tdierikx

Jeebus! That is a very nasty wound indeed. I've had 2 adult dogs literally fighting to kill each other (intervention was made), and the worst wounds they inflicted on each other weren't as nasty as the one in that post.... and both dogs spent 2 days in the vet hospital to be patched up. I knew that from that day on, the 2 dogs in question could NEVER run together again. Any dog that will inflict that level of damage on another should NOT be a regular doggy daycare participant... T.

"The two dogs were microchipped before they were returned to their owners." Ummm... why were those 2 dogs not microchipped already? T.

@Enrique... I'd just like to remind you that rehoming Freya across the border is ill-advised, OK? She will still be subject to the "dangerous" declaration and will have strict rules around how she is kept, etc... On that note, technically you may be breaking the law by having Freya loose in your "daycare" with other dogs. She should be wearing a specific collar that designates her status, and she should not only be muzzled, but leashed at all times she isn't on her owner's property. I know that you have invested time and effort into working with Freya, and have become attached to her emotionally... but still, those of us who have had Rotties all our lives are seeing some very disturbing warning signs from the video you originally posted here. Most of us Rotti owners/lovers try to see the good in all Rotties, but Freya is definitely an accident waiting to happen, and we do not suggest euthanasia lightly. Unfortunately you may need to learn that not all dogs' issues can be "fixed", and you may also need to put on your big boy pants and admit that not all dogs can be "saved" either. Simply rehoming Freya just shifts responsibility for her issues onto someone else, and that is not fair to her or any prospective new owner. How will you feel if you rehome her and she does something that causes her to be placed under a destruction order... and she dies frightened and confused in some pound back room with no-one she knows present? If you truly care about what happens to Freya, I think you might need to step up and at least be her comfort while she gets her wings... give her that dignity at least. T.

@Enrique... as someone who has owned several Rottweilers over the years, I can tell you that the behaviour shown in that video is far from "chilled", and the only thing stopping a full scale attack is the fact she is wearing a muzzle. The other dog indicates that there is an issue, and you are not recognising it's obvious nervousness at the situation. By your own admission, this dog has a "dangerous" declaration by council, which means that any prospective new owner would be subject to some pretty strong restrictions to keep themselves and others safe from her unpredictable nature. You admit that she recently "nipped" a child who went near her while she was eating, which indicates some level of food possession aggression as well as the other behavioural issues with other dogs and people she doesn't know. I have no doubt that once she gets to know people, she is the biggest cuddle tart, but on HER terms only... this is NOT indicative of a stable dog, and is an accident waiting to happen if you rehome her. Unfortunately, I think that unless you are willing to take her on yourself, then the kindest course of action may be to give her her wings with dignity and love. Better that she meets her end in that arms of someone who cares about her, than as a result of a destruction order later down the track when some new owner drops their guard and she does something unforgivable. T.

That video is quite distressing... but highlights exactly why legislation says that dogs in public need to be "under effective control". If the dog's owner had been paying proper attention, he should have noticed the moment his dog first started showing interest in the horse, and called it back and leashed it. Kudos to the rider of the horse for staying calm and staying seated while the attack was in progress... their calm definitely played a huge role in keeping the horse calm and having the attack escalate further than it did. T.

That amendment bill has now lapsed, so it must be re-introduced from the beginning once the new parliament starts - which looks like early May at this stage. Let's not forget that Labor have their own plans for a shake-up of all animal welfare legislation in NSW, which I'm tipping may look very similar to the legislation that is being proposed in Victoria. For anyone interested, this is what is currently being proposed in Victoria... note the title it has been given - "Animal Care and Protection" - no mention of WELFARE there at all, which is telling... https://engage.vic.gov.au/new-animal-welfare-act-victoria - and if you are interested in reading the type and content of the submissions made to the consultation stage for that legislation, they can be found here... https://engage.vic.gov.au/project/new-animal-welfare-act-victoria/page/submissions-to-the-plan - note that Andy Meddick had posted submission guidelines for AJP members/supporters to submit which I've attached here...AJP Vic guide to new act submissions_guide.pdf - and if you read through the submissions made, there are 100+ that are based on that advice (to the point of a cut/paste of the document in many). Now, it is important to understand that a MASSIVE amount of sway in how new legislation is formed and passed is given to what is called "community expectations" - so all those submissions will be duly read, the numbers for and against will be tallied, then the results will be published with lovely little charts and statistics showing the extrapolated findings. The fact that large numbers of individual submissions have been made based on the callout for AJP members/supporters to copy and send the above submission guidelines will not be insignificant - the sheer numbers WILL be counted and taken into consideration when presenting the end report - regardless they are all mirror images of the same document/submission. Gone are the days when we can be sitting back and relying on only our industry bodies to make such submissions on our behalf - if we truly want to affect how these things go, we ALL must be making individual submissions to these consultation processes as well as those our industry bodies are making on our behalf. We need to be heard as part of the "community" whose "expectations" will be counted. T.

