tdierikx

OK - I spoke to another friend who is an implanter, and they still have access to enter the details of the dogs they chip directly to the database, so whatever the issue is with new owners being unable to access their pet's details is not related to that, unless vet clinics who chip dogs/cats are being slack at entering those details because they are too bloody busy with everything else they do in any given day. Most likely it's when the change of ownership information is required to be entered into the database that there is some sort of delay, but I'm pretty sure that vet clinics aren't responsible for that stage of the identification process, so whatever excuse is being given for the PetRegistry portal not working as planned is probably just made up to deflect attention from the fact that the stupid thing doesn't work because they are constantly having to change how it works every time government makes legislative changes. T.

Hey @asalI heard that there have been changes made to the NSW microchip online registry whereas licensed implanters can no longer directly input the animal's details to the chip registry in NSW via the online process? I was told that this is now supposed to only be done by local councils or vets. Is this true? As an implanter, can you still access the NSW online registry to enter details for newly chipped animals, or do you have to send paperwork or an online form off for someone else to enter those details? I was told the above during a conversation about issues with new owners not being able to register their pet via the NSW online PetRegistry portal, as there is a backlog of details having not been entered by vets or councils in a timely manner. I'm thinking that it would be stupid to remove the ability for implanters to immediately enter animal details at the time of chipping, and that the backlog most likely pertains to the change of ownership form details not being entered in a timely manner when that pet is transfered to the new owner... is that more likely the case here? T.

This is what happens when proper research into exactly what they want the database to do is not done before declaring they are building one. There are other state registries (databases) that are functioning "reasonably" well in this sector, so why couldn't they look at modelling based on one of those? It's not actually rocket science, but there are some small intricacies that need sorting out before attempting to build such a database from scratch. Quite frankly, I think that a national registry/database is needed rather than different states all doing different things in this sphere - and none of them talk to each other. T.

This is reported as coming from Randwick council. The actual figures, which took me 5 minutes to find and fact check, are... 65 attacks reported for the whole year of 2024 in Randwick LGA - and 5091 for ALL reported attacks in the whole state of NSW for the year 2024. The stats are published by quarter on the OLG website for anyone to find btw. So, 65 attacks (also broken down into attacks on humans or other animals) recorded in an LGA with 26,254 dogs microchipped as living in that LGA, doesn't seem like a massive statistic to use to claim that there seems to be a chronic issue, does it? Maybe the fact that the current fines don't actually cover the man hours spent chasing up the reports of attacks might be more to the point? The other fact that most LGA's haven't got the staff to functionally enforce the laws couldn't be an issue either, could it? Interestingly, the Randwick stats actually show a decline over the 2024 year for the number of reports made. Jan-March was 19, Apr-Jun was 18, Jul-Sep was 17, and Oct-Dec was 11... which doesn't really gel with what the article is inferring, right? As for the total NSW attack figure of 5091, when you break it down as a proportion of the total number of microchipped dogs (and this doesn't factor the numbers of non-microchipped dogs) in the state which is 3,094,312 (as at Dec 2024) - the numbers, while not great, are still a very small percentage, yes? Just remember, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics... all of which seem to be apparent in this article. Check the stats for yourself here... https://olg.nsw.gov.au/public/dogs-cats/responsible-pet-ownership/pound-and-dog-attack-statistics/ T.

If that were the case then surely the fine would have been much larger, and the dog would have been seized and euthanised, don't you think? T.

While I agree that there is no excuse for the dog attacking the little girl, the above line in the article stands out... it implies that the child's mother (or any other adult) wasn't necessarily paying close attention to her child while they were in the dog park. Honestly, children should be closely monitored in such places, don't you think? I'm not a fan of young children running around in dog parks... too many opportunities for things like this to happen if/when adults aren't closely monitoring interactions with strange dogs. That said, $300 seems a very small fine for a dog actually causing harm/injury to a person... maybe there are facts we aren't being told in this story? One would think that at the very least the dog would have been impounded while investigations into the incident were taking place? T.

