tdierikx

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.

Considering that amendments to various animal welfare based legislation over the time AJP has had a representative member in the NSW Legislative Council have directly helped to create the issues we are seeing with pets in general, I don't think that anything she has to say should be taken as any sort of authority. This same AJP member recently chaired the NSW inquiry into cat management, which produced a report NOT advocating keeping pet cats contained to their owners' properties - which not only means that they are free to predate on our native wildlife, but the cats themselves are exposed to the myriad dangers of life roaming the landscape (in urban ares, this leads to more cat deaths by misadventure than should be tolerated or normalised). Multiple amendments to companion animal welfare legislation initiated by AJP and the Greens has also severely limited pet dogs' exposure to and socialisation with other people and animals by imposing strict limits on where and when dogs can be out and about in public spaces. In what world is that going to make them more sociable? Add that to the requirement that any physically healthy dog or cat in a NSW pound must be farmed out to private rescue for rehoming, meaning that rescues are becoming overrun with animals that require substantial behavioural rehabilitation before they can be rehomed, and in some cases where dodgy rescues are rehoming unsuitable dogs into the community in order to make room to take in more unclaimed pound dogs. The excuse "it's a rescue" is NO excuse for antisocial behaviour, no matter the breed or size of dog. All that said, pet ownership is a privilege, not a right. If you get a pet, you have certain responsibilities with regard to that pet and the community you live in. If you are unable to meet those responsibilities, then maybe you just shouldn't get a pet. T.

Pretty sure that any vet looking at that nail will want to remove the entire nail surgically under an anaesthetic, which will result in him requiring the foot to be bandaged and protected while the new nail grows in, including regular bandage changes and vet revisits to check healing. I had a Rotti boy who'd do the same thing on a regular basis (clumsy boy) - he was also anxious, but only when confined in small spaces, so I used to have to be with him for his pre-anaesthetic, and post surgical recovery, before taking him home once he could stand... so he never had to go in the vet cages. You might be able to get a vet to make a housecall if that would be more comfortable for your boy - how is he with visitors? The vet could bring injectible sedation if that would make it easier to look at and possibly treat the issue at home, maybe a dremel might allow better access and drainage of the split while the rest of the nail grows out. Good luck... T.

As part of my involvement with Animal Care Australia, I regularly assist in our submissions relating to animal welfare policies and legislation Australia-wide. Currently looking at the draft Domestic Animal Management Plan (DAMP) for Wellington Shire Council in Victoria - https://your.wellington.vic.gov.au/domestic-animal-management-plan-review - and came across this interesting tidbit... Heads up to any of our breeder members here who might be targeted for council visits (or worse) if you live in that shire and advertise any of your pups on this site. T.

Vaccinations might cost a bit, but treatment for Parvo (or even euthanasia) is much more expensive... Maybe vets could be more active in advising that there is a vaccination for Parvo alone if owners are too cash strapped to go the full C3 or C5 vaccinations - at least they'd be covered for the more prevalent of the 3 killer diseases in dogs. Distemper and Hepatitis are around, but definitely much rarer in domestic dogs that don't come into contact with wild animals or their scat. T.

The footage shown is disturbing for sure. What stands out is that it looks like the owners of the dogs in question are there and trying to help get them away from the target, but the lack of leads and collars is making that difficult. At no stage do the dogs seem to be targetting any humans, and appear to be being handled by at least 2 individuals with no aggression shown. The target is solely the on-lead dog, which is clearly not impressed at being approached in an aggressive manner and is trying to retaliate. Notably, not one of the 3 off-lead dogs is of any bull breed mix visible to the eye. This sort of reporting both highlights the issues that are becoming more prevalent, but also incites negative reactions to dogs being out in public spaces - especially larger breed dogs. Dog are increasingly being restricted from more and more places other than their own homes, which in turn reduces the opportunities to socialise them to multiple scenarios and experiences. Is it any wonder that we are seeing less sociable behaviours? Legislators are all too happy to enact laws without considering the long term effects of that legislation. Also, it's far easier to legislate a ban on anything they don't like than it is to legislate anything that requires policing/enforcing. The problems we are seeing here are a result of poor legislative application - especially in the policing/enforcing of said legislation. The article highlights the lacklustre responses from police and local council officers when called to deal with an incident - time matters here, and neither enforcement agency mentioned seems willing or able to allocate resources in a timely manner when an incident occurs. What we have here is not simply a "dog problem", it's a policing resources problem. I fully agree that there is no room for antisocial dogs in public spaces, but we also need to consider the statistics here. Consider how many pet owners have larger breed dogs in relation to the number of negative interactions with larger dogs in public spaces. What is less likely to be reported (or factored into dog attack data) is the number of negative interactions with smaller breeds of dog, simply because the damage incurred is less than that of a larger dog. The data is therefore skewed to one particular premise - that is that larger breed dogs are all inherently dangerous - and can lead to knee-jerk reactionary legislation based on that skewed data. T.

I rented when I owned 5 Rottweilers... never lost a cent of my bond at any place I rented, and always got glowing reports from each agent as to how well I kept the places I lived in. I always left a place in better condition than when I'd moved into it. T.