tdierikx

Isn't it incredible how many people are simply not aware that we don't have any right of free speech in Australia? The USA is the only country that has it written into their constitution... no other country has that right bestowed upon all. T.

It most likely plays into AJP's agenda for RSPCA to continue as they are... but there may yet be another inquiry into them in NSW instigated soon by the new state government. T.

To be honest, I wouldn't want Mark Aldridge anywhere near an RSPCA case acting for the defendant... he's a liability and a publicity seeker at best. Yes, the RSPCA in all states needs to be looked into very closely by each state government, and at the very least have prosecutorial powers removed from the "service" they provide at the behest of those governments - as was done in WA. The biggest problem with getting any changes made to how the RSPCA operates is the reluctance of those who have felt their full force to make any on record statements about how they were treated, as RSPCA are definitely not above enacting reprisals on those who speak publicly in any negative way about them. No-one who has been targetted by RSPCA want them coming around again... T.

A week with me will have the biting thing sorted... *grin* I must say though, when I was working in rescue, the Cavaliers were the hardest to toilet train if they didn't already have some sort of instinct going on... but a 10 week old pup should be relatively easy to toilet train if the owner is on the ball and realises when the pup is nearly ready to go and takes the pup outside. I'd be getting a crate and moving pup into the bedroom for sleeping/overnights, so she feels more like a part of the family, and may have some effect of her behaviours too. The crate being a relatively confined space may slow down pup's toiletting issues also... the bathroom is large enough for pup to pee/poop further away from the sleeping area, so isn't inhibiting or teaching to hold (or alerting she needs to go). T.

Jeebus Pudden! You gotta use BOTH brain cells sometimes you silly duffer! It's not good to scare the female human like that! Good boy Clive! Letting the Boss know that there was a situation that could be scary for the female human was a smart move... extra ice-cream for you methinks! T.

Probably the most evenly balanced article on the subject that I've seen to date... it appears to be well researched and is not holding back on the less tasteful reasons for surrender, nor negating the fact that there were a lot of animals bought during lockdowns which are now "extraneous to requirements", but have been poorly socialised, and are now somewhat harder to rehome due to rehabilitation needs relating to that lack of socialisation. As for the rental crisis, a friend of mine recently found herself looking for a rental. She has 3 horses (had to also find a new agistment for them), 2 dogs, a cat, multiple pet/show rats, a rabbit, some chickens, and she runs a small mammal boarding business (rabbits/rats/ferrets etc). It took her approximately 2 weeks to find something suitable and affordable for her needs, and it's not some run-down shack situation either. She is on a 3/4 acre block in a 3 bedroom house that is in lovely condition... for $400/week... bargain!! She is in the NW area of Sydney in a semi-rural area, but is close enough to all the modern requirements of city living, and not too far from the freeways to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time with little real fuss. Methinks the rental crisis applies mostly to the more urban areas if my friend's experience is anything to go by... T.

@PowerlegsI am certainly not against rescue when it's done well - like yours is. I AM against the cowboys who have fallen for the animal rights mantra of "adopt, don't shop" and "no dogs should be bred while there are still dogs in shelters"... and the "rescue" groups who think that rescue is simply about how many animals they can rehome, rather than how well they can rehome them. I firmly believe that we should be able to choose from a variety of sources when we are looking to add a pet to our lives - registered breeders more often provide some assurance that the pup will grow up with certain traits that one may want in their new companion, and that should not be discounted just because some other people may have made poor choices when getting a pup, then find that pup has grown into something they really didn't think it would (ie. the majority of animals in pounds). I personally prefer to get a dog as a pup, as that allows me more scope to shape them into exactly what I want/need in a companion - and if that pup is from a breeder that factors temperament into the equation when breeding, I am assured that I will have a pup that comes with at least the genetic predisposition of certain temperament traits that I can work with and end up with a dog that truly fits into my life and lifestyle. As most people here who know me will be aware, I have had pets (dogs) from pretty much every "source" over the years... pet shop, backyard bred, registered breeder, and rescue... I reckon I've earned my stripes as a responsible pet owner, as every single one of those dogs have been with me from the day I took them home all the way up to taking their last breaths in my arms with dignity and love. I have also fostered literally hundreds of rescue puppies and helped shape them in their formative stages to be the best little canine companions for their new families. I think I've "earned" the "right" to choose exactly where I get my next companion from, yes? I fully support responsible rescues AND responsible breeders... they are not necessarily mutually exclusive with regards to what each offers as a choice for a sound family pet. T.