Perfect summation of society today... unfortunately... T.

Seriously... after how many news articles and TV coverage of same regarding dingoes on K'gari are people going to understand that it's not a great place to be taking your kids to for a holiday? As the article states, dingoes are opportunistic hunters, and children are by nature not all that clued in about self preservation, not to mention that parents seem to have so little control of them in most scenarios. Seriously, why would you take a child to a place known for wild animal attacks? T.

The Invasive Species Council always advocate killing as many non-native species as possible, by any means - despite that approach not being successful in any way, shape, or form to date. They are strong proponents of widespread baiting, which also tends to kill non-target (read native) animals. They are not interested in any other form of population control, only killing is on the table as far as they are concerned. The aerial culling of brumbies specifically is new, but aerial culling of other species - deer, pig, fox, dingo, etc - has always been one of the "population control" methods utilised in national parks. No matter the species, it's not the most humane method, with animals not always killed outright, and terrain is too hard to get into to correct a non-kill shot, so wounded animals are left to die a slow and painful death, be that by bleeding out from, or by infection of those wounds. Despite the use of all the different lethal culling methods, we still see adverse numbers of the non-native animals in the park, so obviously that method isn't actually very effective for those species, is it? Probably because after a cull, there is no follow-up with any other control methods until numbers go up again and another mass killing is ordered. The original count offered as evidence for the need to enable aerial culling of brumbies was between 12,000 and 22,000 individual brumbies in the park. They have killed around 6,000 of them, and now state that the count is between 3000 and 4000... ummm, anyone here think that maybe the initial count may have been a bit off? Regardless, now that brumby numbers are down to the legislated target, what actions are they looking at to keep control of numbers? Now we see the Invasive Species Council petitioning to kill the rest of them... no interest in non-lethal means of control at all. Is anyone also interested to hear that the number of signatures on their current petition (11,300) is almost exactly the same as the number of pro-forma submissions (11,200 from memory) to the consultation as to whether this barbaric cull should be considered in the first place? Essentially, the Invasive Species Council stacked the consultation with thousands of identical "submissions" that they provided for their followers to use to submit to that consultation - 11,200 copies of the same single submission. This practice is usually curtailed by combining all such pro-forma submissions as a single submission, which stops such large group actions being used to sway the legislative process unfairly - but the NSW government decided that in this particular case, they were counting them all as individual submissions, as they had already decided to enable aerial culling, and they needed the "support" of those pro-forma submissions to get it happening. Anyways, as we see much support for keeping the heritage status of the brumbies in Kosciusko, they are still aerial shooting other non-native species at regular intervals with little public resistance... are not Bambi, Babe, or Basil Brush as worthy of a humane passing as a brumby? Dingoes are native animals, yet they are also targetted for culling everywhere in this country... endorsed by the Invasive Species Council... double standards much? T.

Ummm... pademelons aren't generally found high up in trees. (tongue in cheek comment there) What isn't really being mentioned is how much foliage was (or wasn't) on the trees that the koalas were spotted and shot in. If they were all virtually leaf free, then I suppose spotting koalas in them would be easier than usual. That said, triaging from a moving platform at a range of 30 metres or more via binoculars would still be an impossible task, don't you think? Also, if the fire damage in the area was so extensive as to render the trees leafless, then it also stands to reason that undergrowth would also have been removed by said fires too... which should have made on foot incursions to the area less onerous than when the area was in full vegetation, yes? So I'm calling bullsh!t on the supposed reason for deciding on aerial culling as being "too hard" to get to on foot. Pretty sure there were at least dozens, if not hundreds, of wildlife rescuers completely willing to trek in there and do the job with less totally lethal outcomes for at least some of the animals that ended up being killed - and those that did need to be euthanised would have been given some dignity in their deaths. T.

Sadly... yes it's true. T.

