Maddy

If they come from the water, they're going to have died in a way that would not be considered humane for other animals. Simple as that. You can get snitty about it if you want, but the fact remains that eating fish (living, breathing, feeling creatures) does not make you a vegetarian. You. Eat. Meat.

Sorry, but you are not a vegetarian. You're eating an animal that may have been suffocated to death, crushed to death under the weight of other fish, frozen to death or otherwise caught/killed in a way that would be totally unacceptable if the animal in question was cute and furry. A fish is not a vegetable. The way fish are harvested (or farmed, in the case of things like salmon) is horrendously inhumane, destructive and wasteful. And if you want to talk about environmental harm, commercial fishing is responsible for a considerable amount of it.

Huh, it's almost like you do have a thing against rescues and my point in that other thread was entirely valid. As an aside though, you don't have to be a dog rescuer to give a crap about animal welfare. Anyway, the OP got the information they needed, so they don't really have much reason to come back If they were actually interested in doing the right thing by the puppies, numerous suggestions were made and information/contacts given. Help and advice was given.

Yeeeeah.

Don't point that out to Donald Trump. All those Mexican coyotes, coming into the US and stealing the jobs of hardworking, patriotic American coyotes, it's even more reason to build a wall. @Two Best Dogs! I've often wondered if perhaps Australia doesn't have rabies (historically) because perhaps marsupials do not readily contract it? I recall reading that opossums in the US are the only mammal in North American not known to easily contract rabies, and the only difference between them and everything else is that they're marsupial. On a continent predominantly populated with marsupials, it'd make it hard for the virus to get much footing. Obviously though, with feral cats, foxes, wild dogs, rabbits, pigs, goats, camels, etcs, running around now, the potential pool of vectors has gotten a lot bigger. Perhaps big enough that natural sources (such as bats from nearby islands) may be sufficient for the virus to establish in northern Australia and then spread south. I'd like to think that being in Tasmania would make us a bit safer but honestly, given how careless so many people are even basic biosecurity (we are literally called the Apple Isle. We have many apples.You don't need to bring 5kgs of apples from NSW in your carry-on baggage, christ), I don't think it would take long for something like rabies to spread to us through tourists who feel the need to cart their dogs with them on holidays.

Given the potential economic impact of disease outbreak (especially for zoonotics), I'm honestly surprised that the rabies certificate is the only requirement for entry. Despite the fact that North America is crawling with interesting diseases anyway (yersinia pestis in prairie dogs, prions in the deer, fun!) you'd think they'd have some quarantine period, even if only two weeks or so. Australia's requirements might be more strict on paper, but enforcement seems to be very hit or miss. Not long ago, someone in the south of the state found some sort of turtle. Because of things like the Astacopsis gouldi and assorted other endangered, crunchy little creatures, turtles are banned entirely in Tasmania. Given a living creature can't be sealed up in an airtight bag for smuggling in, you'd think the sniffer dogs would have been able to detect it. But that relies on the handler getting through all the people coming off a plane, and it just doesn't happen. One handler for ~200 people is insufficient. Inadequate resources is how places like Tasmania- which should be very easy to maintain biosecurity for- are once again home to Echinococcus granulosus. Millions of dollars were spent on eradicating a terrible parasite, but underfunded biosecurity allowed it to return. Eventually, some human will get unlucky and catch themselves a case of worms in the brain or heart, and then the public will demand to know why it failed. The same public that will fight like hell to fund an AFL football team to play in Tasmania, have zero interest in supporting BT and will even purposely break containment zones for things like fruitfly, all while complaining about BT and the terrible inconvenience of being sniffed at an airport The problem, is that many people don't understand the implications of certain things getting in. And this includes rescue groups. You have rescue groups in Tasmania, bringing dogs down from the mainland, possibly carrying hydatids or strains of parvo that we don't have. Neither of those things sound that serious but the hydatids can and will kill humans. There is no malice intended (of course) but it's a lack of education. If governments put more funding in enforcing biosecurity, and also into educating the public about the risks, I'm sure the average person would comply, once they understood the reasoning behind it. And this applies to the US, too. If one or two major groups aren't doing the right thing, many smaller groups will follow, assuming it is the legitimate way of doing things. Education is the cheapest and most effective means of improving biosecurity. And let's be honest, asal's post was never really about biosecurity anyway. It was about her own issue with the RSPCA and any group she perceives to be animal rights or welfare.

I couldn't say whether or not proper vaccination/quarantine happens because I don't know the details for the groups involved. That said, given it is the law in the US that dogs be vaccinated at least for rabies, I have to assume certain requirements must be met on import? I don't see it as being much different to moving dogs around interstate within Australia- there is still the risk of undiagnosed/incubating disease, and perhaps even more so because there is virtually nothing in place for movement of dogs between states of Australia. The only real exception is Tasmania and hydatids, but even that can be lax, depending on how the dog enters the state. Distemper and parvo still exist here (distemper was diagnosed in the south of Tasmania earlier this year, from memory) and with some groups/people starting to drift away from the practice of prophylactically worming/flea treating dogs (only treating when infestation is so severe that it is immediately obvious), disease and parasites will spread locally. Poor practices are poor practices, regardless of how far the animal is travelling. One case of distemper does not confirm overall poor practices, nor does one photo of improper transport. It's no different to the photos from Storybook, they were terrible but they weren't indicative of the care provided by the average rescue group. I'll reserve judgement of individual groups and their importation/transport practices until actual evidence is brought forward.

