tdierikx

This from someone who fought hard to have pets allowed by default in rentals and strata situations... does she now want to say that people in apartments shouldn't have pets because space is limited? At least AWL actually visited the apartment and spoke with the owners about the situation, and will most likely follow up in a few weeks to make sure that they are still doing the right thing. According to sources, RSPCA declined to act, giving the excuse that the dog had food, water, and shelter... how would they know that any of those were sufficient if they didn't attend? Seriously, I've personally seen RSPCA act on much less serious breaches of animal welfare than this dog's situation. T.

My question is why is an 11 year old pug outside at 3:30am? Why are both pugs outside at 3:30am for that matter? No excuse for them being stolen, but concerning nonetheless. T.

I fostered a Lab/GR cross that had to have TPLO. I confined him to a large puppy pen while he recovered. He was such a good boy and coped pretty well with the confinement. During his recovery, I also took on a mum dog with her pups, and he wasn't too worried that she was free and he wasn't. She'd come and give him kisses, and even brought her pups to visit with him too. The hardest part was supporting a 31kg dog's back end going out for potty breaks... I have a few back steps we had to negotiate that was hard work until he was allowed to slowly walk up and down them himself. I definitely recommend getting a proper sling for that job. T.

The laws are only coming into full effect on Dec 1. They were updated in November 2024, and all relevant breeder organisations were fully aware of it back then... why the panic now? T.

Only the portion that goes to the State government is increasing... from 4.64 to 9.00. Actual registration fees charged by individual councils should not double because f the increase. Considering that some Victorian councils are already charging in excess of $80 per year per dog at the discounted (read desexed) rate, and anyone owning more than 2 dogs must also pay an excess animals permit fee of anywhere up to $130 annually, any council raising registration costs by more than $4.50 is taking the p!ss... @DonnaMarieefrom your posts here, you have at least 3 of your own dogs, and also foster for rescue... that must be pricey, as you'd have registration at normal rates for your own 3-4, plus an excess animals permit fee, AND a foster carer permit fee and registrations (usually around $8) for any fosters in care. That is if you live in Victoria as your profile here indicates. T.

I don't know about where you are LG, but in Sydney, nearly all of the emergency vet clinics are now owned by one corporate or another... purely profit driven, so any excuse for a markup is applied... *sigh* That said, when Zeddy decided that midnight on a Sunday was her time, I took her to ARH in Homebush and actually ended up paying a few dollars LESS than my local vet would have charged during business hours. Maybe because I was not hysterical or mumbling about cost, and after leaving the consult room with only a collar and lead, I chatted with some people with a cat with some scary neurological issues and convinced them that it would be best for them to leave her in the clinic overnight... maybe any one or more of those factors came into play when my bill was tallied up? Far different story with Pickles at VSOS in Miranda... the concerted effort to upsell when clearly she wasn't going to get better was atrocious, and they charged more than double what ARH had charged for Zeddy when they finally realised I wasn't going to capitulate to futile and expensive experiments on my clearly very poorly dog, then the next day I got an email AND a text asking me how Pickles was going after her visit... someone clearly forgot to mark her as deceased on their system... grrr! No apology when I called and informed them either. T.

Different clinic setups will have different running costs. A clinic with all the latest diagnostic equipment and multiple vets and nurses will have much higher upkeep costs than a smaller one man clinic with only an xray machine, a basic blood testing machine, and only one or two nurses. Something as basic as rent in whatever area the clinic is situated in can make a difference in what prices must be charged to cover the outlay also. I do support making it known if a clinic is part of a big chain company though, as those clinics are generally much more profit driven than a smaller one man operation. I don't think that the problem is actually so much about the costs of treating our pet... it's that expectations from owners can sometimes be unrealistic if wanting gold class service/treatment options for bargain basement prices (which may be all they can afford). For anyone who may still be confused about the realities of working in the veterinary industry, I suggest you read some of the submissions made to the 2023 NSW Inquiry into the veterinary workforce shortage... https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=2964#tab-submissions WARNING: Some of the submissions in the link above may be confronting and distressing to read. T.

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.

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.

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.

