Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by tdierikx

  1. I'm not necessarily a fan of this approach - there is a very fine line between what is "truth" and what is considered a legal defence against defamation and/or libel. Also, this sort of knee-jerk reaction to a rescue making mistakes (and occasionally even the very best rescues might make a mistake) only results in public distrust of ALL rescues, which is certainly not desirable. I will go so far as to say that most rescues are set up and run with the very best intentions with regard to tackling the problem of pet animal homelessness, just that some may over-simplify what their role actually should be in that sphere. Some have a focus on how many animals they can rehome as quickly as possible, ostensibly so they can take in more animals needing help, but this approach has some rather serious flaws in the way it may be applied, and the long-term welfare outcomes for the animals rehomed. Some rescues may focus on the harder cases that may take longer to rehabilitate before they can be rehomed, but that can also lead to issues if more animals are taken in than can adequately be cared for - and possibly become "hoarding" type situations if carers become too attached to the animals in their care. There really is no "one method" approach that is 100% perfect when it comes to rescue, as each animal taken into care will have it's own individual requirements before it should be considered for rehoming to the general public. Regulation of the industry would be able to set basic codes of practice for those operating within it. Those who don't follow those codes would then be accountable for breaches of those codes in a very real sense. Regulation is the sensible option now that the industry has become such a large part of the pet animal sector. T.
  2. I would certainly prefer education over legislation, but when the only "education" getting out there is that of the bleeding heart sob stories that "all" rescue animals have some kind of issue, then I think something needs to be done legislatively to ensure that not fit for purpose animals are not being rehomed irresponsibly by well-meaning, but essentially clueless, people calling themselves "rescue". There are constant calls to ban all breeding of companion animals while our pounds and shelters are full, but the reality is that a very tiny proportion of the animals ending up with that fate are bred and homed by registered breeders - but it's those ethical and responsible breeders that become the easy target for authorities enforcing current and proposed legislation. Meanwhile the largely "underground" practice of backyard breeding carries on as normal, because apparently it's too hard to even attempt to sort that issue legislatively. As for the rescue industry, one only has to look at the OLG list of approved rescues - those who get exemptions from desexing and registration costs when taking animals from the pounds - there are only some 90-100 groups on that list, but just in Sydney alone, there are MANY more than that number operating. In order to get the OLG approval, rescues must commit to keeping a range of records about outcomes for animals in their care, and submit details about their foster carers - so those who don't bother with the approval process aren't required to keep any records at all, can have unsuitable foster homes that may be overwhelmed by having more animals foisted on them than they can appropriately care for in order to "save" as many as possible, and then there are those who are simply disguising other practices, such as hoarding and/or backyard breeding the animals they take in. In what sense of the word are those practices actually "saving" the animals in question? I'm sorry to harp on about it, but it's beyond time that the rescue industry was regulated legislatively. Those operating ethically and responsibly already will not have any issue with this concept. T. T.
  3. People looking to rescue to source a family pet need some guarantee that the animal they are receiving is suitable for the task. Making excuses for poor socialisation or reactivity and expecting someone else to take that on is just not fair on the animal, or the new family it goes to. The aim for anyone rehoming any animal from ANY background should be that it is fit for purpose... T.
  4. Let's not forget that breeders are in the same boat as rescues when it comes to adverse outcomes for animals they sell. Just as not all rescues are cowboys fixated on churning through large numbers of animals rehomed in order to classify themselves as "great", not all breeders are pumping out puppies and fixating on the dollars they can make from them. It's a bit of a minefield really, in this day and age where outrage is the standard response to any perceived "wrong". Both reputable rescues AND reputable breeders get tarred with the same brush as their disreputable (and publicised) counterparts... the big difference is that the breeding of dogs is regulated, but rescue is not... leaving the door open to even more abuses of the (unwritten) "rules" by dodgy rescues. T.