I wouldn't mention that to the AJP nutters... they are trying to stop all animal based research too. Funnily enough, last year Emma Hurst had to have surgery for a chronic issue she had... and couldn't see the hypocrisy in having a surgery that had only been made bloody possible after extensive testing on animals before being applied to humans. The surgery she had was definitely something she needed, and we shouldn't begrudge her for having it... but still, animals suffered and/or died at some point to make her surgical treatment possible. As for the Puppy Farm bill... I second the call for everyone who may end up affected (and that is pretty much anyone who owns or ever wants to breed a dog or cat) to read what is being proposed by AJP (and Greens). Legislation that has lapsed that might be worth watching for reintroduction:- Puppy Farm Bill (AJP) - https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bills/Pages/bill-details.aspx?pk=3885 - read the original animal numbers caps and litter numbers, ages to stop being used for breeding, insistence on mandatory desexing at point of sale, etc... Animal Sentience Bill (Greens) - https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bills/Pages/bill-details.aspx?pk=3946 - even though most of us will not dispute that animals are sentient, the whole point of legislating it is a step toward implementing "personhood" rights onto animals, and essentially stopping anyone owning an animal, they want to implement "guardianship" instead. Independent Office of Animal Welfare (Greens) - https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bills/Pages/bill-details.aspx?pk=3942 - might be worth noting that this is also referred to at Independent Office of Animal Protection, which actually has a whole different meaning than Welfare. Have a look at the committee suggestions to see how they want to stack it with animal rights nutters. Aquatic Animal Recognition Bill (AJP) - https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bills/Pages/bill-details.aspx?pk=3836 - call to add crustaceans and cephalopods to definition of "animal" in legislation. Not in itself a bad thing, but could have unseen ramifications long term. Increased Penalties Bill (AJP) - https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bills/Pages/bill-details.aspx?pk=3820 - focuses and build on her other legislation that simply calls for greater penalties for animal cruelty offences, but does not address the current misuse of the system by those tasked with policing current legislation... effectively incentivising RSPCA to get even more heavy-handed so they get a bigger share of fines imposed. Also worth noting is that once legislation like the Puppy Farm Bill get passed, what will be classified as a "domestic animal business" will change drastically, and could have implications when applying for local government approvals to own more than the designated animal number quotas for each type of residential/regional/rural property - effectively allowing councils to reject applications from legitimate registered breeders (who currently have some exemptions to LGA caps on animals per property) - this is ALREADY happening in Victoria, and to some extent Queensland. On a side note, Georgie Purcell - the newly elected Victorian upper house AJP member - owns at least 17 animals, including a donkey, sheep, goats, dogs, etc... way MORE than is supposedly allowed in her LGA animal cap quotas based on property size... but apparently because they are all "rescues", that should be allowed. Last time I checked, rescue animals didn't have any less requirements under animal welfare laws than any other animal. Important to note that she also fosters animals at times, so her numbers are fluid over that 17 animal number that she actually owns. Why should she be exempt from the legislation her party wants to impose upon the rest of us? T.

Obviously that person doesn't know you very well, so their opinion really doesn't count anyways... Massive hugs to you LMO... hang in there, OK? T.

Apparently RSPCA SA are claiming that their boarding operations have been stopped for now due to the large number of other intakes... but here's an interesting snippet... "Due to significantly high numbers of animals in care our cat and dog boarding facilities are closed until further notice. We may reopen them if our in care population decreases sufficiently. Existing bookings are still valid and we will be happy to board your pet for any prearranged bookings." https://www.rspcasa.org.au/services/boarding/ I wonder where they will be putting those "existing bookings"? And what level of care will they receive if all the kennels are full to overflowing? T.

