Growing Calls to Introduce Dog Day Care ,Walking and Training Mandatory Standards in NSW. ABC News 27/10/25

[Deeds]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-27/pet-dog-day-care-walking-training-regulation-nsw/105908954

[asal]

Found that amusing, if the planned extinction is on track there will be few to none left anyway 

Market gone anyway 

[tdierikx]

Quote

some trainers still rely on force-based or fear-based techniques which can lead to anxiety, aggression and long-term behavioural problems

 

Shameless promotion of the notion that the only way to train a dog is by positive reward only methods. Not surprised that the above came from RSPCA head vet.

 

There actually have been some changes to legislation relating to dog walking - one person cannot be in charge of more than 4 dogs in NSW, and must be over the age of 16. Unfortunately this isn't necessarily being policed, as one can still find the "dog walking services" that load up their vans with more than 4 dogs, drives them to the nearest off-lead park, and lets them loose for an hour of mayhem without any proper supervision.

 

Personally, I'd like to see minimum formally recognised animal related qualifications (such as a Cert II in Animal Care and Management) as a requisite for working with animals of any description. Most reputable places of business do actually ask for such qualifications when hiring staff to look after pets, which is good to see.

 

Would anyone be surprised to know that of the list of qualifications required to be an RSPCA Inspector, formal animal related qualifications don't make the list?

 

Dog groomers should be added to the list of professions that require some sort of formal animal related qualifications too.

 

And don't get me started on the pet rescue industry... in all honesty, if you are going to be taking in animals with any number of issues that require rehabilitation before rehoming, surely some sort of animal related qualifications should be in play there?

 

T.

[asal]

8 hours ago, tdierikx said:

 

Shameless promotion of the notion that the only way to train a dog is by positive reward only methods. Not surprised that the above came from RSPCA head vet.

 

There actually have been some changes to legislation relating to dog walking - one person cannot be in charge of more than 4 dogs in NSW, and must be over the age of 16. Unfortunately this isn't necessarily being policed, as one can still find the "dog walking services" that load up their vans with more than 4 dogs, drives them to the nearest off-lead park, and lets them loose for an hour of mayhem without any proper supervision.

 

Personally, I'd like to see minimum formally recognised animal related qualifications (such as a Cert II in Animal Care and Management) as a requisite for working with animals of any description. Most reputable places of business do actually ask for such qualifications when hiring staff to look after pets, which is good to see.

 

Would anyone be surprised to know that of the list of qualifications required to be an RSPCA Inspector, formal animal related qualifications don't make the list?

 

Dog groomers should be added to the list of professions that require some sort of formal animal related qualifications too.

 

And don't get me started on the pet rescue industry... in all honesty, if you are going to be taking in animals with any number of issues that require rehabilitation before rehoming, surely some sort of animal related qualifications should be in play there?

 

T.

Yes, only positive reward has been a real winner in the schools 

[_PL_]

9 hours ago, tdierikx said:

 

And don't get me started on the pet rescue industry... in all honesty, if you are going to be taking in animals with any number of issues that require rehabilitation before rehoming, surely some sort of animal related qualifications should be in play there?

 

T.

I rely fully on Vets and those in their specialist fields.
Help with training must be NDTF at least. 

I may have learned some first aide, basic dietary, basic allergy, basic training and a very good radar for trouble signs, but I fully believe in the term 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' i.e. a shallow understanding of a subject can lead to mistakes. 

While the Animal Care qualifications are a good idea, I've seen enough to warrant scepticism about those who believe their Cert qualifications allow them to act as, or assume the roll of, or make the judgement calls of a Vet.   

[tdierikx]

I hear you there @_PL_, and I fully back and respect your years of experience as giving you a very wide knowledge base that you utilise to provide the very best care for each and every one of the precious souls you take in. I wish that were also true for so many others in our industry... *sigh*

 

I also see the rise of so many newer rescues that are caught up in the "must save them all" hype. Big hearts alone are not enough... definitely required for the "job", but not the only prerequisite... the head must also come into play to get it right, yes?

 

Personally, I have formal qualifications that give me a greater medical understanding of animal health, but that definitely does not give me permission (legally) to medicate or otherwise treat any condition that is not minor. If I suspect that an animal in my care requires medication or other professionally prescribed treatments, my medical background simply allows me to have a much deeper conversation with a vet about any condition an animal in my care has.