  5. I have a similar issue with dog poop on my front (unfenced) yard... and most of it is by dogs on extendable leads - I have actually watched them do it... grrr! At least the person you mention was trying to clean up his dog's mess, which is somewhat commendable... T.
  6. This situation is why the rescue industry should be formally regulated... so many new groups popping up in response to the homeless animal situation, often with big hearts, but no real clue as to the complexity of rehoming animals that may have come into care with certain issues. The mark of a good rescue is not how MANY animals they have rehomed, but how WELL those animals have been rehomed. The rescue I was with for some years previously specialised in special needs dogs. I have seen things I will never unsee, but have also had the privilege of rehabilitating "broken" dogs from many backgrounds and finding them their own perfect homes... and I have also had to make decisions about animals that simply would never be safe to rehome. Sometimes the kindest, and most responsible, thing is to release them from their demons. One thing that really irritates me is the notion that rescue dogs tend to have issues, or are scarred somehow by their past lives. Back stories told about those past lives are being used to "justify" all manner of problems with an animal, rather than concerted effort going into rectifying those issues before placing it with a new family. This needs to stop. I know that this is simply NOT the case with most dogs, and they CAN be rehabilitated in many cases, BEFORE being rehomed. Rehabilitation takes time however, and there are a lot of rescues who feel the pressure to "save more", and then fall into the trap of offloading under-prepared dogs in order to make room for more needing rescue. My last foster was with me for around 4.5 months. She came to us pregnant, so had to whelp and raise her babies before she was ready to rehome. The pups also had to be old enough and made ready for new homes themselves. Luckily, she was a beautiful natured dog who had very few issues, and she passed on those traits to her babies, who in turn grew into happy, healthy, and confident little canine citizens.... but ensuring all 5 of them were suitable to be rehomed responsibly took time. I have had my current foster for 5 weeks now, and will have him for a lot longer, as he has to lose more weight before he can have cruciate surgery to fix his knee. There will be a recovery period of a good number of weeks after he has that surgery. The rescue will not recover the costs associated with rehabilitating this boy, but he WILL be rehomed responsibly to an awesome family who will love him for the rest of his life once he is fit for the next step in his life journey. My foster boy has the most amazing temperament though, so once he's physically ready, he will rehome easily once we find the perfect home for him. The only real "issue" we have with this boy is that he's averse to eating any form of dog food, and because he requires a metabolic formulation that helps him lose weight, I have to sit on the floor and hand feed it to him while giving lots of praise until he's had his daily required amount... but I have plenty of time to sort that issue before he is ready to rehome. My hope is that once he is down to a decent weight, we can change up his diet to things he likes better, and simply work out how much of that is fed to maintain a healthy weight. T.
  7. You will need to apply to Council for a permit to breed... and that will cost you for the application AND for the annual permit IF they grant approval. New legislation was passed in December 2021 which makes it harder to breed dogs in WA. You can try, but if your dog is not pedigreed and you are not a member of any breeding association, your chances of getting approval are slim at best - and if you breed your dog without approval, the fines are quite hefty. To be really honest with you, non-pedigreed AmStaffs are over-represented already, and they can run the risk of being identified as pitbulls, which are a restricted breed in Australia... which can lead to destruction orders being made for the slightest infringement. The safest option for your girl is to be desexed and treasured as a loving member of the family. T.