AJP used to proudly have the goal of phasing out companion animal ownership in their policy list on their website... they removed it when it was pointed out during the 2019 NSW state election that ended up with Emma Hurst getting elected to an 8 year upper house seat. AJP are not the only party who have plans to drastically change pet ownership as we know it. The Greens policies are possibly even more draconian than AJP... and even Labor have plans for a major overhaul of animal welfare legislation. If you want some idea of how far Labor are willing to go, just look at the proposed new Victorian Animal Care and Protection Act... no mention of "Welfare" in the title for a reason... Also, if you want some idea of how sneaky AJP can be, during the NSW Puppy Farm inquiry, Emma managed to get her good friend Georgie Purcell as a star witness in the inquiry. When Wes Fang tried to highlight Ms Purcell's links to AJP (she was actually Andy Meddick's chief of staff at the time), he was shut down by Emma and Abigail Boyd of the Greens - they insisted that Ms Purcell was supposedly there as president of Oscar's Law, yet a good portion of her testimony was based on information she could only have gotten as an AJP MP's chief of staff... testimony that was then referenced 46 times in the resulting inquiry report and pushed by Emma Hurst (reading the minutes leading to the results of the report is eye-opening). Fast forward to the Victorian state election, and Ms Purcell not only ran for AJP, she was elected to the Victorian upper house under a cloud of a preference voting scandal - they reneged on their deals, while still taking the preferences given to them. Another interesting point to note is that when Queensland were looking at updating their animal welfare legislation, AJP actually applied to be a witness in the inquiry - until it was pointed out to the committee that AJP were actually a political party with an animal rights agenda, and AJP were then struck from the witness list. AJP also put in their own submission to the Victorian legislation proposal... which is not exactly kosher when your own MP was responsible for much of what is contained in it. AJP Victoria also prepared a submission template for their members to send in to the consultation phase (I counted well over 300 copy/paste submissions based on the AJP template). In NSW, the Greens were using the term "animal protection" almost exclusively with regards to their policies, but have realised that term isn't being received as well as it used to (as people wise up to what it actually means), so are now replacing the word "protection" with "welfare" so they supposedly sound less animal rights focused - but their policies are still focused on removing companion animal ownership regardless the words they choose to spruik them. If we want to continue to own and breed quality dogs, we ALL need to be a bit more vocal against the stupid legislative changes being put forward by the AR mobs (AJP, Greens, Labor all lean that way). We can't simply sit back and expect the main bodies like Dogs NSW to push back on our behalf... they are seen as but one voice when submissions are entered regarding legislative changes, and they need US to back them up with our own submissions... many voices are noticed... Get more pro-active and keep an eye on what legislation is up for review, and make submissions to put our side forward in large numbers... because in this day and age of "community expectations" being a major driver of change, we need to show how large a part of the "community" we are. T.

During my vet nursing student placement, I was fortunate to assist with an eye ablation surgery... it was very interesting to watch exactly how it is done. Post surgery the dog was virtually unaware that it had had the eye removed, except for a small peripheral vision issue, which was perfectly understandable, but the dog wasn't bothered at all by it. Dogs and cats respond really well post eye removal surgery... most likely because they don't worry about how they look to others, and just get on with living their best lives. That said, eye removal is not a first choice option, and if it is recommended, then it's probably the best solution to the issues the dog has. I'd advise to go with the recommendation and have the surgery asap. T.

Let's just note that if the RSPCA found a rescue or other shelter/boarding type business operating with similar overpopulation issues, they'd prosecute... just sayin'... Then let's look at the fact that they are stopping surrenders, but will still try to squeeze in animals they seize... ummm... if you can't acommodate the ones you have already, how the hell are you going to ensure that animals seized won't be going from one poor situation to another (of their own making no less)? Seriously - space for 300 cats, but housing 550? Space for 80- dogs, but housing 128? No... that is NOT acceptable in any scenario... especially when it's happening in the organisation that is supposed to be policing issues like that in the broader community. "Do as we say, not as we do" couldn't be any truer here... grrr! T.

OK... the ACM40310 course has been superseded by a number of other courses, with the most current now being ACM40322. ACM40322 has added the Assistance Dog Training units of competency in the E elective group. Course details for ACM40322 can be found here... https://training.gov.au/Training/Details/ACM40322 Approved RTO's delivering this course in Victoria can be found here... https://training.gov.au/Search?searchTitleOrCode=&SearchType=Rto&searchTgaSubmit=Search&registrationStatus=0%2C1%2C2%2C3&nrtScopeDeliveryStates=02&includeImplicitScope=true&scopeNationalCode=ACM40322 From that 2nd page, it appears that Bendigo TAFE is the only TAFE in Victoria that may be offering the current course (I checked, and they aren't offering it at this point in time), with your next best bet being Delta Therapy Dogs. Delta do not appear to have any Smart and Skilled fee assistance program affiliation, so the course is fully priced at $6495. This fee should theoretically be able to be reduced via course credits or RPL from other accredited courses you may have completed, such as Cert 2, 3, and/or 4 Animal Care courses via TAFE, or hands-on experience gained via employment - pretty sure a couple of the core units are shared with other courses, so if you have done those, you may get credit for them. Details about Delta's course delivery can be found here... https://www.deltainstitute.edu.au/certificateivanimalbehaviourandtraining - it looks like the face-to-face components (which are compulsory to attend) are held in Sydney, which could make things difficult for Victorian students. Note that those RTOs listed on the second link are the ONLY ones fully accredited by ASQA for delivery of that course, ie. you should be guaranteed that completing the course with them will give you a fully nationally recognised qualification in this field. If an RTO is NOT accredited by ASQA, your best advice is to steer clear of them. Overall, it looks like finding a TAFE that will deliver this course is going to be difficult, and approved RTOs will most likely have components of the training that will require travel outside of Victoria to complete. They certainly don't even try to make things easy for interested students, do they? T.

