tdierikx

As per the legislation posted above by @Deeds, even if the dog just rushes at or approaches anyone or anything in a way that causes the target fear, that is deemed an "attack"... just so you know. Even if your dog is just over-friendly and runs at people for a pat, or wants to play with other animals, it can still be deemed an "attack" if the approach is not wanted. The fine you received was pretty lenient actually, as you could also have had them hit you for "not under effective control", and if your dog wasn't wearing a collar/tag, they could have thrown that in too... not to mention "menacing" or "attack" could have been thrown at you. If you are going to fight the fine in court, be aware that if you lose, the costs may be much higher than the original fine. Personally, I'd suck it up and pay the $300, and make all attempts possible to keep your dog secured to your own property in future. Escaping once is an accident, but any further escape is frowned upon. T.

I had to relocate my dirty clothes bag when Lottie decided to steal the dirty undies and run around the house with them... lol! T.

With all respect mate... the vet should have been your first call for advice on this matter... not an internet forum. @Rebannehas a point though... it seems that your dog has some very serious nervous issues, and may not be responding to your training methods the way you expect due to those issues. Creating a safe spot for him to retreat to when he's not dealing well with stimuli is a great idea really. Maybe a rethink of your training methods may also be in order... tailored specifically to deal with his issues in a manner where he feels less threatened and more inclined to listen to you. T.

I've just given a decent sized neck to the four 4 week old small breed pups I'm fostering here.... the thing is way too big for them to swallow, and they are just getting their teeth in, so there has been much licking and attempts to chew on it... and a bit of tug-o-war... lol! Their mum has demolished hers in record time. T.

This is the list of registration fees currently in NSW... It sucks that they've added (not desexed by relevant age) to the list, as it certainly doesn't compel anyone to register them at all, let alone desex them if they are over the relevant age, which I think is 6 months old. The upside is that it's a once only fee, as the dog is then registered in NSW for it's entire lifespan, OK? As for disputing the fee, you may have some luck if you go into the council in person, take your purchase receipt (if you got one) and your copy of the change of owner forms for the microchip, and see if you can talk face to face with a human being who can make a definitive decision regarding which registration fee you should pay, and waive the late fee... as none of that stuff is your actual fault. If the dog was bought from a rescue or a pound (or shelter like RSPCA/AWL), you should get council registration for free. T.

What are the circumstances that cause the pups to whine? Has one strayed a bit, and mom doesn't want to leave the other to get it back? Or are they grizzling over teats? On the topic of teats, watch for any redness, lumpiness, hardness, heat, etc... having only 2 pups, she may have much more milk than required, and could be prone to mastitis, which will make the milk taste a bit yukky for the babies (which could make them whinge), and cause mom a fair bit of discomfort (which may cause her to whine). Have mom and bubs had a post birth vet checkup to make sure they are all fine? If not, I would suggest one... just to make sure that all is going well, OK? T.

The business name rang a bell, so I googled them... there are news stories about dogs dying in their care, both in Sydney and Nerang... so I might look elsewhere... errr! T.

This is because those in power are doing deals with AR groups (and/or Greens/AJP political parties) in order to get other legislation passed... the dirty nature of our political system at it's finest... *sigh* Animal Care Australia do represent general pet owners as well as industry groups, breeders, and businesses... and we also have Facebook groups designed to alert members to upcoming or current political consultation processes. The Facebook groups allow for any member to have their say and provide input to our submissions, and/or get advice on how to make their own submissions. Maybe if more people joined and participated we could all help each other? Worth considering, don't you think? Supporter membership is only $10 a year... and you can access the Facebook groups to participate in and get updates on upcoming stuff. T.