  8. @Adrienne- it IS already law in WA... ALL non-breeding dogs MUST be desexed by 2 years of age... at least they've not mandated early age desexing like other states are proposing... *sigh* There is also very strict (and expensive) legislation (and currently proposed regulations) relating to those who wish to keep an entire dog - only restricted to licensed breeders (so attract a licensing fee), or to those with veterinary signed documents stating that desexing is not recommended for individual dogs. Link to the current WA legislation here... https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/law_a147325.html Link to the recently closed consultation relating to the regulations that will accompany the above legislation... https://www.dlgsc.wa.gov.au/local-government/community/cats-and-dogs/stop-puppy-farming Victoria is currently in the process of drafting their new "Animal Care and Protection" laws (note that "animal welfare" is not in the title of the proposed Act) - essentially redrafting virtually ALL animal welfare legislation from it's current state into one compendium Act. Some interesting reading here... https://engage.vic.gov.au/new-animal-welfare-act-victoria - have a read of the submissions, some are quite eye-opening, and a large number of them have been cut/pasted from an Animal Justice Party callout for followers to make submissions, complete with what to include in those submissions. This is "community expectations" at work in it's very worst form, and gives disproportionate credence to the vocal minority with regards to these matters. This whole redraft is contingent upon recognising animal sentience, but it does not specify what their interpretation of "sentience" is, as it does not define the term at all. The NSW Labor government is also looking to "reform" current animal welfare legislation into a similar compendium as Victoria, but may leave a couple of the current Acts in place (like research legislation and other single themed legislation) - and there WILL be a "stop puppy farming" element to their new legislation proposal when it finally gets released for consultation. SA has the following in it's legislation (Dog and Cat Management Regulations 2017)... ... and you can bet that other states/territories have or will propose similar desexing mandates in due course. Just a bit of light reading there... errr! T.
  9. Well... if we are worried about the restrictions to sourcing a well-bred pedigree dog (or cat) into the future, we need to be a LOT more proactive politically. There is a trend of ever-increasingly restrictive legislation being introduced all over the country which will see ALL breeding of dogs and cats heavily restricted. Those doing the right thing are already legislated to the back teeth right now, and are regularly targetted by animal welfare enforcement authorities because they are easy targets in that regard. Meanwhile the essentially underground supply of backyard bred pets is harder to police, and is actually the root of most of the issues with overflowing pounds and rescues. Governments are looking to mandate desexing of all pets not registered for breeding - and licenses will be required for EVERY breeding of ANY dog (or cat) - with those licenses being hard to get approved due to how they are being legislated. The backyard breeders will carry on as normal however, as they aren't really easy to address with legislative methods. T.
  10. 804 people surveyed... I'd hardly call that a sufficiently large representation of the whole population. 70% were from urban areas, 30% "rural" (doesn't break down further to regional/rural/remote) - the gender breakdown is male 49%, female 51%. I would like to see a further breakdown of which urban areas elicited the highest number of responses sympathetic to the purpose of the survey - as typically inner city residents are more likely to be politically active in this sense. Link to the actual survey results - includes the questions asked... https://greyhoundcoalition.com/greyhound-racing-survey/ Draw your own conclusions. T.
  11. If you look up the recall, it's not the first time this vaccine by this manufacturer has been recalled this year... another batch was recalled in Feb 2023 after some fungal infection was linked to it. T.
  12. If he had a tummy bug, surely he would be also bringing up food, and his stools would be inconsistent or soft? It could be an issue with his throat from the breathing tube that was inserted for his surgery, but again, I would think that he would be having issues with food as well as water if that were the case. Not to mention that any irritation from that procedure should be pretty much resolved by now. The only way to be completely sure as to whether he has a throat issue would be an endoscopy to have a really good look at what might be going on in there. Alternately, if it seems to be slowly getting better and it's not causing him any distress, just monitor and wait. T.
