tdierikx

If you are not formally employed and receive any sort of government pension, the courses through TAFE are free or have a very small nominal fee under Smart & Skilled. Many courses are also free if you are over a certain age. The only course I paid full fees for was my Vet Nursing course, as I was employed at the time I did it, but I also got RPL (Recognition of Prior Learning) for a few subjects that I'd already completed when I did my other quals. For my Cert III Animal Care, I got RPL for all but 2 units, and it was free due to my age regardless. Not all campuses set a prerequisite for a practical placement either - Bankstown TAFE had no placement prerequisites for the Cert II or Cert III Animal Care courses when I did them. I would hope that any proposed legislation aimed to regulate the rescue industry would have some sort of grandfathering to accredit rescues with a long term proven track record of successful rehoming without the need for demanding completion of courses. I would expect new entrants into the industry to have some sort of animal care qualification however. Regardless if they decide to include formal quals as a prerequisite to start up a rescue or not, I would expect that regulatory legislation to focus on setting certain standards of care and the keeping of appropriate records confirming same. All rescues should be held accountable somehow, so I would also push for all rescues to be on the OLG approved rehoming organisations list (in NSW), and report their outcomes annually - none of this optional joining, it should be mandatory, and it should also be auditable. Did you know that rescues taking in pregnant or recently whelped dogs and pups are not subject to any of the regulatory codes of practice for breeding/whelping/raising that breeders are? Also not held to any codes of practice for boarding, which is essentially what foster carers and shelters/kennels are actually doing. When I have mums and bubs in my care, I meticulously follow the breeders code of practice and keep all appropriate records listed... many other rescues/carers don't. I have weight/growth charts, parasite control records, milestone logs, etc. Yes, it's a lot of fiddly paperwork, but I can prove that the tiny souls in my care are getting every opportunity to grow and thrive and become great canine citizens to be rehomed to their own forever families in due course. They are no less worthy of those standards than pedigreed pups are they? Have no doubt, the rescue industry will be subject to regulation of some sort at some point in the not too distant future... especially as the voices are getting louder to provide rescues with government funding. Funding comes with accountability, and that means legislation/regulation that sets the standards for that accountability. T.

I hear you there @_PL_, and I fully back and respect your years of experience as giving you a very wide knowledge base that you utilise to provide the very best care for each and every one of the precious souls you take in. I wish that were also true for so many others in our industry... *sigh* I also see the rise of so many newer rescues that are caught up in the "must save them all" hype. Big hearts alone are not enough... definitely required for the "job", but not the only prerequisite... the head must also come into play to get it right, yes? Personally, I have formal qualifications that give me a greater medical understanding of animal health, but that definitely does not give me permission (legally) to medicate or otherwise treat any condition that is not minor. If I suspect that an animal in my care requires medication or other professionally prescribed treatments, my medical background simply allows me to have a much deeper conversation with a vet about any condition an animal in my care has. When it comes to behavioural rehabilitation, I know my limits in that field, and make sure that animals in my care are either seen by a professionally qualified trainer, or moved to another foster home where the carer has much more experience and a proven track record in rectifying any behaviours I cannot address in my own capacity. Paper qualifications alone aren't the be all and end all to what is required to do the very best for the animals in our care, but surely some basic understanding about animal health and welfare is better than none? Knowledge gained from many years of experience should definitely be in play too, as learning shouldn't stop once you gain a certificate. Like yourself, I've been involved in rescue for many years, and have many more formal qualifications than most, but I'm still learning something new at regular intervals... constant updating of our own knowledge is paramount, yes? I think where we both are concerned, we had exceptional mentors when we first started out in rescue, didn't we? T.