Not a fan of government only giving an option of filling in a survey type form. Note that they aren't giving any option to provide any other form of submission. The questions in the form/survey also require a considered and articulate response if proper change is going to result, so I suggest downloading the form and filling it out in your own time, so that answers aren't rushed (as often happens with online form responses) - most of my answers to the questions run to several paragraphs. Read the Discussion Paper before doing the form, as it gives a very clear insight as to what areas they are looking at specifically for changes, and what other sources they are looking at for recommendations for change - so maybe you might want to look up the reports from the listed inquiries to see what they recommend, and whether you agree with them. This is our chance to try to make the NSW government think long and hard about the realities of pet ownership, and not allowing them to make stupid kneejerk reaction type legislation that will only make pet ownership harder - simply based on the worst case scenarios that are usually highlighted in inquiries - worst case is NOT the norm, but is widely reported on in the media, so government feel the need to be seen to be trying to solve issues that may not necessarily be as widespread as the media will have you think. Case in point, the coroner who recommended making ownership of larger and more powerful dogs much harder, based only on his inquiry into ONE fatal attack - a fatal attack that had numerous failings from people other than the owner of the dogs in question that led to the death of a child. We have MILLIONS of pet dogs in this state, and fatal attacks, while tragic, are quite rare, so to make sweeping legislative changes/restrictions for ALL pet dog owners based on a rare occurrence is not something I'd wish to encourage. Cats are another issue that requires a multifaceted response if we are going to make effective changes. Take note that State governments are being encouraged by the Federal government's plan for managing cats, and the Federal recommendations are draconic - basically, if a roaming cat is not chipped and registered, it will be targetted for destruction under the Federal recommendations from the Cat threat abatement plan. At the very least, we will most likely see the NSW state government look to enforcing pet cat containment in some form. This is a chance to have your say about changes that may be coming... I suggest that you take the time to at least have a look at the Discussion Paper so you have some idea of what those changes might be. All that said, this is still only the first step in the process. What happens next is hopefully the NSW government will look at the responses thoroughly and propose legislation that might be workable - and then we'll have our chance to look over those actual proposed changes and again have our say before the end result is put to parliament for a vote to enact those changes. The wheels of government move slowly, so the next stage could be some months away... T.

Ummm... I find "show" Labradors are generally heavier set than some pet Labradors... just sayin'... and no offence intended here. T.

It depends on why your dog is becoming destructive. If he is suffering from some form of separation anxiety, that would require one approach, but if he's just bored, that would require a different approach. Maybe a cctv type setup might indicate what is actually going on with him while you are away? The knocking over of items and scratching at doors seems to me that he's possibly looking for you or a way out of the house, so maybe separation anxiety? If that is the case, then he needs to do activities to build up his resilience to being alone... start with very short periods, and as he masters those, extend the time you are away in small increments. Make sure he has things to do that divert his attention from chewing furniture or scratching at the doors. I have found crate training to be quite beneficial if you are only leaving the dog for shorter timeframes (say less than 4 hours), but if you are away a lot and for longer timeframes, containment to a crate might be a less attractive option for the long term wellbeing of your dog. If that is the case, then maybe a pen option could work, so that the dog is contained to one area, and you can leave him with puzzle toys, chew toys, interactive toys to exercise his mind and chewing instincts while you aren't there. T.

I did the fee calculator thing on their website, and having the RDOL didn't reduce the fee at all. The biggest reduction was desexing your dog. The lowest renewal fee I could get it to give for a desexed dog with an RDOL and a microchip was $162 - if you aren't on some form of concession or own a working dog. I reckon that an annual renewal fee of more than $100 is a bit steep - here in NSW it currently costs a $78 once off lifetime registration fee for most pet dogs, less if you are a concession holder, and $0 for service or working dogs. Note that there are people who think that one off fee is too expensive (and they can't afford it). We also require dogs to be microchipped BEFORE registration, unlike NZ that requires it AFTER. T.