I agree that our animal welfare legislation should be constantly reviewed and adjusted to meet better practices in animal welfare. The problem arises when politicians react/legislate in response to what they call "community expectations". Most of the pet owning public are completely unaware of the political processes that happen at regular intervals relating to animal related legislation. Consultation processes are not widely advertised generally, and it's usually only those who are politically active that take part in such consultations... and given that the AR (Animal Rights) movement are politically active in large numbers, their agendas are usually the loudest "voice" that is being heard. Statistics: NSW has a pet ownership rate of around 60%. We have a state population of around 8 million, so around 4.8 million of us have a pet. There are around 3 million households in NSW, so around 2 million households have a pet. Take the above statistics in relation to the last couple of NSW government inquiry consultations relating to pet related issues - the vet shortage inquiry, and the pound inquiry - the vet shortage inquiry got a total of 212 submissions, and the pound inquiry got 137 submissions and 379 responses to the online survey. The inquiry into aerial shooting of brumbies in Kosciuszko National Park got 165 full submissions, and around 400 "short" submissions (less than one page). Overall a pretty poor showing from our pet owning population, wouldn't you say? Most of the full submissions were done by organisations and groups with vested interests in the topics at hand - such as various councils reacting to the pound inquiry, and vets responding the the vet shortage inquiry. RSPCA always make submissions to any/all animal related inquiries, and are also included in committees tasked with developing any legislation relating to animal welfare. Each state is different in how they apply information supplied by submissions, inquiry findings, etc. Queensland seems to run the submission process as a "courtesy", then do whatever they wanted anyway. Victoria don't seem to have paid much attention to industry based detailed submissions, and are going with "community expectations" (read myriad cloned individual submissions from AR group callouts to their memberships to make said submissions). NSW seem to be a bit of a mix of Qld/Vic tactics as to how they apply responses from inquiries etc to legislation, and look to be following the Victorian models proposed to date. South Australia not that long ago enacted some animal welfare legislation with NO public consultation at all. When I went about talking to people, vets, etc about the NSW vet inquiry and the pound inquiry, asking them to make submissions... the overwhelming response was "I'm too busy". Well, I'm saying right now, that if you are "too busy" to sit down for a short amount of time to make a submission to a political process that may directly affect you adversely because those with a different agenda found that time to submit en masse, you can't really complain when it happens, can you? Never in our history have pet owners and carers been more directly affected by the political process with regard to animal welfare legislation. Our parliaments have been infiltrated by AR ideologies - not only AJP, but the Greens as well - and these people are looking to change animal ownership in ways that none of us want, so please, please get involved when the opportunity arises, OK? T.

RSPCA actually endorsed it as "humane" during the trial run... no freaking joke,,, T.

Let's not forget that NSW Labor have their own plans to reform our animal welfare legislation during this term of government too... fun times ahead... grrr! T.

Sentience in itself is not the issue here... anyone who works with or cares for animals knows they are sentient in the normal (read scientific) meaning of the word, and the POCTA Act in each state reflects this by essentially adopting the Five Domains model of animal welfare as the basic underpinning of said Act(s). Where the problem arises is that the Animal Rights extremists have hijacked the term and their definition of it is VERY different to it's actual scientific meaning. AR extremists tend to use the fact of sentience as animal feelings being akin to human feelings and emotions... anthropomorphising at it's finest, if you will. Oh... and this proposed Bill (and the supporting Regulations - which are even scarier) does not actually define sentience fully... so it's open to interpretation on so many levels it's scary... As for the Regulations - which will underpin enforcement of the Act - they will comprise of the current POCTA Regulations AND POCTA Codes of Practice AND Australian Standards and Guidelines for Animal Welfare AND Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. Currently, Codes of Practice and the Aus Standards guidelines are not mandatory or completely enforceable... this new Act will make them both under Regulations. In order to make an informed submission to this consultation, one will need to read not only the draft Act (244 pages), but all of the current POCTA Regulations and Codes of Practice AND all of the Aus Standards and Guidelines AND the Aus Code for Animals for Scientific Purposes... I'm tipping not many will read all of that stuff, and will instead just focus on the overview documents that paint everything in a rosy light (when reality is far from that). Reading the enforcement stuff, they are proposing some pretty substantial increases of Authorised Officers (read RSPCA) powers to enter your private dwelling, to seize and destroy your animals BEFORE any legal proceedings even occur, and numerous other opportunities to abuse their power over animal owners/carers. This Bill is a bloody nightmare for all animal owners/carers... but a really big gift for the AR nutters. T.

Yet RSPCA who were "observing" the trial of aerial culling that produced the "average 7.5 shots" (note that some took up to 15 shots delivered before death), have approved the method as "humane". Robert Borsak tore them a new one in the inquiry the other week... I've never seen RSPCA witnesses look so uncomfortable before... was a fun watch... RSPCA testimony starts at 4:30hr/min mark if you'd like to watch... My colleagues from Animal Care Australia testified at the hearing too... theirs starts at 2:07hr/min Claire Galea on the inaccuracy of the count that preceded the aerial culling decision starts at 2:47hr/min - very interesting testimony that calls into question the validity of the data produced by the count performed. Enjoy! T.

