tdierikx

They could have been a little less descriptive about the state pets may be in after they have passed... and quite frankly, vet clinic staff definitely make sure that any post death mess is long gone before the animal is placed in the bag that is sent to the cremation services - no animal is placed into the bag in an unfit state/condition, they are treated with the utmost dignity and respect. This whole problem could so easily have been resolved much earlier by simple communication of the issue (the urn out of stock) - the owners could have changed the urn to one that was in stock, etc... so definitely a poor response from the cremation service there... T.

"The Savanta research agency, which worked with Four Paws on the survey during 2022, received responses from 3037 people across Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Belgium to compile the results." Of those 3037, only 247 were from Australia (once you click the link to the report for Australia from that survey)... not exactly a massive number from which to correlate meaningful results. The other red flag here is that Four Paws isn't an animal "welfare" group... it is an animal rights group. There is a massive difference between animal welfare and animal rights agendas. Animal rights groups will also often call themselves "animal protection" or "animal welfare" in order to try to legitimise their stance on animal ownership. Animal welfare is based around the practices we must adhere to when we own animal to maximise their health and wellbeing, whereas animal rights is a stance that seeks to remove the ownership status between animals and humans. I will concede that there are a decent number of people who don't research much of anything when looking to source a pet for their family... which has always been the case throughout history. The paragraph regarding "health" issues in the report is also somewhat misleading... 53 of 247 people reported health issues with their pup - so a little over a quarter there. Of that quarter of respondents, 32% reported allergies, 28% reported behavioural issues, and 25% reported diarrhoea. As we "dog people" all know, diarrhoea is a fairly normal occurrence when one brings a puppy home and feeds it something completely different to what it was fed by the breeder, and that this issue isn't usually a permanent one - once the pup has adjusted to the diet changes, the problem usually clears up just fine. Behavioural issues are not inherently genetic, basic training and socialisation plays a part there too, not to mention that puppies don't come to anyone fully trained to do our bidding, the new owner needs to put in some effort there if they want a well balanced little canine companion. As for allergies, without a breakdown as to what the definition of "allergies" is in the context of this survey/report, who knows what the parameters were to measure that response - but only around 17 of the 53 people reporting health issues noted allergies when you extrapolate the numbers there. As for the results regarding microchipping and registration - which the report says both are required by law in Australia, which isn't totally true, only microchipping is legally required for pets bought/sold under 12 weeks of age. I will say that it is concerning the amount of people who reported not even knowing if their pup was chipped or not though... not to mention the numbers bought without a microchip. Funny how the survey/report didn't ask about vaccination or worming status, as those results would have been even more advantageous to their agenda, don't you think? I think what this survey/report actually highlights is not so much the poor practices of some of those who breed pets, but moreso the fact that those looking to buy a pet are not really thinking through the long term (or even short term) reality of owning a pet... it leans toward a good number of people technically "impulse buying" a pet because they just want one at the time. I would be looking at ways to provide better advice and advertising to educate prospective pet buyers rather than looking to simply demonise those who breed pets... T.

The only compulsory requirement when selling (or giving away) puppies or kittens in NSW is that they be microchipped before they go to a new home. It is NOT compulsory to vaccinate them... which is a bit stupid, but then again many laws are a bit ridiculous when it comes to companion animals... *sigh* T.

Animal welfare issues aren't solely reliant on the number of animals any breeder has. Sure, there are commercial sized operations that definitely need shutting down due to welfare issues, but there are also many at-home breeders who aren't much better when it comes to the welfare of the dogs they are breeding for the pet market - especially those who are not registered with any association, or subject to any codes of practice (the basic definition of "backyard breeder"). What seems to be ignored in all of the debates about breeding of animals for the pet market is that demand is what is driving "production". There would be less need for commercial sized operations if there was less demand for cute puppies and kittens (and other pet species), don't you think? Maybe research into exactly why the levels of demand are so high might be in order here? And then maybe legislation could be tailored to address that... with a strong emphasis on educational options to inform the general public about responsible pet ownership? There are no quick fix options unfortunately, but simply banning certain operations without fully researching causation of the problem isn't going to significantly address that problem... but it definitely makes legislators look like they are "doing something" when they enact laws that actually don't "fix" anything. T.

So backyard breeding is fine? Just not any commercial breeding - regardless any welfare plans put in place? Seems that the actual problem isn't being addressed, just a kneejerk "plan" to be seen to be "doing something" about "the problem"... **sigh** T.

