tdierikx

So RSPCA refused to do anything about the problems at the time they were actually reported, but now that media attention has been put on them for that oversight, they want to "do over"? Surely some evidence of what was depicted in that article would have been evident when the RSPCA raided the property and brought the overbreeding charges? It's not likely that freezers full of dead animals would all have been conveniently empty at the precise point in time of an unannounced visit by RSPCA. Public outcry at RSPCA wanting to target the whistleblower workers has damaged their reputation so badly that they are now publicly stating that any deals done with them are non-binding, and that they can still come after you at any time for "historic" breaches - especially ones that you now cannot defend due to having been put out of business. I am in no way defending the actions (or inactions for that matter) of the people who ran this particular hell-hole, but seriously RSPCA, this is just covering your proverbial in the worst possible way. RSPCA had their chance to to the job properly the first time around, but decided to take a course of action that put the defendants out of business rather than to actually pursue all charges through the courts. Why should they now be able to renege on that agreement? Shame RSPCA Tas... shame... T.

Considering that I was at the Yagoona facility recently to pick up 2 dogs from them to come into care at the privately run rescue I foster for... and had to wait while a fellow surrendered his 4 month old oodle pup... I'm calling bullsh!t here. Obviously the 12 month waitlist is reserved for animals that may not be easily rehomable if a person can walk in and surrender an oodle puppy on the spot with little problem, yes? The rescue I'm with has taken in easily 50 or so animals from RSPCA NSW in the past 6 months alone... and we have also taken in animals via AWL NSW - in fact, I'm likely getting a wee foxie and her 2 neonate pups from AWL in the next couple of days. Quite frankly, for any animal shelter to enact waitlists for animals that are urgently in need of finding alternate accommodations is simply appalling. It's rare that someone decides on the spur of the moment to surrender their pet, and usually it's in some sort of crisis situation such as having to move to somewhere that won't allow pets or similar. To then be told "come back in 12 months" is just ridiculous. So what are people reduced to doing when turned away from the only facilities they know of to find homes for their pets? They generally will have to abandon those pets... which then forces the also strained pound system to have to try to house/rehome them somehow. And take note here that pound facilities are in many cases rudimentary temporary housing for lost animals... they aren't designed for long term holding, like the facilities at RSPCA with their flash government funded kennels, vet clinic, and well staffed rehoming centres. The NSW pound system also got irretrievably broken with the enactment of the "Rehoming Bill" introduced by the Animal Justice Party in 2021 and passed into law in 2022. That Bill basically means that any physically healthy (no mention of mentally healthy mind you) animal in any NSW pound MUST be offered to at least 2 privately run rescue groups before any thought of euthanasia is considered. On paper that looks great, but in reality it's NOT working well at all, as those small rescues are now being overrun with pleas from pounds to take on any and all animals from those pounds... then add to that strain RSPCA offloading literally hundreds of animals every month to those same small rescues, and you start to see the big picture here. Ostensibly, our state government has outsourced (with NO funding - big win for government there) the entire responsibility for lost or abandoned animals in this state. Now, I'm not averse to the rescue industry being funded by government for all the hard work that's been foisted upon them, but with that funding MUST come regulation, so that animals don't just fall through the cracks and end up in worse welfare situations than they came from. Currently only rescues that register with the Office of Local Government (OLG) for certain exemptions to registration rules are made to do any reporting about the animals they take into care. Similarly only those who register as charities need to report certain statistics to the ACNC. But what of those rescues who are not registered with either authority, and thus have NO oversight of their activities? I guarantee you that not all rescues are necessarily doing the right thing by the animals in their care, and that needs to be addressed. T.

Is it mean of me to ask what the kid did to the dog to have the reaction it did? I'm also assuming that the kid may not have been supervised around the dog either. Under the recently passed laws in Qld, the dog owners could be in for a very hefty fine and/or jail time in response to the attack. And the dog has already been surrendered and euthanised, so no-one will ever know if there was an underlying issue (like pain from arthritis, etc) that might have contributed to the incident. T.

Never a wiser word said... T.

And this is just one reason that relying on AI to do stuff for us is stupid. You can be assured that the appeals are also done via AI, not an actual human - or they can't figure out how to exclude certain pages from the stupid algorithm, so they just say "computer says no"... Gonna be interesting to see how Meta reacts to the recent new legislation regarding under 16's accessing the platform here... the rumbles are already happening that you'll have to confirm your identity with actual documents/ID like passport or license... and who wants Meta adding that sort of stuff to their trove of user personal data they keep (and sell)? T.

I was 55 years old before I met a Pembroke that didn't try to bite me... massive shout out to the lovely breeder at the DogsNSW Spring Fair for having such lovely dogs that let me approach and pat them. Personally I'm not fussed on being chased, menaced, or bitten by ANY dog, large or small. Yes, the larger the dog, the greater the chance of serious injury, but that is no reason to simply ban anything that "might" cause serious injury. Education for owners of all dogs regarding raising socially acceptable canine citizens is key, not what size or breed one should have. T.

This would be a smart move... especially for the larger livestock guardian breeds, as they don't always do well in a suburban family/community environment. T.

@Spottydog0would you be comfortable with a breeder inspecting your house and yard to see if it's up to scratch for their expectations of you as a potential owner of one of their pups? Interestingly, most puppy buyers will be taken aback at the suggestion that their home be checked out, yet it is perfectly fine for them to expect to be able to inspect a breeder's premises... just sayin'... T.

