicited the highest number of responses sympathetic to the purpose of the survey - as typically inner city residents are more likely to be politically active in this sense. Link to the actual survey results - includes the questions asked... https://greyhoundcoalition.com/greyhound-racing-survey/ Draw your own conclusions. T.
  11. If you look up the recall, it's not the first time this vaccine by this manufacturer has been recalled this year... another batch was recalled in Feb 2023 after some fungal infection was linked to it. T.
  12. If he had a tummy bug, surely he would be also bringing up food, and his stools would be inconsistent or soft? It could be an issue with his throat from the breathing tube that was inserted for his surgery, but again, I would think that he would be having issues with food as well as water if that were the case. Not to mention that any irritation from that procedure should be pretty much resolved by now. The only way to be completely sure as to whether he has a throat issue would be an endoscopy to have a really good look at what might be going on in there. Alternately, if it seems to be slowly getting better and it's not causing him any distress, just monitor and wait. T.
  13. They left out Sydney's Northern Beaches area, which is always a hotspot during the warmer months... *sigh* T.
  14. Very astute summation @Adrienne... so glad that you got exactly the same "vibe" from the hearing as I did. My involvement with a political lobby group (Animal Care Australia - ACA) that is trying to counter extremist animal rights groups having undue influence on animal welfare legislation sometimes has me seeing these things with a different eye to most of the general public. Be aware though that the next hearing, scheduled for December 15th, may well be stacked with witnesses sympathetic to Emma's (and Abigail's) causes. Under normal circumstances, my group would be invited to be witnesses in inquiries of this nature, but it is definitely looking very much like we won't be invited to give testimony in this particular inquiry... and if that transpires, then there is a very big question as to why that needs to be asked. ACA represents approximately 400,000 members from the whole spectrum of animal ownership - including breeders and pet owners. We were invited to participate in the vet shortage inquiry recently, and were subject to some rather nasty comment and questioning (by Abigail Boyd) relating to our submission with regards to our interactions with council pounds and their challenges with sourcing vets - all of the pounds we personally rang and asked questions of responded that most of the time they did NOT have issues sourcing vet services, with the exception of the most remote regions who don't have vet services available on a regular basis for even the general public. The fact that Abigail is now Deputy Chair of this pound inquiry which has so far seen fit to NOT invite ACA to testify is telling, wouldn't you think? Interesting to note that desexing of animals as mandatory is NOT legislated in the Companion Animals Act. The Act makes provision for reduced registration costs for desexed animals, but it is NOT mandatory. The Rehoming Amendment Bill passed last year has put an onus on desexing animals released from pounds, but it also doesn't go so far as to mandate that under law, so pounds in areas where it may be hard to source vet services have the option to rehome animals from their pounds undesexed, and generally this is actually the case for those pounds. Emma was most unimpressed with testimony from quite a few witnesses that the "over-supply problem" was NOT related to the activities of reputable registered breeders, but actually the largely unregulated and essentially underground activity of backyard breeders - considering that she has yet to put forward her new Puppy Farming Bill, this salient point would be a spanner in the works for any progress for that Bill. Of greater concern is that Labor have their own plans for rewriting the pertinent areas of animal welfare legislation in NSW - as Victoria is doing right now. The general concensus is that NSW may wait to put their legislation forward until AFTER the federal government has finalised their legislation regarding an Office of Animal Welfare and Live Exports (currently happening), so we aren't expecting anything forthcoming on that front until maybe later in 2024. This means that Labor may well thwart Emma's and Abigail's animal welfare related bills with the vision that they want their own bill(s) to be the one(s) enacted in the future. It may pay to watch the Victorian progress of their new "Animal Care and Protection" Act progress, as NSW seems to have a tendency to think that Victoria is a "leader" in this sphere of legislation... *sigh* Note the subtle change of terminology with regard to these new Acts... "Animal Welfare" has been replaced with "Animal Care and Protection"... which is telling as to the input from the animal rights movement, who have rebranded their policies as "Animal Protection" rather than "Animal Rights" (but the intent and policy stance is EXACTLY the same as it always was). T.
  • Create New...