When Hornsby council recently proposed to put forward laws to try to curb the rising number of unowned cats in the community, I was crucified in a Facebook discussion that followed for suggesting that cat owners just needed to ensure that their owned cats were microchipped and registered (and preferably desexed and contained to their own properties) to ensure that they would not be negatively impacted by the proposed laws - which basically was going to allow council to destroy unowned cats that were caught by rangers... apparently the general concensus from many cat owners in that discussion was that many cats were not chipped, desexed, or registered because of the costs to do so. Funnily enough, those exact same people were completely fine with the fact that dogs are required to be chipped, desexed, registered, and contained to their own properties... just that the same laws should not be applied to cats. T.

"It will also ban breeders from selling more than nine animals a year." This bit is scary when we all know that larger breed dogs can have larger litters - At least 2 of the dogs I bred many years ago had litters of 10 and 11... under that law, I wouldn't be able to sell/rehome the whole litter... huh? Also, with the general rule of smaller dogs having smaller litters, it theoretically wouldn't be illegal if the same bitch may have been bred twice in one year, as long as she'd produced less than 9 pups all up... T.

Not chipped, registered, or desexed large breed dogs... seriously... why? Used for hunting maybe? Unfortunately, incidents like these are why our animal legislation is getting tighter and tighter... the few who can't be arsed doing the right thing when they own animals are only making it easier for those who want to reduce, restrict, or abolish animal ownership... grrr! T.

Considering a couple of months ago, RSPCA NSW was the only shelter that steadfastly said they weren't seeing any increase in surrenders when every other rescue/shelter/pound was saying they were full, this is a bit of a turnaround from them, don't you think? I actually heard that RSPCA Yagoona was basically not accepting surrenders, so I decided to test that theory... I called them and gave the best sob story for wanting to surrender a dog - and was basically told to go to PetRescue website and look up the rescue directory there and try getting one of them to take the dog... so that seems to be true... they didn't even want to put me on any waiting list or anything, just fobbed me off to try contacting all the rescues I could find instead. Interesting to note that in their recently released annual report, they (RSPCA NSW) have pretty graphs showing that intake of dogs and cats has actually decreased from previous years... mind you the survival rate is still pretty grim once an animal does end up there. Another interesting move from RSPCA NSW is that once the legislation came in that means that all NSW pounds must make solid attempts to offer all rehomable animals to private rescues before euthanaisia is an option, RSPCA NSW suddenly announced that they were withdrawing all of their tenders for pound services in NSW... one can only draw their own conclusions there, yes? As for the dog referred to at the beginning of that article... if one goes to the actual listing detailing the dog's needs, it's an interesting read. The dog is 9 years old, requires ongoing medication for health and behavioural issues, has been in foster care for 2+ years, but still has obedience and behavioural issues that require more "training"... sure, I want to adopt a pet that has all of those requirements... not! I'm sure it's a perfectly delightful dog, but the requirements placed on any potential adopter are pretty steep... Also, while I understand that renting with pets is a minefield at the best of times, what seems to be strange is the sudden massive numbers of people all needing to surrender their pets due to not being allowed to have them in rentals. The rental issue regarding pets hasn't really changed over the past few years, so I'm thinking that some people are using it as a "palatable excuse" for surrendering their pets rather than admitting to something more likely like they simply can't afford them in this financial climate - cost of living PLUS rental price hikes is much more likely, don't you think? Still a perfectly legitimate reason, but not as easy to admit for the average person... much easier to focus on landlords not allowing pets than admitting you are struggling financially... T.

When I used to live in Homebush and had 5 Rotties - definitely not able to get to the mailbox at the front - our regular postie used to have a bag of dog treats, and he'd actually get off his bike and come to the side gate to feed my dogs a daily treat... funnily enough they loved him... *grin* T.

When we had a dog with full thickness burns come into rescue, we found that Paw Paw ointment not only healed it nicely, it also promoted hair regrowth... worth a try... T.