Quite frankly, if money changes hands when getting a pet - cat, dog, horse, rabbit, etc - you are buying (shopping) that animal. That applies to animals from breeders, pounds, or rescues. The word "adoption" traditionally means taking in a human child that was unable to be raised by it's birth parents for whatever reason. I am an adoptee, and have always felt that applying the word to animals is misleading and not quite "right". Applying the word to animals feels like a cheapening of what my parents did to bring me into their family and to raise and love me completely unconditionally regardless of my birth origins. The word "adoption" completely anthropomorphises the human/pet relationship, which is exactly what the animal rights agenda wants, and is trading on to further their goal of removing our ability to own animals. The more we relate to animals as surrogate humans, the more the animal rights extremists push to change legislation to change the status of our pets to surrogate humans, with all the rights that entails... and removal of "ownership" status is high on their list. T.

It doesn't help that most councils have some stupid clause in their rules that require members of the public to contain strays before rangers will come pick them up @Little Gifts - at least that's how it seems to work here in Sydney. It's very rare that you'll convince a ranger to come out and catch a stray wandering dog nowadays... apparently it's some OHS thing... *sigh*... so it's OK for a member of the public to possibly endanger themselves or their pets (by containing strays on their own properties), but dog forbid someone who is supposedly trained in, and being paid for, handling animals should be doing the same. The case of the meter reader was a bit different though. The dogs on that property were known to be dangerous, and were supposed to be locked behind some barrier when the owners had been notified that their meter was to be read. There are conflicting stories as to whether the owners had been notified that the reader guy was going to attend that day, or that the meter reader had been informed that the dogs had been contained. The main cause of that incident was a communication issue and/or complacency that all prior arrangements had been completed before the reader attended the property. As for education about animal owner responsibilities, it seems that all parties that could or should be performing that function are having difficulties in actually following through with delivery. Councils (and RSPCA) will point to their websites as containing that information, but it will not always be very easy to find... and let's not get into how bloody hard it is to find the actual local by-laws regarding animals on any council websites... trust me, I have tried as part of my duties with Animal Care Australia, and it's almost as though they don't actually want you to find them... grrr! I have been through all council websites in SA (69 councils), NT (17 councils), Tasmania (27 councils), ACT (1 site), and WA (139 councils) so far, looking for and at their local by-laws regarding animals and when they are all up for review/changes. I still have to go through NSW (128 councils), Qld (77 councils), and Victoria (79 councils), but it's hard slog, and I'd love some help if anyone would like to join Animal Care Australia's STAT group. We are trying to proactively be aware of when those local laws are reviewed and monitoring for changes that may be detrimental to pet ownership getting passed through when the public aren't usually aware that any consultation process is happening regarding those local laws. Generally, every council is required to review and/or amend those local laws every 4-5 years, so if the public are blissfully unaware of when that is happening, then we end up with stupid rules being enacted that no-one is actually aware of until they are caught out by them. Same goes for state based legislation... generally the public isn't actually aware of any changes being proposed until AFTER such changes are enacted and media releases occur... and by then it's too late to have a say... The animal rights movement has a very slick and well-oiled media/"education" machine, which means that they are gaining more and more traction with regards to influencing local laws, and state/federal legislation regarding animal ownership... and I think it's time that we ALL step up and become more aware of how we can be involved in shaping animal related laws - or we are soon going to find ourselves so restricted that it's impossible to actually have animals in our lives at all. T.

I note that at no time has any government body/inquiry ever recommended education over regulation... and here we go again... T.

The video has been removed, as the OP got some unwanted comments on it... let's just say that the posturing/circling/nudging from the Rotti was enough to have a reasonable sized AmStaff looking terrified and indicating to the person taking the video that it required some assistance. the thread is here... T.