  13. They left out Sydney's Northern Beaches area, which is always a hotspot during the warmer months... *sigh* T.
  14. Very astute summation @Adrienne... so glad that you got exactly the same "vibe" from the hearing as I did. My involvement with a political lobby group (Animal Care Australia - ACA) that is trying to counter extremist animal rights groups having undue influence on animal welfare legislation sometimes has me seeing these things with a different eye to most of the general public. Be aware though that the next hearing, scheduled for December 15th, may well be stacked with witnesses sympathetic to Emma's (and Abigail's) causes. Under normal circumstances, my group would be invited to be witnesses in inquiries of this nature, but it is definitely looking very much like we won't be invited to give testimony in this particular inquiry... and if that transpires, then there is a very big question as to why that needs to be asked. ACA represents approximately 400,000 members from the whole spectrum of animal ownership - including breeders and pet owners. We were invited to participate in the vet shortage inquiry recently, and were subject to some rather nasty comment and questioning (by Abigail Boyd) relating to our submission with regards to our interactions with council pounds and their challenges with sourcing vets - all of the pounds we personally rang and asked questions of responded that most of the time they did NOT have issues sourcing vet services, with the exception of the most remote regions who don't have vet services available on a regular basis for even the general public. The fact that Abigail is now Deputy Chair of this pound inquiry which has so far seen fit to NOT invite ACA to testify is telling, wouldn't you think? Interesting to note that desexing of animals as mandatory is NOT legislated in the Companion Animals Act. The Act makes provision for reduced registration costs for desexed animals, but it is NOT mandatory. The Rehoming Amendment Bill passed last year has put an onus on desexing animals released from pounds, but it also doesn't go so far as to mandate that under law, so pounds in areas where it may be hard to source vet services have the option to rehome animals from their pounds undesexed, and generally this is actually the case for those pounds. Emma was most unimpressed with testimony from quite a few witnesses that the "over-supply problem" was NOT related to the activities of reputable registered breeders, but actually the largely unregulated and essentially underground activity of backyard breeders - considering that she has yet to put forward her new Puppy Farming Bill, this salient point would be a spanner in the works for any progress for that Bill. Of greater concern is that Labor have their own plans for rewriting the pertinent areas of animal welfare legislation in NSW - as Victoria is doing right now. The general concensus is that NSW may wait to put their legislation forward until AFTER the federal government has finalised their legislation regarding an Office of Animal Welfare and Live Exports (currently happening), so we aren't expecting anything forthcoming on that front until maybe later in 2024. This means that Labor may well thwart Emma's and Abigail's animal welfare related bills with the vision that they want their own bill(s) to be the one(s) enacted in the future. It may pay to watch the Victorian progress of their new "Animal Care and Protection" Act progress, as NSW seems to have a tendency to think that Victoria is a "leader" in this sphere of legislation... *sigh* Note the subtle change of terminology with regard to these new Acts... "Animal Welfare" has been replaced with "Animal Care and Protection"... which is telling as to the input from the animal rights movement, who have rebranded their policies as "Animal Protection" rather than "Animal Rights" (but the intent and policy stance is EXACTLY the same as it always was). T.
  15. There is some irony to the fact that the chair and deputy chair of the committee tasked with the Inquiry into NSW Pounds are the 2 major players who had legislation enacted last year that broke the system even more than it was before - Emma Hurst (AJP) and Abigail Boyd (GRNS). The inquiry had it's first hearing last Tuesday, and another is scheduled for December 15th. To say that some of the testimony was scathing regarding that recent legislation might be a bit of an understatement... lol! Most interesting was Blue Mountains Council testimony regarding RSPCA pulling out of pound services in their LGA - and elicited some very pertinent questioning of RSPCA by Emily Suvaal (ALP) later in the day, which is quite entertaining to watch. Starts at 7h 22m into the video, if you want to skip straight to that. All bar one council appearing as witnesses last Tuesday had major concerns about the Rehoming Bill that was enacted last year, and they didn't hold back on listing all the failings of it. Submissions to the Inquiry can be found here... https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=2970#tab-submissions The transcript of the day's proceedings can be found here... https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=2970#tab-hearingsandtranscripts Documents referred to by Emily Suvaal in her questions to RSPCA can be found here... https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=2970#tab-otherdocuments Video of the day's proceedings can be found here... Now we wait to see if Emma and Abigail stack the next hearing's schedule of witnesses with those sympathetic to their political agendas with regards to animal welfare (they call it "protection", which is a whole different ballgame) policy. Generally the lobby group I'm with - Animal Care Australia - would be included in these sort of hearings, as our member base covers around 400,000 pet owners. We aren't holding our breath waiting for an invite to testify in this inquiry though. I'm expecting to see a long list of rescue groups asking for government funding to help them deal with the fallout of the now irretrevably broken pound system - something that should only be accompanied with strict regulation of that industry IMHO. Personally, I'd like to see the rescue industry funded properly for the important role they play in the homeless animal issue - however, there also needs to be some set (and enforceable) guidelines set for how that is achieved - if only to stop the numbers of well-meaning carers taking on more animals than they can adequately care for and rehome responsibly. T.