Considering it's pretty easy to look up crystal types (and other sediment artifact types) via Google, I find it interesting to hear that the vet didn't simply look them up before deciding what the problem may or may not be... https://www.idexx.no/files/urine-sediment-guide.pdf My feeling is that if you got the sample to the clinic around 30 mins from the time you took the sample, then the issue could be related to how long after you delivered it and when the actual test was done, and if it was refrigerated or not. Crystals may form the longer the sample is waiting to be tested (especially at room temperature), so their presence may or may not be indicative of an issue dependent upon the time between the sample being taken and when it is tested. Personally, I'd be taking the dog up to the clinic and having them take the sample and do the test straight away and you wait for the result... if only to rule in or out any actual issue that may have been (mis)diagnosed due to sample age with the last test. When I used to feed my dogs kibble, they used to drink a lot more than when I changed them to a raw diet. On kibble I'd be refilling the water bowl 2-3 times a week (more often in hotter weather), and after changing to the raw diet, I was only refilling the water bowl maybe once a week, or when it got a bit yukky from slobber or dirt. Urine output was commensurate with the amount of water they drank... more water in = more urine output generally. I am not advocating that you need to change to a raw diet, just noting that water intake is generally higher on a kibble diet, OK? If your dog is otherwise perfectly healthy on her current diet, then there should be no real need to change it. I hear you on the rotating vets thing... many clinics are hard pressed getting vets who want to work permanent full time positions, as their salaries are generally not that great, so effectively working a number of more part time/casual/locum positions tends to maximise their income source... so they can afford their daily bills (and HECS debts) just as the rest of us need to. The only drawback is that clients can't always pick which vet they will see depending on what days they tend to work at those clinics. We see a very similar issue in human medical centres too, so this isn't a new or isolated problem. If you have a preferred vet working at a particular clinic, it may be an idea to find out what their regular days are and schedule appointments to suit... T.

Urinalysis dipstick tests can return less than reliable results if performed more than 30 minutes after a sample is taken - age and temperature of the sample plays a role in effectiveness of the test. You say that you got the sample to the clinic within 30 mins, but then how long before they got around to actually doing the test? The time the test is taken can have effect on pH... the closer to the time the dog was fed, the higher the pH level... but a couple of hours after eating shouldn't see a massive increase. How the sample was collected and what type of container it is in can also affect the result... A high pH could also indicate possible bacterial activity in the sample - whether or not this is via the internal processes of the dog, or exposure to contaminants during or after the sample is collected could be a factor there too. Is it at all possible to maybe do the collection and immediate test actually at the clinic? That would remove most external factors and maybe give a clearer result from which to then base a clearer diagnosis on. I'd probably opt for a blood test as well to check kidney function before I'd be advising massive dietary changes that may or may not actually be necessary. T.

So @asal, would you be willing to have your ACDs destroyed because one of their breed was identified as being a part of an attack that caused the death of a toddler in Cowra recently? https://www.9news.com.au/national/cowra-dog-attack-victim-toddler-identified/0a0b8161-f0ef-4124-9c9f-be403cf6da80 I will concede that some breeds of dog definitely have the capacity to do immense damage to humans and other animals, but as with human-on-human violence, isn't it more likely to be an individual animal issue, rather than all animals of a particular breed being prone to that level of violence? T.

With the rates of violent crime in South Africa, as noted at the end of the story, many people have certain breeds of dog for protection... and also as noted at the end of the story, removing one breed of dog will only see an increase in other breeds owned for the same reason. So the problem is not necessarily going to be resolved by banning a particular breed of dog... they will simply be replaced by other breeds primarily bred/owned for protection as noted in the article. Until the crime rate problem is addressed effectively, they won't see the dog attack rate dropping significantly, it will just be perpetrated by other breeds instead. Do we simply ban any breed of dog that may inflict damage on a child simply because of its size/breed and possible potential given the "right" circumstance? @coneye, would you have given up your Rottweiler to be destroyed because someone else's Rottweiler attacked a child, and there was a call to ban all Rottweilers? T.

@~Anne~, I agree with your point that this is a news forum, however, with the Victorian elections being quite prominent in the news, one could forgive @asalher posting of a link to material that is only meant to be a guide as to the various political parties' specific leanings when it comes to animal related legislation (and any changes to same). As for further comment relating to pushing for a particular party... maybe not actually news... so your summation of the further commentary may be perfectly valid and reasonable in this case. As I pointed out above though, ACA itself is NOT affiliated with, nor pushing FOR any particular party in this or any other election - past, present or future. The aim of the exercise is purely informational, and simply urges people to try to be more aware of what their preferred party's stance is on the area of our purview - animal welfare legislation. You may note that it does also state that people should be looking at their preferred party's other policies, and to then vote according to their overall preference in that regard. T.

To be fair @~Anne~, the original post was a link to a guide as to who in the Victorian Parliament has a record (gleaned from reading 3 years of Hansard relating to animal matters) of speaking for, against, or is neutral towards matters related to the keeping or use of animals by humans. Yes, I am a member of ACA, and I can categorically state that we do not actively endorse any particular party... we simply wanted to give people a guide to their options if they were inclined to vote primarily on matters relating to the keeping or use of animals. In all honesty, the information presented there could just as easily give the animal rights types a decent guide as to who represents their interests, yes? Dog knows, there have already been a few such groups that have "borrowed" that information and used it to openly push their followers towards the parties that they prefer... I can understand where @asalis coming from here... as a breeder of registered pedigreed dogs, she will be directly impacted by certain changes being put forward in our state parliament... changes that will certainly have direct negative impact on anyone who breeds registered pedigreed companion animals (primarily dogs and cats, but leaves scope for regulation changes that may include other animal types in the future). She may not have communicated that as effectively as she (or others here) would have liked, but still, she should be able to voice her concerns, yes? T.