This. My aunt is currently living/working in Kazakhstan and the situation for street dogs there is terrible. Recently, she posted pictures of two stray dogs she'd been feeding, both dogs had newborn litters in a nearby culvert. Only a few days after birth, most of those poor babies are already dead. Any survivors will face a short, brutal life on the streets. If they are impounded, they may die immediately due to horrendous care conditions and if they survive that, no one wants to own mongrel dogs, and so they will be killed anyway. In some of these countries, things like humane societies simply don't exist. For the dogs who live there, there is no possibility of salvation. If those dogs can be helped by removing them to countries where they could be rehomed, provided the proper procedures are in place, why not? Below is a photo of "Mummy", one of the strays. My aunt and some local children have been caring for these dogs as best they can, there is simply no other help available. Despite being a stray, Mummy allows humans to handle her remaining puppy and would likely make a good companion for someone. But because of people like Asal, people who hate welfare groups so vigorously that they'll go as far as to attack rescue groups, dogs like Mummy will live and die on the streets. Asal, I'm trying so hard to be tolerant of you and your issues, but this is not the first time you have purposely gone after rescue groups. You don't consider the harm you do to rescue (or to the animals they help) because you are selfishly obsessed with your own experience of the RSPCA. YOU had a bad experience, but that does not negate the immeasurable help some of these groups provide for animals.

That was pretty much the experience I had. Maybe it does work if you can get enough of it into them or have a garbage guts dog who will eat it willingly, but the taste seems to be so bad, that even a small amount mixed through peanut butter and smeared on a big slice of honey ham, it's still not palatable.

Pete Evans is crazy. Anyone who thinks feeding homemade bone broth to babies, instead of correctly balanced baby formula (in cases where breastfeeding isn't possible) should not be allowed to have care of children. End of story. And that one is probably the least of his crazy. The "evils" of big pharma sunscreen, the autism garbage, the scare campaign against fluoridated water, etc., etc., etc. Regardless of the quality- or otherwise- of the food, buying it is supporting Pete Evans in putting other peoples' health (and children) at risk. Then there's the hypocrisy of him being involved in kibble at all. Were paleolithic wolves eating those little brown nuggets? I'm fairly sure the answer to that is very obvious. According to him, humans should be eating this particular diet, based on prehistoric diets (because.. paleolithic people were super healthy before they died at the age of 30?) because that's natural and good and whatever. But dogs? Those things directly descended from wolves, that chase down and eat their prey raw? Nah, cook those little jerks up some brown nuggets. Oh, and bone broth, because dogs couldn't just eat actual bones or anything. @PANDI-GIRL No different from the Meals for Mutts owner (presumed) coming on here and chucking a tanty before getting a thread that contained criticism of their product scrubbed so clean, it was like the gestapo went through it. In either case, I saw nothing that I would have thought was legally iffy (from Troy's point of view) but I guess if someone throws enough threats around, perhaps he capitulates just for the sake of not dealing with crazy people. Understandable, really. To the person who allegedly harassed CDL about her opinion...

Obviously it would be just like most things related to animal welfare, people would have to lobby for it to happen and to get resources. If rescues don''t bother to have a voice in the conversation, organisations like the RSPCA will lobby, and small rescues will not come out better for it

It seems like what happened at Storybook would have been uncovered a lot sooner if someone was allowed to go there and just have a good look around. And you'd think.. let's say yearly inspections, wouldn't be too hard to write legislation requiring that rescue premises be inspected once a year, just to make sure everything is okay. It doesn't need to be a restrictive, cumbersome system (like legislating down to the minutiae), just basic checks to make sure everyone has adequate food, water, shelter and care, and that no one is walking around with only three and a half legs. It shouldn't be that hard to manage. And rescues should want this, because hell-holes like Storybook damage the reputation of rescue, as a whole.

It seems you* have edited your post, so who knows? *Or aliens. In all seriousness though.. claims of "unwanted attention" are pretty serious. If you're going to make a claim like that, be prepared for people to ask questions. This shady "Oh, can't name anyone, because *dundundun*" thing (which includes the business about not naming the dodgy internet diploma mill you're getting a "qualification" from. Which was weird in itself- bad enough to complain about, but won't name them in case of mysterious repercussions but also staying in the course that was bad enough to complain about? Do you see what I'm getting at here?), doesn't exactly make a lot of sense. It doesn't sound like a normal thing for someone to become the victim of "unwanted attention" over a discussion about dog food, if that attention is as serious as it was made to sound. Anyway. If someone was harassing you via PM: Step 1: Forward messages to Troy. He takes things like that seriously. Step 2: Polite reply to the question on this thread. "Oh, some person took offense at my comment regarding X and sent me an abusive private message." Step 3: Job done. If the Kibble Yakuza are after you.. well, I'm afraid you're on your own there. From reading some of what you post, it's beginning to come across as a bit.. tin foil hat. Maybe that's not the intended tone (in fact, I'm sure it's not) but when you refuse to actually answer these sort of questions, it doesn't exactly clear anything up. And stealth editing your post actually makes it look even worse.

Not wanting to sound snarky, but if you're going to claim that you're receiving "unwanted attention", you really need to be willing to back that up with some actual details, rather than posting vague, mysterious warnings and then disappearing dramatically (presumably to pack a few things for a new life on the run, barely one step ahead of Big Pet Food, who have presumably sent out the Kibble Yakuza to assassinate some random person over their opinions on dog food, on a forum) If you're not willing to actually say what the unwanted attention was, I'm going to have to assume the material-anti-locational antenna on your tin foil hat needs adjusting.

She was the founder of the group. And I'd be willing to bet money that whoever is named as the new contact for PR, is someone very close to her.