  16. XL Bullies are not on our import ban list - which are essentially the breeds that QLD wants to ban. The fact that there are SFA of those actual breeds anywhere in Australia is moot. This legislation is not designed to actually be helpful to the pet owning public, just an exercise in applying more restrictive rules to attract fines, and make enforcement easier for those tasked with that role... RSPCA I'm looking at you - you can't be integral to formulating that legislation, then publicly decry it - cake and eat it anyone? T.
  17. That was actually brought up at the NSW vet inquiry - and how it affects smaller non-franchied vets. Vet science students are increasingly being taught to rely on "gold standard" diagnostic measures, such as blood testing, high-end imaging technology (CT, MRI), and are generally only prepared to work in suburban settings where access to refer clients to specialist services is high. Suburban clinics are also increasingly restricting their range of services to only traditional pet species (dogs and cats), and the basics for their medical upkeep (desexing, dentals, etc) - everything else gets referred to specialists. Unfortunately, most regional, rural, and remote vets do not have this facility available to them, so their range of skills need to be much broader. They may be needed to perform an emergency caesarian on a livestock animal one day, a working dog leg amputation the next, and any number of other issues that city animals will get sent to a specialist for. Do not underestimate the workload or amazing wealth of knowledge and skillset that a country vet needs to have just to stay in business. Back to "gold standard" diagnostics. The increasing reliance on technology to assist with diagnoses means that clinics have to have at least a blood testing machine, and x-ray machine, and if they have the money/space, even more expensive equipment that all needs to be initially bought, then constantly maintained. This all costs the clinic a lot of money, and those costs need to be covered as well as just the man hours devoted to diagnosing and treating animals. Another major issue vets are facing is their legal requirement to treat strays and wildlife regardless if an owner is identified. They must either afford pain relief and stabilise an injured animal for transfer to the authorities in charge of strays/wildlife, or euthanaise it on compassionate grounds. These services are rarely ever paid for by anyone, and cause a significant financial burden to the clinic. Those costs unfortunately need to be recouped somehow, so must be factored into costing structures for fee-paying clients. Increasingly, local government rangers will refuse to pick up an injured stray animal, instead instructing members of the public to take them to a vet themselves - which basically means that councils are then not liable for any treatment costs for those stray animals. I won't go into the latest strategies employed by WIRES regarding injured wildlife found by the public, but let's say that it is designed to make vets bear the initial costs for treating injured wildlife rather than WIRES (who have around $90 million still in the bank left over from the bushfire donations it got). I seriously urge those upset about rising vet costs to watch the videos or read the transcripts and submissions from the NSW Vet Inquiry... and urge you to pass the links on to everyone else you know. The more people who understand the issues faced, and get actively involved in addressing those issues, the better it will eventually be for everyone. T.
  18. "The reforms have been ´╗┐met with little support by the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) and the RSPCA" Ummm... the RSPCA were prominent members of the "taskforce" that put together the bloody proposal. Seems stupid to now be publicly not supporting it... double standards much? T.