The 2 people that I spoke to in Gold Coast Council weren't in the least bit worried about the fact that the declared dog was being offered up for rehoming... even when I said that if it were rehomed over the border (from Qld into NSW), and the declared status of the dog wasn't disclosed, that it could be weeks before that little piece of info would be realised during the microchip change of owner process - meanwhile the new owners could be out and about in the community and the dog could do something to another dog or human before anyone was even aware that it was declared dangerous. What eventually did get their attention was when I repeated that the dog was regularly being removed from the owner's property in the hands of a third party, and that it was being allowed to participate in a doggy daycare environment without the required collar, etc... and that the "trainer" had advised that recently the dog had bitten the owner's child... since the declaration... which meant that the owners were definitely NOT abiding by the declaration order at all. I read them the info from the post here, and also gave them the "trainer's" name and phone number, and the address of his pet shop/daycare facility. They were miffed that I didn't have the dog's owner's name and address, but I told them it shouldn't be too hard to work out where a recently declared dog lived... surely the ranger that issued the declaration would remember doing so? The fact that I was calling from Sydney because I was seriously concerned about the situation was also impressed upon them... I also mentioned that I've owned and bred Rottweilers, and that the video that the "trainer" posted raised some very serious concerns by myself and others who are well acquainted with the breed. Hopefully they will follow up, and two problems will be dealt with... the owner of the dog not abiding by the terms of the declaration, and the dodgy "trainer's" operations will be investigated too... fingers crossed! T.

Reading the local laws for Bundaberg council (if you are under their jurisdiction), you can have up to 3 dogs without a permit, then require a permit to have up to 3 more - although the wording is deceptively vague on that point. I can find NO area of the local laws (or even the state laws) that specifically mention registered breeders or any exemptions that may be allowed for registered breeders. I think you may need to call council and ask to speak to someone in the animal management section to find out if registered breeders are exempt from animal number restrictions. T.

Considering my call to Gold Coast Council regarding the Rotti that "trainer" guy was trying to rehome - a declared dangerous dog, that had also recently bitten the owner's child - council basically don't check that the conditions of the order are actually upheld... and were reluctant to do so even when alerted to the fact this declared dog was regularly being removed from the owner's property without the required collar/tag, and allowed to participate in a doggy daycare situation. I finally may have managed to impart the seriousness of the situation, and they said they would go check, but I'm not holding my breath... *sigh* What's the point of more legislation when the current bloody laws aren't being enforced? Stupid politicians will claim that adding more legislation is "proof" they are "doing something", but in reality nothing will really change, except that maybe more animals will get a destruction order rather than a dangerous or menacing declaration. And even if there are more destruction orders, those will be circumvented by owners going to QCAT over and over until they get things their way... as happened recently according to a spot on The Project last night (funnily enough it was Moreton Bay Council area, who have featured in numerous stories of this type of late, and again specifically mentioned in this article). T.

It may be just me, but I reckon the cropped ears on those massive heads looks ridiculous. One could see that international judges from places where this practice is the norm would be putting those with the cropped ears up ahead of the uncropped though... it's what they are used to judging as the standard. I remember dropping by the local pound to photograph the poundies for rescue, and they had a seized female pittie and 2 pups who had been recently ear cropped... unfortunately, as they were restricted dogs, they all were subject to a destruction order. I can remember the fresh wounds on those pups' ears, and that they were the sweetest little things, sadly with lives cut short because of their idiotic owner. No... I did not take any photos of those 3 dogs. T.

Amen to that! T.

I think you just answered your own question there LMO... *grin* But I respectfully disagree that other species are anything like humans in the way they process the world around them... based on my own (and observing others) interactions with many more species than just dogs or cats. Yes... animals ARE sentient and experience feelings - just in a different way from us - but for us to be projecting our own human thoughts and feelings onto them is just a recipe for disaster in the long run. We need to allow different species to be exactly what they were born to be, and if that includes interacting with us, then we need to be mindful of not only the similarities we share, but the differences too. T.

Generally speaking, dogs tend to live in the moment and don't necessarily reflect on past experiences like we humans do... so it's more likely that this little dog has had quite a struggle after being removed from his mum and/or littermates to a home where he's the only dog. Being a chihuahua puppy, he's freaking TINY, so just imagine what the world actually looks like to him, and give him the space to be himself and to learn to navigate his environment so that he feels safe within it. I'm bemused by the advice that your husband isn't to try to interact with the pup... seriously? Do you and your husband ever share the couch or bed of an evening and watch TV? If so, pup can be on your lap and hubby can be quietly sitting next to you... so pup learns that the big man thing isn't actually as scary as he thinks. I'm not a fan of medicating young (read still maturing) dogs so early in the piece either, but if your little one truly does have an anxious temperament, then medication may help... but he will still need a quiet and non-stressful haven to retreat to when things get overwhelming - does he have a covered crate (den) that he can go to when he wants to be alone? Just some basic suggestions there, forgive me if they have all been tried and failed. T.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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