A friend's husband once told me that Trouble (my Labrador) couldn't be a Labrador because she wasn't fat. I reminded him that she didn't dictate how much she ate, I did. T.

It says dogs must be registered with council by the time it is 3 months old, and microchipped within 2 months after that. Interesting. How does that work for breeders who may have pups from litters that take longer than 12 weeks to get new homes? $213 for first time registering, then annually between $48 and $213 depending on desexing status, whether the dog is of a certain category (service, etc), concession card holder... funnily enough, microchip status isn't on the list of things in the calculation for annual fees, but a responsible dog owner license is (but doesn't change the annual fee at all if you have one). The average annual fee for a pet desexed dog is $162. I'm thinking the annual registration fee is a little high. Maybe a lower annual fee might attract more renewals? I'm also a bit leery of having to register by 3 months of age, as most dogs will not necessarily be desexed by that age, and thus "justifies" the $213 initial fee. I can't find anything that says cats must be registered with council though... just that they recommend microchipping and desexing. T.

Vet visit for the dog, and get a full blood test and checkup... xray if nothing shows on the blood test. I'd also suggest that your room mate might think of getting a checkup from his GP too... a blood test also. Sometimes dogs can pick up on medical issues in humans. I used to have a Rottweiler that was very sensitive to human illness, and she went nuts at a friend one day for no reason we could see. She had known him for years and loved him, but just this one day, she barked and backed away from him like he was on fire. A week later the friend had a massive heart attack and ended up surviving after a quintuple bypass operation. The next time he visited my place, the dog was back to her usual self loving on him like normal. That said, this same Rottweiler was very protective of me if I wasn't well... so something to think about for your own health as well. T.

That article applies to SA, but other states are slowly changing their tenancy legislation to allow more pets in rentals to. Worth checking in your own state as to what the law is regarding this. T.

If the Boss takes Clive to work, does that leave you without a dog yourself? That seems a bit rough... and your bond with Clive is special too. Clive helps you in so many ways, and you'd feel "less" and/or "lost" without him. Does the Boss really need a novice dog out on a feral goat trip? If Clive doesn't work well for him, he will be more hindrance than help, yes? And feral goats are very different creatures than "tame" sheep used to being herded by dogs. Clive has the same genetic makeup as Dags, so maybe he's better used as a stud with another good working female, and his pups may end up with better instinct than him and be assets for the Boss instead? T.

As horrible that situation may be, it still doesn't necessarily mitigate the fact that the child was effectively left unsupervised in a public space (a car park no less) long enough for him to try to get into the pool area, and then actually get into the dogs' yard. In that short amount of time, he could also have been hit by a car coming or going from the motel... or worse still, taken by a stranger with evil intent. As far as the coroner's recommendations on this case go, I agree with the findings that there could be stronger containment rules for dogs housed in high public access areas... but to suggest anything more relating to general dog ownership (especially what breeds of dog we are allowed to own) is way beyond his purview based on the facts of this case. T.

In all honesty, all of the reputable cat rescues are overflowing, and have been for a long time. It's almost impossible to get any of them to even answer an enquiry - let alone a phone (if you can find a phone number for many of them). One of the lost/found Facebook groups I'm on has this list of cat rescues regularly posted as maybe being able to help with found cats, so surrenders might also be taken in... Cat Rescue 901 Maggie’s Rescue DABS Desexing & Rescue (0459 410 700 Campbelltown) Westie Cats Support Lap Warmers Cat Rescue (Western Sydney) Rescue Cat Project Urban Cat Alliance Urban Kittens SAFE Animal Rehoming (0404 753 227 Roseville) Inner City Strays Brighter Future Cat Rescue Peggy’s Promise World League for the Protection of Animals (WLPA) Firefly Animal Rescue ([email protected]) Furry Friends Forever Rescue (Sydney) The Cat Orphanage Inc (Rozelle) Tommy’s Rescue, Kittie Kat Rescue (Castle Hill, Ryde & Hills District) Hills Cat Rescue (Hills District) Best Friend Fur Ever Rescue (Wollongong, Shellharbour, Hawkesbury) Sydney Cats For Adoption and Sylvia’s cat rescue. T.