Interesting second part to the article too... T.

They appear to have capitulated to the animal rights mob and are stopping surgical AI procedures. The animal rights mob reckons that performing reasonably minimally intrusive surgery to enable procreation is "inhumane"... whereas performing a complete hysterectomy on a very young puppy or kitten is perfectly "reasonable"... go figure! T.

I'd be leery of anyone saying they are crossbreeding for "hybrid vigour"... run a mile from anyone using that term to describe their animals for sale. I'm with @sandgrubberre the Cobber Dog example. T.

Not necessarily, dogs can develop meat protein intolerances from tick bites... and so can humans... it's not unheard of, but fairly rare. T.

Wasn't there another news story that said that the transport trailer was unlocked? Fingers crossed the pup is found and gets back to it's owners soon. T.

You'd be amazed at what can actually pass through a dog's system with no issues. I had a dog with pica (the desire to eat things not normally regarded as food), and doing poo patrol was always an adventure. I would watch your pup for any signs of an upset stomach, such as hunching, or drinking much more than usual, or if she becomes lethargic or seems "off" in any way. Otherwise, just keep trying to keep things she shouldn't chew out of her reach, OK? At 5.5 months of age, she is probably teething, so will be looking to chew on things to get her loose puppy teeth to come out. Give her safe things to chew on to assist this process. T.

Maybe you need to put a warning re the description of this procedure in this particular case... it is quite distressing to listen to. I have personally been present for 3 different animals for intracardial euthanasia... a puppy with parvo, an old and very sick rooster, and a rabbit. The puppy and the rooster were so ill that they didn't even register that the needle had been inserted, and passed quickly without incident. The rabbit had a broken leg that couldn't be fixed, and he was much more alert, so he was anaesthetised before the procedure, and also passed peacefully. Other animals I have had to have euthanaised where the usual leg vein was unable to be accessed, have had the needle inserted into the jugular vein (predominately goats/sheep and a calf in my case), and they have passed peacefully just as if the leg vein had been used. Working with animals is not all sunshine and roses... but when they need to get their wings, we always do our utmost to make it as dignified and peaceful as possible. I would say these people's story is NOT the norm at all, and the vet who performed it should be censured at the very least. The claim that this happens regularly at shelters and/or pounds is not necessarily true either. Neonate animals where a leg vein can't be accessed may have this method performed, but a well trained vet generally finds the heart first go, and the death is quick. T.

Cost of living is the most common claim as the reason for surrendering pets right now, but I'm not 100% convinced it is actually the most common reason for surrender, more that it is considered more "socially acceptable" to use cost of living as the reason for offloading one's pet that may have become unmanageable for whatever reason. It is interesting that RSPCA ACT are seeing large numbers of very young animals being surrendered... pups bred for the "christmas market" that weren't selling, unwanted gifts? As for government based funding for rescues, while I agree that there are a large number of rescues who are doing their very best to responsibly find homes for the animals in their care, there are also a large number who are not acting as responsibly when rehoming. I am averse to the notion of funding a completely unregulated industry... in order to receive such funding, I believe that rescues should be held to account by following enforceable codes of practice, mandatory detailed reporting of outcomes, etc... animals lives literally depend on it. T.

I wonder if this was a case of being bitten by a tick at some earlier point... apparently that can be a trigger for dogs not being able to process animal proteins. The dog appeared to develop the problem at some point, rather than from birth, so some trigger must have happened. I'd hate for the activist vegan types to get hold of this story and use it to insist that dogs should all be vegan... aarrgghh! I'm glad that the vet finally worked out what was going on, and worked out how to rectify it. T.

I'm with you on that sentiment... T.

Considering nearly all of the pet insurance covers are underwritten by Hollards, there really isn't that much difference between them... and most are not great value for money at all. T.

Sounds easy enough, but after the injured dog has been through surgery, there would be no trace of the other dogs' DNA to test... not to mention that councils wouldn't want to outlay that sort of money on this sort of thing. T.