This is the same government that has pretty much rebuilt ALL of the buildings on the RSPCA site in Yagoona - at a cost of around $25+ million all up over at least 3 rounds of funding that I'm aware of in recent years... and extended the peppercorn lease on the 5 acre block it all sits on for some ridiculous time in the future too. Yet a pound facility that is run by a charity organisation gets a measly $500k to go towards expenses that will pretty much only see them stay afloat for around 6-12 months if they don't get the new site built - they are currently renting kennels from a boarding facility so that they are operating at around the same capacity as the old site in Carlton. In all honesty, they may have bitten off more than they can chew, but time will tell once the state election is done, as to whether they get funding to build the new facility or not... it definitely won't be happening before then... T.

*facepalm*

You assume much about what people do or don't know about the RSPCA and their practices my friend... you also assume much with regards to what qualifications and actual real life experience some may have that are drawn upon when dispensing advice on certain matters... just sayin'... Based on actual experience in the field, I can honestly say that a thorough vet checkup to rule in/out any physical health issues that may be causing adverse behaviours will not "cost thousands". You cling to a single unfavourable reference to yourself and seem determined to perpetuate the accuracy of that reference with your subsequent postings with particular vehemence and indignation that such a reference should have been directed at you... I stand firm in my summation by the way... *grin* This whole "debate" is moot now though, as the OP seems to have been sufficiently appalled at the vehemence of said debate, and has decided that this place is not somewhere she cares to frequent for any further help. I sincerely hope she has read and digested ALL advice given here, and takes the right steps for both the dog in question AND her family. T.

I suppose we'll never find out what the end result was for this pup... as the OP has deleted her user profile... **sigh** @coneye, just because someone may disagree with you and vigorously argues their case for same, does not actually mean that you are being bullied... it simply means that you are being disagreed with and the point is being debated. If anyone here is guilty of "bullying" behaviour, one might want to look closer to home than at those disagreeing with their opinion... just sayin'... The fact remains that in such a young pup, an underlying physical health issue may well have been the cause for her behaviour, that once rectified may have sorted the problem. At the very least that possibility should be investigated before irreversible options get enacted. At no point did anyone here forget that there was a 3 year old child involved, and at many points, the OP had been advised and reminded to keep the pup and child separated until she could see a vet to rule in or out any rectifiable health issue... she could just as easily make any long term decisions about the fate of the pup at that initial vet visit also. Last time I checked, humanely ending the life of an animal (in suburban areas anyways) has to be done by a vet, so she would have had to make an appointment anyways, yes? T.

@coneye, so you once took on a dog with issues and it was fine with you... funnily enough, we aren't seeing you stepping up to take this pup on either, are we? Pot, kettle, black there mate... There is a reality here that in the current climate of many thousands of perfectly stable dogs being homeless right now for myriad reasons, the chances of finding a rescue that will have the time, resources, or inclination to take on a dog with aggression issues are bloody slim at best. If the RSPCA take this dog as a surrender, they will not even attempt to rehabilitate or rehome it... once they have the information that it has bitten a child with no provocation, they will simply kill it at the first opportunity, most likely doing so before the OP has even left the carpark after dropping it off. Of course, if that is what the OP wants, then that is up to them... Those of us with actual experience in dealing with numerous animals with issues might actually be calling on that experience when giving advice to get the dog vet checked for any physical issues that once rectified may actually resolve this problem. While "get rid" may be an option for the OP, the reality is much less simple... for the reasons I have now outlined more than once. Reality tells me that if she can't simply offload the problem to someone else, then she's in the unenviable position of having to euthanaise this otherwise seemingly perfectly healthy and happy pup. For her peace of mind if that decision needs to be made, at least she will be in a better situation to deal with that outcome if she knows she made an effort to try to find a physical cause for the problem before enacting such a permanent "fix" for it. You may also find that most vets can and will refuse to euthanaise a perfectly healthy animal just because an owner asks for it... if the OP has done her due diligence with regards to investigating a cause for the issue, then she may have better luck convincing a vet that the dog's issues are irredeemable and that the kindest option is to stop any mental suffering the dog may be in. T.