Shameless promotion of the notion that the only way to train a dog is by positive reward only methods. Not surprised that the above came from RSPCA head vet. There actually have been some changes to legislation relating to dog walking - one person cannot be in charge of more than 4 dogs in NSW, and must be over the age of 16. Unfortunately this isn't necessarily being policed, as one can still find the "dog walking services" that load up their vans with more than 4 dogs, drives them to the nearest off-lead park, and lets them loose for an hour of mayhem without any proper supervision. Personally, I'd like to see minimum formally recognised animal related qualifications (such as a Cert II in Animal Care and Management) as a requisite for working with animals of any description. Most reputable places of business do actually ask for such qualifications when hiring staff to look after pets, which is good to see. Would anyone be surprised to know that of the list of qualifications required to be an RSPCA Inspector, formal animal related qualifications don't make the list? Dog groomers should be added to the list of professions that require some sort of formal animal related qualifications too. And don't get me started on the pet rescue industry... in all honesty, if you are going to be taking in animals with any number of issues that require rehabilitation before rehoming, surely some sort of animal related qualifications should be in play there? T.

A couple of years ago (2023) Victoria held a "pet census" which was purported to be an exercise in just finding out what types of pets people had and what services they used in relation to them. The census was voluntary, and received around 30,000 responses in total... out of a state population of approximately 6.5 million (approximately 2.5 million households). The data produced/extrapolated only came from a small slice of that 30,000, coming from only around 5,000 responses that had been received as part of a targetted focus group and verified as "real" responses to the questions. Various levels of government swore blind that the pet census was designed to only get a better idea about the numbers and types of pets owned in the state, and what services were used in relation to them. Interestingly, there were some very stupid questions posed in said census, such as how many times an owner walked or had their pet fish groomed... so one could be forgiven for calling the data produced not exactly accurate or even valid. Fast forward to this year, and many Victorian councils are reviewing their domestic animal management plans (DAMPs) and what do we see starting to factor into the process... pet census data being used to further restrict pet numbers/types per household, doorknocking to check pet registrations, and other restrictive practices designed to make pet ownership harder. Very few have used the data to try to provide more services for pets that may be housed in those LGAs. Food for thought... T.

Queensland has some of the stupidest dog legislation in the country. Basically any tan or solidly built bull-breed mix can be "identified" by a council ranger as a "pitbull" and declared "dangerous" or "restricted", regardless if it has displayed any adverse behaviours or not. Moreton Bay Council is also one of the least dog-friendly councils in the country, so shouldn't be held in any level of comparison to elsewhere in Australia. It beggars belief that Moreton Bay council has registered 269 dogs as "dangerous" or "menacing". I'll bet that most of those have never had an incident recorded against them, but have been "identified" by council as restricted/banned breeds/mixes based only on physical appearance. Interestingly, the number of reported dog attacks in the Moreton Bay LGA has risen sharply since council started restricting where and when dogs could be away from their own properties, and running around "identifying" all manner of perfectly sociable dogs as "dangerous" based on colour/build alone. Is it any wonder that dogs are becoming less sociable when the restrictions imposed have reduced the opportunities for dogs to be out and about learning how to be social in the community? Quite frankly, articles like this only highlight that legislation isn't working to reduce issues, but in reality, it may actually be making the problems worse. What is actually required is a concerted effort to effectively educate pet owners about their responsibilities, and giving dogs more ways to learn and build their social skills in the community. Unfortunately, education that isn't simply whacking some words onto a buried council webpage that residents can't easily find just won't cut it. What is required is actual targetted face to face information sessions, and/or printed material letterbox drops to keep residents informed of their pet ownership responsibilities, and support for training and socialisation of dogs in order for them to safely be able to be part of the community. Unfortunately, it costs more money to do the right and required thing than it does to simply enact more restrictive legislation... *sigh* T.