 

When it comes to behavioural rehabilitation, I know my limits in that field, and make sure that animals in my care are either seen by a professionally qualified trainer, or moved to another foster home where the carer has much more experience and a proven track record in rectifying any behaviours I cannot address in my own capacity.

 

Paper qualifications alone aren't the be all and end all to what is required to do the very best for the animals in our care, but surely some basic understanding about animal health and welfare is better than none? Knowledge gained from many years of experience should definitely be in play too, as learning shouldn't stop once you gain a certificate.

 

Like yourself, I've been involved in rescue for many years, and have many more formal qualifications than most, but I'm still learning something new at regular intervals... constant updating of our own knowledge is paramount, yes? I think where we both are concerned, we had exceptional mentors when we first started out in rescue, didn't we?

 

T.

[_PL_]

I can't argue really (and don't want to as you offer a reasonable idea, but we're on different pages) I'm just so tired of seeing cowboys. 

 

Yes, learning new things is ideal. And yes, if you think you know everything there is to know, you become stagnant and of no benefit to the animals in your care.

 

Of course, if it becomes regulation, I'll simply have to sort TAFE to get my Certs somehow. 
No problem with complying except that distance and practical placements and fees (nearly $5000 even online, no idea where that will come from) aren't currently realistic for me. More training, funding and infrastructure will be needed before a blanket formal education requirement is enacted.   

[DogsAndTheMob]

I would hope that those with longtime experience could be grandfathered in, both for rescue and for the traditional boarding kennels. I know people with a lifelong interest in dogs combined with decades of experience in providing quality care, which surely outweighs a six month online course. If they drop out of the industry because of onerous new requirements, then that is likely to exacerbate the strain on over-stretched rescue and the lack of access to boarding facilities, particularly in country areas and/or during holidays.

Edited Wednesday at 02:00 AM by DogsAndTheMob

[tdierikx]

19 hours ago, _PL_ said:

Of course, if it becomes regulation, I'll simply have to sort TAFE to get my Certs somehow. 
No problem with complying except that distance and practical placements and fees (nearly $5000 even online, no idea where that will come from) aren't currently realistic for me. More training, funding and infrastructure will be needed before a blanket formal education requirement is enacted.

 

If you are not formally employed and receive any sort of government pension, the courses through TAFE are free or have a very small nominal fee under Smart & Skilled. Many courses are also free if you are over a certain age. The only course I paid full fees for was my Vet Nursing course, as I was employed at the time I did it, but I also got RPL (Recognition of Prior Learning) for a few subjects that I'd already completed when I did my other quals. For my Cert III Animal Care, I got RPL for all but 2 units, and it was free due to my age regardless. Not all campuses set a prerequisite for a practical placement either - Bankstown TAFE had no placement prerequisites for the Cert II or Cert III Animal Care courses when I did them.

 

I would hope that any proposed legislation aimed to regulate the rescue industry would have some sort of grandfathering to accredit rescues with a long term proven track record of successful rehoming without the need for demanding completion of courses. I would expect new entrants into the industry to have some sort of animal care qualification however. Regardless if they decide to include formal quals as a prerequisite to start up a rescue or not, I would expect that regulatory legislation to focus on setting certain standards of care and the keeping of appropriate records confirming same. All rescues should be held accountable somehow, so I would also push for all rescues to be on the OLG approved rehoming organisations list (in NSW), and report their outcomes annually - none of this optional joining, it should be mandatory, and it should also be auditable.

 

Did you know that rescues taking in pregnant or recently whelped dogs and pups are not subject to any of the regulatory codes of practice for breeding/whelping/raising that breeders are? Also not held to any codes of practice for boarding, which is essentially what foster carers and shelters/kennels are actually doing. When I have mums and bubs in my care, I meticulously follow the breeders code of practice and keep all appropriate records listed... many other rescues/carers don't. I have weight/growth charts, parasite control records, milestone logs, etc. Yes, it's a lot of fiddly paperwork, but I can prove that the tiny souls in my care are getting every opportunity to grow and thrive and become great canine citizens to be rehomed to their own forever families in due course. They are no less worthy of those standards than pedigreed pups are they?

 

Have no doubt, the rescue industry will be subject to regulation of some sort at some point in the not too distant future... especially as the voices are getting louder to provide rescues with government funding. Funding comes with accountability, and that means legislation/regulation that sets the standards for that accountability.

 

T.

[Mairead]

Re experience, I once read "Do they have twenty years' experience or one years' experience repeated twenty times?".