@coneye, I assume you have read (at least partially) my responses to the OP, and will actually find that I concurred with @Powerlegsthat if the pup's issues are untreatable, that she may need to be put down. Unfortunately in this particular social climate, rehoming a 5 month old pup with issues of this nature will be difficult at best - and even moreso with no health screening to ascertain that those issues do not stem from some possibly treatable health issue. I am currently petless and do not have children or have children visiting my place, and theoretically could take on the pup in question, but I'm not in a financial position to track down any possible physical issue, nor pay for behaviourist sessions/training to rectify those sort of issues. I am also getting a new puppy myself in the near future, and would prefer to have the time and resources in hand to raise him properly - not manage a possible "problem child" and raise a new puppy at the same time. I also refuse to have to be the one responsible for having to euthanaise this pup if her issues are untreatable for the long term. My last TWO dogs had some undesirable issues that made them less than perfect canine citizens - and I have spent numerous YEARS coping with those, so I actually DO know what the hell I'm talking about in that respect. Both I got as pups (actually rescue fosters) and both lived to 10 and 11 years of age. Quite frankly, I'm tired of having to cope with a dog with issues, and am looking forward to my new pup from a wonderful breeder of dogs with great temperaments and great healthy lines. I fully agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion on this matter, but that doesn't automagically mean that YOUR opinion and "advice" is the only one that should be heard. This pup deserves at the very least to have the cause of her problems identified before being palmed off to someone else to deal with. The OP has been given some very sound advice by numerous knowledgeable people here on how to manage the situation at least in the short term while they find out if there might be a treatable physical issue with this pup that could very well sort out the problem... and if that isn't the case, then advice on talking to people even more knowledgeable about rectifying behavioural issues may be helpful. If in the end, nothing can be initiated to resolve the pup's issues, then the OP might need to suck it all up and have the pup put to sleep. There will be no adverse judgement from the people who have participated in this thread if that is the end result. I apologise to my fellow regular DOLers here for losing my rag and calling you a dick @coneye... but seriously mate, you really need to tone it down some when you choose to dole out "advice" when you (and the rest of us) only have fairly limited information about the problem at hand. T.

Years ago, my now ex took my beloved Woosie (a Rotti) for a walk up to the shops to buy us some fresh cinnamon donuts for morning tea. The silly bugger attached her lead to one of those A-frame signs out the front of the bakery shop... and she moved a little further than the reach of her lead for some reason causing the frame sign to make a noise when it moved across the concrete. Poor Woosie got a scare by that, and literally took off heading for home and her mummy to save her - home is about 1.5k from the shop, and she made it to within 200m of home dragging the noisy and scary frame sign behind her her before the ex finally caught up with her and removed it. He brought her home to me, then had to take the sign back to the store and make his apologies and pay for it to be fixed - it was a bit dinged up after it's travels... errr! To his credit, he did also get the donuts (and an extra 2 just for poor Woosie)... she kinda forgave him after that... T.

@coneye, you are entitled to your opinion, but it's not the only one that should be taken into consideration in this case, so it would be appreciated if you could desist in flooding the thread insisting that you are the only one who knows how to deal with said situation. @belinda74- there very well may only be one eventual outcome required for your pup and her issues, but I'm sure you will be much more sure of that outcome being the right one if you know that you have at least investigated any possible physical problem causing it, yes? I guarantee you that the RSPCA will most likely refuse to take on your pup, but if they do, full disclosure of her biting your child without provocation will see them putting that needle into her even before you have left the carpark after dropping her off there... and that's a cold hard fact. At 5 months of age, she will be teething, and as a result will be much more mouthy than normal... but she could also have other issues relating to her teething that could be contributing to her aggression - her mouth may be sore, she may have sore ears, etc - she is also likely to be still having growth spurts that may be making her joints sore at regular intervals... and pain in an animal that can't articulate what's upsetting them can manifest in displays of aggression with seemingly no cause. A thorough vet check will at least rule those basic health/pain issues in or out. @Deedshas given very sound advice regarding contacting K9 Pro if your pup doesn't appear to have any actual physical problem causing her behaviour - the trainers there are VERY experienced in rectifying such behaviours, and may be even more effective in rectifying hers as she's so young and still in full learning mode with regards to dealing with the world around her. It would be worth at least giving them a call and having a talk about what is happening with your pup. Personally, I worked for some good many years in special needs dog rescue, where we took in dogs with all manner of issues that required rehbilitation before they could be rehomed - and a decent number of those cases were behaviour related. I have personally had to make the hard decisions for dogs with behaviours that simply made them too dangerous to safely rehome. I can feel your anguish at possibly having to make such a decision for your young pup... but if it becomes the logical choice for her, I fully support that choice, OK? T.