  19. I firmly agree that tougher penalties should be in place for people knowingly breaching laws... but enacting blanket bans and increased penalties with little or no fact-based information indicating that it will actually contribute to resolving an issue is NOT the way to go about it. It appears that much of the consultation recommendation regarding that particular Bill has been summarily dismissed and it has now been presented to Parliament with little change to the original - as seems to be the case in Qld generally. Consultation of such matters in Qld is a farce... they rarely amend the original... so "consultation" is simply an exercise in being seen to "follow procedure". If anyone is interested, here is the submission Animal Care Australia made to that consultation phase - of which I had personal input. It may open some eyes to how the QLD government is operating with regards to animal welfare legislation in particular, and possibly other types of legislation as well. Information regarding the "taskforce" that informed the legislation proposal is especially telling. https://www.animalcareaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/QLD_Strong-dog-laws_submission.pdf T.
  20. This should also go for small single interest party members of parliament's bills... if not effectively costed showing where funds for that legislative change will come from, then the bills should be summarily rejected until those costings have been thoroughly worked out. I recently read and contributed to consultation on Regulations for the WA Stop Puppy Farming legislation - just about every section of the proposal listed "low economic impact", but was going to require many more human hours of data input and maintenance, the building from scratch a database for said information (and maintenance of same to ensure fit for purpose), and quite a bit of upskilling training for the staff tasked to do all the work... but as most of that work was going to be foisted upon local government agencies, obviously State funds were not going to be forthcoming. Do they not realise that at some point, there is going to be significant "economic impact" for those tasked with doing the work the Regs will require? Where do they think funds for all the extra staff, etc, is going to come from? Legislation is all well and good for politicians to feel like they are doing something to resolve a perceived issue, but when long term consequences and costing is not even a part of the equation, we have a significant problem, wouldn't you say? Of note, the WA regulations draft has been compiled by the current WA State government, not a small single interest party, so they should be fully cognizant of available funds - but simply abrogating the cost of enforcing State legislation to local government with no support from State government is NOT actually "low economic impact", is it? Somewhere along the line, someone is going to have to pay for it... most likely ratepayers in this case. This is your elected officials at work... *sigh* T.
  21. NSW Parliament has a current inquiry happening into the vet industry workforce shortage - and it raised many issues, including costs of treatment and why those costs are what they are. If you are interested to see the challenges facing the vet industry, have a read of the submissions here... https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=2964#tab-submissions Trigger warning: some of the submissions talk about suicide and reasons for it in the industry. Number 106 is particularly heartbreaking to read. Transcripts of the 2 hearings held can be found here... https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=2964#tab-hearingsandtranscripts Video of both hearings can be found here... Day 1, 29 August - Day 2, 30 August - It is all well and good to bemoan the cost of certain services, but when one can understand WHY those costs are what they are, then maybe a little less vitriole might be forthcoming. Of course, there will be some in any industry that might be taking advantage of the situation, but generally vet clinics are simply trying to survive just like every other business in these economic times. If overheads are not met, then those businesses will close, which only further compounds the problem, yes? Another thing to think about is a simple comparison to a human medical procedure... such as spaying/hysterectomy. Compare the cost charged for a 65-70kg female Great Dane spay to a hysterectomy for a human woman. Under the human medicare and health insurance scheme, out of pocket expenses will still be higher than what a vet charges in total for a dog spay for a similarly sized dog breed (Great Dane) - AFTER medicare and health insurance contributions have been applied - so vets really aren't price gouging in that regard, are they? Pet dentistry costs are also significantly cheaper than human dentistry costs. It's all relative. Just some food for thought here... feel free to read and be fully aware of all the contributing factors before passing final judgement on the vet industry. T.
  22. I know a vet behaviourist located near you who might be worth checking out if the current one has become reluctant to work with you... can you please PM me? T.
  23. The video footage shows the owners bringing the dog out and putting it in the Ranger's van... while the Ranger stands well away with a catch pole. The dog looks to be a large tan bull breed type, possibly a pigging "breed" type? Qld is in the middle of a push to introduce legislation to ban dogs of certain breed and mixes, so news reports like this one will only strengthen that resolve... grrr! T.
  24. What a bizarre story... very little detail except that the crime occurred between 9:30am and 10:30pm, and that only 1 of the 3 pups had been attacked? T.
  • Create New...