This is interesting... ... it says that even if someone may only have been charged with an offence... even if the charge may have been dropped, or the person found not guilty of the charge... huh?? How many people would know that sort of information about any of their carers, as it certainly wouldn't be something voluntarily stated by a prospective carer, would it? Not to mention that a PIN doesn't necessarily have to be related to an actual cruelty offence, as RSPCA have been known to issue those over the fact that a vet's phone number hasn't been prominently displayed where anyone can see it, or other trivial paperwork related issues. Then again... the fact that any rescue wanting one of these grants must be on the OLG approved organisation list may weed out the worst of the cowboy operations from applying. Although I'm tipping that there will be a flood of applications coming in to get on that list now... T.

@Rebanne... please give brave Warrior a gentle cuddle from me and tell him that his DOL fan club are rooting for him to stay as well as possible for as long as possible... Huge hugs to you also... T.

I agree with @Diva... no explanation where they got that figure from... but I'd tip that it probably comes from annual reports from RSPCA, etc, who don't always have the best track record in that area... *sigh* 264 x 365 = 96,360 if you want to extrapolate an annual figure from that number... T.

They do get massive amounts of money from public donations and government has given funding for infrastructure... but the actual reality is that they actually don't receive very much government funding to perform the enforcement of animal welfare laws. From memory, RSPCA NSW receives around $400,000(ish) a year from the state government to perform ALL of it's enforcement duties - not much when you look at the number of inspectors they need to have, their legal arm, etc... I think their latest annual report said they spent over $2 million on the enforcement arm alone last year. That said, they also aren't subject to any real oversight by anyone either... so they have a tendency to basically do whatever they want - be that overzealous policing/prosecution at some times, or not doing anything at others. I'm of the opinion that RSPCA should not be performing a prosecutorial part when it comes to their role in enforcement of our animal welfare laws. Quite frankly, it costs them more to do it than it actually makes from the resulting fines, etc... T.

With the way animal welfare legislation change is being proposed/changed, it's only a matter of time before the call for the rescue industry to be regulated is upon us... a move I actually support. Some years ago, there was a rescue that encouraged it's volunteers to do animal related courses via TAFE, even going so far as to help towards course fees for any of their vollies who wanted to do them. I reckon that was an awesome initiative. They obviously saw the need for people in the industry to at least learn some of the basics in companion animal husbandry/care... but as there was/is no actual requirement to have any clue at all when getting into rescue, uptake was low. They saw quite a few vollies that decided to start their own rescues, some with some success, most not. Those that failed tended to just surrender their animals to other rescues and dropped off the radar. In the current climate of increasing animal homelessness, it is so easy for any big hearted person to hang a shingle and call themselves a rescue, and there has been a veritable explosion in numbers of people doing so. As a result, we are seeing way too many cases of people overreaching their means, rehoming irresponsibly, and animals not being the "winners" by any stretch of the imagination. Legislation changes have also made the situation worse for anyone in rescue, as pounds look to offload their responsibilities onto the rescue industry - the reason such legislation was passed was purely financial, as it enabled government to effectively pass the buck - even if the original proponent of the change may have had (or was seen to have) good intentions for homeless animals in need. Does it not worry anyone that those pushing for animal welfare legislation change do not have ANY animal related qualifications, rather a degree in human psychology, and a solid background in the extreme end of the Animal Rights movement? Does anyone think that a former PR staffer for PeTA should be the loudest "voice for animals" in our state parliament? So far, the effect of most of the legislation put through by such people has had repercussions that have had the opposite effect of what was supposedly proposed... the associated inquiries held with regard to the legislation changes clearly stated those negative repercussions would occur, but were completely ignored. T.

Thanks for the awesome advice @~Anne~... once I've done my Cert IV Training and Assessment, I'll have to look at what content would be needed, and how best to deliver it in an affordable way for those interested in or already working in rescue. The best option IMHO would be as an elective in either Cert II or III Animal Studies at TAFE, but they are so darned slow at doing anything of that nature with courses... maybe a stand-alone cert of attainment might be easier to get off the ground, but may need a pre-req of at least the Cert II Animal Studies for the basics in animal care and handling component (just to negate the need to go over all the same stuff) T.