I can attest to the fact that dogs in a truly heightened state aren't necessarily deterred by capsicum spray, and have seen police officers draw guns on dogs in that state... in my back yard... Some years ago , my own dogs Trouble and Zeddy, decided they were going to fight each other, and I was having difficulty separating them. Needless to say I was shouting and cursing at them while trying to grab and drag Trouble off Zeddy when she had her down. 3 police officers were attending a youth home across the road, heard my yelling, and had come over to see if they could help. They emptied 3.5 cans of capsicum spray at the 2 fighting dogs to no effect, Trouble and Zeddy were well into "the zone", and were determined to end each other. They finally separated when they were basically exhausted, and as I grabbed Zeddy to secure her in the bathroom (she was badly injured), the police officers actually drew their weapons on Trouble in case she might have turned on them. Luckily her intentions were only on doing Zeddy in, and once I'd removed Zeddy, she just sat there covered in blood, wagging her tail at the police officers as if to say "oh, we have visitors, have you got treats for me?". I have no doubts that if she'd approached them, they would have shot her. I'd say that a police officer is fully entitled to draw a weapon on a dog that has obviously just mauled someone to death. I'm not sure what focusing on that fact in this case warrants its own article, other than to elicit an indignant or negative response either towards police or the dogs in question... it just comes across as reporting salacious tidbits of this sort of case are the norm nowadays, and only ends up getting the response of people (keyboard warriors generally) calling for banning dogs of certain types/breeds, which is NOT helpful at all. T.

This is why we all need effective recall if we are going to exercise our dogs in an off-leash area... reactivity from other dogs or people who don't want to be rushed at during their use of the area. I am in no way defending the use of a knife to resolve whatever issue actually occurred - if the other owner's dog suffered bite wounds, then there is definitely more to this story than we are getting - but the fact remains that the owner of the 2 dogs that were stabbed was not close enough to his own dogs to control them, and had poor recall when they chose to go "greet" the other dog. His dogs have paid the price of that lack of recall pure and simple. T.

Well... the latest twist in this tale is a shocker, isn't it? T.

Update to the story... https://www.facebook.com/share/p/175BckBg4q/ T.

Without CCTV, I doubt we'll know exactly what happened... but if the article is correct about what is thought to have happened to the poor dog, I hope the perpetrator(s) suffer a similar fate. Many years ago, my now ex decided to take my Rotti Woosie for a walk up to the bakery to get some cinnamon donuts to have for breakfast. The silly fellow hooked her lead to an A-frame sign outside the shop as he went in to get the donuts, and she moved and the A-frame made a scraping noise which scared her. She decided to hightail it home in fright, A-frame sign still attached, with the ex tearing off after her trying to get her to stop... no chance, she was heading home to mummy to save her, and arrived home with the sign still attached. Guess who got all the donuts that morning, as the ex had to take the sign back to the shop and apologise... I'm hoping that maybe the dog in the article wasn't actually set upon by anyone, but instead possibly got spooked and maybe hurt itself trying to get away. It's not beyond the realms of possibility. T.

Losing a loved companion can be one of the hardest things you will go through short of losing a human family member. It needs to be acknowledged and grieved in whatever way helps you deal with the intense emotions that linger after they have gone. My father passed earlier this year at the ripe old age of 89. He had suffered with Parkinson's for the past 10 years, and in all reality, his passing was a blessing and a relief knowing that he wasn't suffering or losing any more dignity. I have actually dealt with his passing much better than when my heart dog passed in 2004. I actually still feel the intense loss of that dog in a way that many people cannot understand, and still cry about her not being here to this day. I'm actually crying about her as I type this. All that said, we also need to remember that we aren't the only people affected by the passing of our furry mates. For many of us, our pets haven't just passed peacefully in their sleep, they have been helped by an amazing team of caring people at the vet clinic. While we may be going through one of our own most traumatic events, they may have had to help a number of ailing pets go for their final sleep that very same day. Think of the toll that is taking on those caring and compassionate people who have been so supportive of you through your experience, regardless how hard it hits them each time they have to do it. When I did my Cert IV in Vet Nursing, we actually had to do an assignment on grief at losing a pet, but it was solely focused on owner grief, and did not even recognise staff grief or compassion overload when dealing with such emotive procedures multiple times in any given day. Our teacher for that subject actually did try to address that aspect in class, but she broke down and had to leave the room to recompose herself for about 30 minutes... just think if this is how someone who hasn't practised in a clinic setting for years still feels about that, what effect do you think it's having on those still in the field? Luckily, in the clinic I was at, the staff were VERY supportive of each other in these matters, which made it less stressful at the time, but the truth is that I'm still scarred by my experiences. I've had massive tattooed biker dudes collapse sobbing into my arms after their furry mates have passed, and various other levels of emotional collapse from many other owners. In some ways, the owner grief is actually harder to deal with then the peaceful passing of a pet, as we understand why that pet has to pass, but still death is not an easy thing to deal with for most people no matter how far "removed" from the core feelings one thinks a person may be. All I can say is hug your vet and the nurses that look after your pets. Let them know that you truly appreciate everything they are trying to do for your pet and you. It may literally be the one thing that stops them walking away from the profession... or worse. T.