A couple of years ago (2023) Victoria held a "pet census" which was purported to be an exercise in just finding out what types of pets people had and what services they used in relation to them. The census was voluntary, and received around 30,000 responses in total... out of a state population of approximately 6.5 million (approximately 2.5 million households). The data produced/extrapolated only came from a small slice of that 30,000, coming from only around 5,000 responses that had been received as part of a targetted focus group and verified as "real" responses to the questions. Various levels of government swore blind that the pet census was designed to only get a better idea about the numbers and types of pets owned in the state, and what services were used in relation to them. Interestingly, there were some very stupid questions posed in said census, such as how many times an owner walked or had their pet fish groomed... so one could be forgiven for calling the data produced not exactly accurate or even valid. Fast forward to this year, and many Victorian councils are reviewing their domestic animal management plans (DAMPs) and what do we see starting to factor into the process... pet census data being used to further restrict pet numbers/types per household, doorknocking to check pet registrations, and other restrictive practices designed to make pet ownership harder. Very few have used the data to try to provide more services for pets that may be housed in those LGAs. Food for thought... T.

Queensland has some of the stupidest dog legislation in the country. Basically any tan or solidly built bull-breed mix can be "identified" by a council ranger as a "pitbull" and declared "dangerous" or "restricted", regardless if it has displayed any adverse behaviours or not. Moreton Bay Council is also one of the least dog-friendly councils in the country, so shouldn't be held in any level of comparison to elsewhere in Australia. It beggars belief that Moreton Bay council has registered 269 dogs as "dangerous" or "menacing". I'll bet that most of those have never had an incident recorded against them, but have been "identified" by council as restricted/banned breeds/mixes based only on physical appearance. Interestingly, the number of reported dog attacks in the Moreton Bay LGA has risen sharply since council started restricting where and when dogs could be away from their own properties, and running around "identifying" all manner of perfectly sociable dogs as "dangerous" based on colour/build alone. Is it any wonder that dogs are becoming less sociable when the restrictions imposed have reduced the opportunities for dogs to be out and about learning how to be social in the community? Quite frankly, articles like this only highlight that legislation isn't working to reduce issues, but in reality, it may actually be making the problems worse. What is actually required is a concerted effort to effectively educate pet owners about their responsibilities, and giving dogs more ways to learn and build their social skills in the community. Unfortunately, education that isn't simply whacking some words onto a buried council webpage that residents can't easily find just won't cut it. What is required is actual targetted face to face information sessions, and/or printed material letterbox drops to keep residents informed of their pet ownership responsibilities, and support for training and socialisation of dogs in order for them to safely be able to be part of the community. Unfortunately, it costs more money to do the right and required thing than it does to simply enact more restrictive legislation... *sigh* T.

I can attest to the fact that dogs in a truly heightened state aren't necessarily deterred by capsicum spray, and have seen police officers draw guns on dogs in that state... in my back yard... Some years ago , my own dogs Trouble and Zeddy, decided they were going to fight each other, and I was having difficulty separating them. Needless to say I was shouting and cursing at them while trying to grab and drag Trouble off Zeddy when she had her down. 3 police officers were attending a youth home across the road, heard my yelling, and had come over to see if they could help. They emptied 3.5 cans of capsicum spray at the 2 fighting dogs to no effect, Trouble and Zeddy were well into "the zone", and were determined to end each other. They finally separated when they were basically exhausted, and as I grabbed Zeddy to secure her in the bathroom (she was badly injured), the police officers actually drew their weapons on Trouble in case she might have turned on them. Luckily her intentions were only on doing Zeddy in, and once I'd removed Zeddy, she just sat there covered in blood, wagging her tail at the police officers as if to say "oh, we have visitors, have you got treats for me?". I have no doubts that if she'd approached them, they would have shot her. I'd say that a police officer is fully entitled to draw a weapon on a dog that has obviously just mauled someone to death. I'm not sure what focusing on that fact in this case warrants its own article, other than to elicit an indignant or negative response either towards police or the dogs in question... it just comes across as reporting salacious tidbits of this sort of case are the norm nowadays, and only ends up getting the response of people (keyboard warriors generally) calling for banning dogs of certain types/breeds, which is NOT helpful at all. T.

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.