Foxes and/or rabbits can be carriers of all manner of things, including ear mites. I too say to follow your vet's advice @Luvapoo... T.

I have that book, and like @~Anne~I started the course run by MDBA... and yes, it was fairly simple, and I also never completed it for some reason. I also agree that maybe now is the time for something like that to be included at least as an elective for one of the TAFE Animal Studies courses, or possibly as a stand-alone certificate of attainment course designed specifically for those who want to get involved in rescue. I think once I've done my Cert IV in Training and Assessment, I might have to look into how to get something like that happening. The rescue industry is getting larger by the day, and something is needed to at least allow those wanting to be involved to know exactly what they are getting into, and how to do it with the best welfare outcomes for the animals. T.

I must say that fostering definitely built upon my own dog owning/handling skills... and I found that my "niche" was puppies. I got to help raise very young pups to be happy, healthy and socially acceptable little canine citizens... and it was a job I took very seriously. It may also have been one of the reasons that I went on to get all the TAFE quals I now have - Cert II and III Animal Studies, Cert III Captive Animals (Zookeeping), and Cert IV Vet Nursing. I can actually say from experience that any of those quals would be very useful for any foster carer to have... I am currently applying to do another TAFE course... Cert IV Training and Assessment... so I can hopefully teach some of those animal industry courses. I reckon there may also be room to suggest development of another course specifically designed for those wanting to get into, or currently work in rescue... or even integrate some content regarding sound rescue practices into some of the current courses - could be offered as an elective or stand alone short course subject even. I really think that some formal understanding of current animal husbandry and the legislation that governs these things would be extremely helpful/useful to anyone involved in any form of companion animal rescue... like WIRES and Sydney Wildlife run before they allow anyone to take on wildlife fostering. The system probably wouldn't be without it's flaws, but it would definitely be a start... T.

100% agree @~Anne~ As for coronavirus in dogs, it can and does present in almost exactly the same way as parvovirus... think of it as the poor cousin of same. The upside of coronavirus is that it's survival in the environment is MUCH shorter than parvo. One of my recommendations for any regulation of the rescue industry would be for at least one person that is running the organisation. or in a senior position and allowed to make decisions with autonomy, to have some formal qualification in animal care - be that a TAFE Cert (I'd stipulate Cert III Animal Studies as a minimum there, or even a Vet Nursing cert) - or other proven hands-on experience with the species they will be caring for (such as that of people like @Powerlegs). Foster carers could have or need to get a Cert II Animal Studies before they are allowed to take in foster animals, or again, some proven hands-on experience with the species they will be caring for. That may have the benefit of slowing down those with no freaking clue getting involved and actually creating poorer welfare outcomes for the animals they want to "save". T.

It is possible to run a rescue as a business that actually not only funds itself, but even makes a profit... but unfortunately, those that even attempt to do so are often vilified by those who seem to think that rescues should always be on the brink of bankruptcy (or worse) to be considered "legitimate". What I don't understand is how any business/enterprise/organisation can operate like that and still provide the service they claim to without something going pear-shaped pretty darned quickly - and in the case of rescue, to the detriment of the welfare of the animals in their care... not to mention the emotional toll it takes on carers. Unfortunately, it is those that follow the above ideology that end up giving ALL rescue a bad name by engaging in turnaround (read rehoming rates) based solely on the premise of making more room to "save" more animals... meanwhile having multiple GoFundMe campaigns going etc... and this, in turn, means that more unsuitable animals are being farmed out to the community and perpetuating the myth that ALL rescue animals are "damaged" or "broken" in some way. This model is NOT sustainable... I would hold SSR up as a good example of how a rescue should be run... and when you consider that their area of expertise is senior dogs that may have a number of medical issues that need treating before rehoming is even thought about... that is no mean feat. Major kudos to @Powerlegset al who are involved there... you guys are awesome! T.

I agree @Powerlegs... self regulation used to work reasonably well in the rescue arena, but more recently, it seems to have been taken over by proponents of the animal rights movement who believe anything with a pulse must be "saved", regardless the outcome for the animal or the people who end up with unsuitable pets. The other major issue was have is that animal welfare legislation is constantly being challenged and changed by people from that movement who have managed to get themselves elected to political office... so it's going to be an uphill battle to make sure that common sense legislative change happens, rather than legislation that is actually designed to make pet ownership so hard that we end up not owning pets at all (which is actually the agenda of the animal rights movement). T.