Back in the days I was with NSWAR, we had a litter come to us with massive worm burden... roundworm AND hookworm. We had to worm them, there was no question about that, but they all died as the hookworms literally dug their way out through their stomachs. It was probably the most horrific thing I'd ever seen at the time. Ever since, I've been VERY stringent with the 2,4,6,8 worming schedule for any litter that comes into my care - and mums that come to me with babies also get done monthly until the pups have left her. Not long ago, we had a mum and 2 bubs come to us from RSPCA - the pups had been born in their care, and were a month old when we got them. Mum dog had a roundworm burden, which had actually been noted by RSPCA 2 weeks prior in a vet checkup there, but there were no notes on it ever being treated. I dosed her and the pups immediately and that fixed the problem. Don't know why they weren't treated at RSPCA, as they'd C5 vaccinated mum AND the 4 week old pups before giving them to us, so why not worming as well? Who vaccinates 4 week old pups by the way? T.

I'd probably get the x-ray done, but make it clear that depending on the result, you are wanting to take a conservative approach with any treatment, as you have noticed an improvement with rest. Have they given you any pain relief for her in the meantime? If so, that may be working to mask some symptoms. Better to know what you may be dealing with if her cruciate has become unstable, or she's got arthritis. An unstable cruciate can be managed with rest and pain relief whenever it flares up, just like arthritis - surgery should only be considered if the cruciate is fully ruptured and unlikely to heal on it's own. T.

In my experience after raising literally hundreds of rescue puppies over the years, I've only had one puppy die on me after being treated for worms. That most likely happened because he was already quite sick from the massive worm burden he had, and his little body just couldn't cope with the treatment, but if left untreated, the worm burden would have killed him anyways. It was worth trying to treat him in any case, and his 2 siblings who also had heavy worm burdens both survived the same treatment and lived long happy lives. I'm with @_PL_in recommending the Drontal puppy liquid for small puppies, as it is gentler on the stomach than the tablet form. For older puppies (12 weeks to 6 months), I prefer Fenpral or Popantel branded allwormer tablets, as they are gentler on the stomach than Drontal tablets. Dogs over 6 months old seem to handle Drontal tablets much better than small puppies. I wouldn't treat pups under 12 weeks for heartworm, and it's not really required until they are at least 6 months old anyways. Some vets will want to start heartworm treatment at 12 weeks, but my advice is to do the monthly treatment for heartworm until your dog is at least 12 months old, and then investigate whether the annual heartworm vaccination is better for your lifestyle, OK? Another thing to be mindful of is vaccinations and worming should not really be done on the same day in pups under 12 weeks old. I usually worm them the day before or after they get their vaccination. Vets will usually tell you it makes no difference, but my experience has proven that my foster pups are less likely to have adverse effects from either treatment if done separately, and if there are side effects, you will know which treatment caused it. As for vaccinations, I usually only give small pups (under 12 weeks) a C3 vaccine, and over 12 weeks are usually fine to get the C5 that vets prefer to give. As you really shouldn't be taking your pup out and about much before their vaccine schedule has been completed, the chances of them contracting Kennel Cough (C5 vaccine adds 2 strains of KC resistance on top of the C3 component) is low. Puppies MUST have at least 3 doses of the C3 vaccine within their first 16 weeks to ensure immunity from the most deadly 3 diseases dogs can get, OK? T.