Have you seen the latest "Puppy Farming Bill" put forward by the NSW Labor government? It will most probably be debated in the Legislative Council this week... https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bills/Pages/bill-details.aspx?pk=18674 Overall, it is less onerous than the AJP/Greens attempts at the issue, but it will still mean a paperwork nightmare for anyone whose dog has puppies - including those with only a couple of dogs in the back yard. It is also the first version I've seen that includes the operations of rescues (or rehoming organisations) that take in pregnant dogs or litters of pups - which I actually welcome, as all puppies should be raised under the legislated Code of Practice for breeding Dogs and Cats, regardless what source is doing the raising, don't you think? T.

A friend of mine recently had to say goodbye to her beloved ex-show Cocker... she was 17... T.

It's not necessarily a numbers thing when it comes to animal welfare issues... someone with only 2 dogs can treat them poorly too. I have actually visited a large scale breeding facility in NSW where I wouldn't have been ashamed to say I worked. Staff ratios were great, the yards, kennels and grounds were spotless, the dogs were all in great health and were people oriented, and the record keeping and care of whelping bitches and litters was spot on. The facility was a registered business with all the relevant authorities, and was subject to unannounced audits by various levels and RSPCA at any point in time. It can be done "right" at scale if one is inclined to put animal welfare first and foremost. In contrast, I have been to private residences with only 2 dogs, and wondered how they could keep their animals that way... T.

Or think it's ok to excuse bad behaviours of their dogs by saying "it's a rescue"... grrr! T.

This is particularly telling... as soon as adverse media attention falls on RSPCA for their inaction after the workers reported issues (over a number of years), they decide to try to go after those who did the reporting... shame RSPCA, shame! One does wonder why those faced with this sort of cruelty on a daily basis would continue to work there, but maybe it was the only job they could get and keep? T.

And this is why no dog should ever be left inside a vehicle... even with the air conditioning left on. When I was a vet nursing student, we had a dog brought in that had been left in a car with the air-con on, but the dog had somehow managed to bump the control on the console and switched it from cooling to heating... in summer in Sydney. We could not revive the dog. And the worst part was that the RSPCA had been alerted to the dog being in distress, but had refused to attend... and by the time the police got there soon after, the dog was already too far gone to save. The police told us to NOT engage with RSPCA if they came wanting to prosecute the owner after the fact - the police were going to do that and they were not going to do any deals for any lesser charge where the owner would get off with a slap on the wrist - he was going to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law by police. RSPCA did come to our clinic and were quite threatening to us, demanding we hand them the dog's body and all records relating to it's injuries, and we had to call the police to come and tell them to back the heck off. Fly free with the angels PD Xtra and DD Soldier... hopefully your deaths will result in much better processes to be put in place so this never happens again. T.

That is seriously messed up... are there no depths to which the RSPCA won't sink? They failed to follow up on reports of cruelty by those people for years, but now somehow those people are now liable for what happened there? T.

Jeebus! She's a bit deluded, don't you think? The dog took her bloody arm off, and then took that many bullets to stop it attacking others... after a simple knock at the door? T.

This link is what I got for the article when I looked it up on the 9News website... https://www.9news.com.au/national/brisbane-dangerous-dog-council-orders-staffy-that-killed-two-pet-cars-in-sherwood-be-euthanased/155029bc-03eb-4e2f-96e7-c081ffc8321f T.

A Parvac on entry for all dogs may have saved some of the other dogs from this fate, depending on how long they'd been there before the sick dog arrived. Parvac vaccine costs around $20 per dose. T.

No... just no... T.

Not really, as there could be other conditions that may create low testosterone or estrogen levels. T.

May I suggest AMRRIC? They do amazing work in remote areas and get no government funding... https://www.amrric.org/ T.

I agree that a dye in a surgical incision may work, but until that is suggested and then enacted across the board, an ultrasound is the least intrusive way to tell, yes? Opening up a dog and finding the surgery has already been done is much more stressful on a dog's system, and will also attract a surgical fee and post op care/meds fees. Not to mention those where shaving is needed to find a dyed scar, generally a dog is sedated/anaesthetised for surgery before the shaving is done, so will attract fees for that too. For a male that may have undescended testicles, those will show on an xray also. T.

Just worth noting that we see multiple news reports of this sort just before some level of government are looking to enact even stricter animal keeping legislation. The last time we saw a rise in dog attack news reports was just before the Queensland state government pushed through their new laws which included banning a number of dog breeds (and their crosses)... just sayin'... Other states are looking at doing similar to Queensland's new legislation... and media reporting certainly has the effect of engendering public support for such changes. Unfortunately, while we are all for stronger laws regarding who is responsible for dog attacks and the harshness of the penalties, the legislation also tends to go further than just addressing the actual issue of dog attacks - as with the Qld banning of certain breeds and their crosses, there is no actual guideline as to what constitutes the defining characteristics of breed/crosses, so a vague visual of a tan bull breed type dog can be labelled a pitbull without actually needing to prove the actual breed type, and a declaration can be made after such a vague visual observation regardless whether the dog in question has shown any aggressive behaviours or not. T.

Generally, a person that goes to the effort of getting tubal ligations or vasectomies on their dogs has also gone to the effort of microchipping and registering them, yes? And so any rescue that might end up with one of those dogs would have the info that they are desexed from either of those 2 identification methods, wouldn't you think? It would be a VERY rare occasion that it was completely unknown that a dog had had either procedure when they entered the rescue realm. T.

Jeebus! The dog ripped her arm off from below the elbow... that's a bit more than "riled up"... T.