The ABC coverage of this story says that the mother of the little boy had been supervising him playing in the car park, and had just gone inside for a "few minutes" to get a drink, and that's when he wandered off and got into the yard with the dogs. CCTV footage shows him trying the pool gate, but when he couldn't open that, he went to where the dogs were and managed to get in. Ummm... wouldn't most people think that an unsupervised toddler in a car park of a motel was probably not a great parenting choice either? And a "few minutes" is enough for an active toddler to manage to get into a life threatening situation. What is telling is that the owner of the dogs was not charged with any offence, but he did surrender the dogs for euthanasia immediately after the incident. I think the Coroner is exceeding his purview in his recommendations about pet ownership as a result of this particular case... where are the recommendations about "child ownership"? If the child's parent had made a different decision about leaving her child unattended in a public place, this incident would never have occurred. Remember, the dogs were contained on private property when this happened, they did not escape and do this of their own accord. T.

Posties have a job to do, and if you want your mail to keep being delivered, then please ensure the postie has safe access to do that. Councils also need to step up in this area, as quite frankly, they are not doing that right now. Complaints about free roaming dogs are often met with total inaction. We have laws about free roaming pets, but if they aren't being policed effectively, then incidents will only keep happening with increasing frequency. I'm all for posties boycotting houses where a dog is not effectively contained to prevent injury to passers by... and for them to bombard local councils with complaints about properties (and pets) that cause problems for them to do their job. Complaints from posties should also be prioritised for immediate action. T.

Am I reading correctly that the dog owner had not only a secure enclosure he kept the dogs in, but a fenced and gated yard that he exercised them in also? And that the child in question had managed to enter that yard while he played unsupervised? The dogs in this story were not free-roaming... but the child was. Where is the accountability for an unsupervised child? What happened here is tragic, but in all honesty, the dog owner seems to have done the right thing by containing his dogs in areas they couldn't free roam among the public. The last tenants next door to me had young children who would regularly kick their footballs over the fence into my yard. When I caught one of them attempting to climb over the 6 foot colourbond fence into my yard, I luckily stopped him before he succeeded and returned his ball to him. I then went around to the front door of their house and spoke with the parents. I told them I'd happily return any stray balls if the kids came to my front door and asked for them back, but please don't allow them to climb into my yard, as I had a large dog that might be unpredictable when faced with a stranger in her yard. As a dog owner, I am legally required to keep my dog contained effectively on my own property, and I do that. I should not be accountable for the actions of others who decide to enter my property uninvited. My dog stays in her yard, and your kids should stay in theirs. Personally, I'm sick of the total lack of accountability for those who let their children roam at will. Children are not always capable of assessing danger to themselves, and should be supervised (not unlike dogs) when out and about. Yes... larger breeds of dog are capable of inflicting horrific injury to a human body, and the smaller that body, the greater risk of that damage being fatal. Let's not forget though that ALL dogs are capable of inflicting serious damage by biting, and again, the smaller the target human, the more extensive that damage could be. A friend of mine who works in a pound had her top lip ripped off by a small maltese... she was an adult and well versed in handling fractious, frightened, and stressed impounded dogs, yet still suffered this injury... a child would have suffered much worse injuries in that scenario though. Legislation over the years has seen the opportunities for dogs to become properly socialised diminish significantly. There are already so many restrictions on where and when a dog can be out in public, and adding even more restrictions on dog ownership isn't going to make the problem any better. I'd like to see any future legislation include accountability for human action that may contribute to an attack happening. This is especially significant if the dog owner has to all intents and purposes contained their dog so that it cannot escape into a public area. If a dog is contained on private property, then uninvited or unauthorised access to that private property should be a mitigating factor in the event of an attack occurring on that private property. T.