The brindle/white one was definitely targetting the smaller child, and was trying to drag her off. The tan one seemed to just be caught up in the excitement of the squealing, but seemed happy to go look to other people for attention. I agree that they should not have been roaming off lead... especially if that easily aroused to action of this type. T.

Unfortunately, with all the legislation that keeps being introduced, dogs are being allowed in less and less public spaces - often the dog park is the only space where they can get a good long run. Unfortunately the restrictions on where dogs can go mean that opportunities to socialise them properly with other animals and people are becoming scarce, so is it no wonder we are seeing a rise in incidents of adverse behaviours? T.

I wonder what the survival rate for pups is? Although 6 pups looks about the average litter size for a Husky... Those pups looked well fed and strong. Those conditions would make the animal rights mobs go nuts... tethered adults, neonate pups in a divot in the elements... nature doing nature's best and surviving and thriving to boot. T.

In NSW, Victoria, and now WA, the AJP have sitting members in the legislative council... and trust me, they are plenty busy trying to slip in cray cray amendments to animal welfare legislation. You can thank Emma Hurst (and to a lesser extent Abigail Boyd from the Greens) for pounds now offloading as many animals as they can onto private rescues in NSW, with their stupid Rehoming Bill in 2022 - effectively outsourcing government responsibility to the rescue sector for no payment. It passed because it didn't cost the government any money, not because it was sound legislation. I've just spent the last 2 days going through Victorian council websites to compare their cat/dog registration fees and excess animal keeping permits... and let's just say I'm never moving to Victoria and owning any pets there... legislation changes have made owning pets there fekking convoluted to say the least... and it's about to get even worse! As for nutty old women... definitely not! Without us, the whole system would go to heck... T.

For an area of some 183,000km squared, and only 742 residents, one wonders how they managed to let the stray dog situation get so out of hand... T.

The money might be better spent just having rangers round up the strays like they are supposed to. Wiluna Shire is massive in land area, but has a total human population of around 742 - most of those are in Wiluna township. One needs to wonder how they managed to get such a large population of stray dogs, to the point where their council starts making these sorts of decisions. Interestingly, Wiluna LGA has 7 elected councillors, but obviously can't afford enough rangers to police local laws effectively. Their website says that council employs 12 (FTE) staff in total. T.

Without regulation and accountability, the dodgy rescues will continue to give the great ones a bad reputation. 100% sure that no rescue want's to be saddled with extra paperwork, but if they don't have decent record keeping already, then dog help us all. As for policing... as long as government outsources that task to 3rd party charities, that aspect will always be an issue when it comes to animal welfare legislation Recently. the NSW government enacted legislation to make those charities much more accountable for their actions in return for increased funding, and one particular charity has been pushing back quite strongly because they wanted even more money than they were given. Note that the money they were given by government the last financial year to do that job was around 20 times what they'd regularly been given to do the job in years past... go figure! Also note that same charity doubling the number of inspectors on the ground also didn't lead to any noticeable increase in complaint investigations or prosecutions, and you might wonder whether they are worth any more money to do the job... Methinks it's time that government ran the enforcement themselves if it's going to cost them the kind of money that certain charity is demanding as an annual stipend ($25 million). T.

This is a major issue with many rescues... the cost of doing what they do is often overlooked as they rarely recoup costs expended with the adoption fees they charge. My opinion is that the entire rescue industry needs to be regulated by law, and in doing so, those rescues may be able to access government funding to do their work. Regardless, rescues also need to be mindful that they are actually running a business, and to run a business at a constant loss is not a great model for continued success. Most vets I know don't allow rescues to have an account unless or until they can prove that they pay their bills in full and on time. Rescues that don't pay soon get blacklisted as word gets around the vet clinics about rogue operators. Most vets will give rescues discounted rates for their services, often making no profit at all from those services to rescue, so there should be no excuse for non-payment - vets still need to cover their own basic costs just like any other business. T.

@asal- the fee is as for a desexed dog up until 6 months of age, when an additional one off fee can be charged if the dog isn't desexed by then - or a vet certificate exempting desexing until a later date (or never) is provided. For cats the additional fee is an annual expense if the cat hasn't been desexed from 4 months of age. Interestingly many suburban vets won't desex cats until they are over 4 months of age so that kind of messes up that one... *sigh* Theoretically, if you never desex your dog, the maximum registration fees you will pay are $80 + $189 (both once) = $269 If you don't desex your cat, you'll pay $70 once and then an annual $99 extra until you show proof your cat is desexed. The additional undesexed fees do not have any pensioner rebate either, which severely disadvantages low income people as they may have difficulty finding the funds to desex their pets, and then to pay the excess (especially for cats) registration fees. As for pet number limits, those should never be a mandatory globally encompassing rule, but might be set to enable welfare compliance efforts if an issue arises that council has to get involved in, which it seems is the intent with the Eurobodalla local laws, as the limits have actually been listed in those local laws since 2022, but not enforced globally, as most residents don't seem to be aware of them actually being in place. T.

Interestingly... the suggested animal number caps have been in force in Eurobodalla Shire since August 2022, and the ONLY change in this review and consequent draft document is the inclusion of a night time cat curfew... I'm assuming the Local Orders have been working fine and as intended since 2022, as those residents with more animals than suggested don't seem to have been affected and have only just now realised that the limits are there. The document also clearly states that the limits will only be imposed if council officers deem a welfare or amenity issue to be present, it also states that generally the limits do not actually apply, but have been added to allow compliance orders to be imposed when a problem arises. I wonder if cat owning residents are aware that they will now be compelled to keep their cats indoors at night if this review is passed and comes into effect? No mention of it in the article. T.

Victorian councils have been doing this for years now, and the end result has generally been a significant drop in the numbers of pets registered with council. If you want to own more pets than the limits set, you also then have to apply for a permit to have more, which also comes with a fee. In Victoria's case, that has led to a significant drop in revenue from those registrations and permits, as pet owners try to avoid all those extra costs. Victoria charges annual registration fees for pets which are generally around $70 for a desexed pet - but the registration fees are set by each council, so could be more or less than that depending on where you live in Victoria. NSW has a one-off lifetime registration system which charges $80 for a desexed dog, and $70 for a desexed cat. Both states charge around 50% of the registration fee to pensioners. As part of my role at Animal Care Australia, I regularly contribute to submissions regarding consultation on such Domestic Animal Management Plans (DAMPs) across the country, and it's eye-opening stuff sometimes as to how far removed from reality the authors are. Funnily enough all the Victorian councils are very concerned about why there has been a steady year-on-year drop in the number of pets registered... and one is wanting to run a 2 year study into why before possibly doing anything about it... ummm, the answer is glaringly obvious as noted above, don't you think? Personally, I think that the annual fee is set too high. If they dropped those annual fees to maybe half of what they are now, then there may be better uptake, and as it's an annual fee, it still gets council some revenue to go towards animal management on a regular basis. Many Victorian councils don't have dedicated animal management staff either, their officers are tasked with all local laws enforcement and don't seem to specialise in any one of those areas. Charging such high annual registration fees and then not channelling those funds into dedicated (and trained) staff for the management of animal matters is ridiculous. Each Victorian council pays the State $4.10 for each animal registration fee they collect, so charging $70 or more each year is reaping some significant revenue for each council - if they can keep residents paying it of course. As noted in the article, the actual number of pets is not a driving factor into what constitutes an animal welfare concern - a single pet can be poorly cared for, just as multiple pets can be very well cared for - it comes down to the person who owns or cares for them, not how many they have. T.