tdierikx

Unfortunately, because 1080 is relatively cheap and easy to disperse, the authorities are not likely to stop using it - despite it not actually being terribly effective in the long run, affects non-target species with the same efficacy, and is generally a nasty way for any animal to die. Remember, government at all levels need to be seen to be "doing something" about non-native animals in the environment... grrr! T.

Oh... and the AWAC has 11 members, but it only takes a quorum of 6 to constitute a meeting in which decisions are made. If 3 of those 6 who actually turn up to a meeting to discuss changes to legislation or COPs are animal rights advocates and/or representatives for RSPCA, you can see how changes would be slanted towards their agenda. As it stands currently, we can see summaries of all AWAC meetings, but it doesn't mention who or how many attended each meeting. Food for thought... T.

We all have to get a license to drive a car, yet still people break all the rules on a regular basis... just saying... As for the proposed code of practice itself, here's a link to the consultation page. Have a read of the summary at the bottom, don't forget to check in all 3 tabs... https://yoursayconversations.act.gov.au/welfare-dogs-act ... then read the actual proposed COP... https://hdp-au-prod-app-act-yoursay-files.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/7017/4908/3635/Draft_Code_of_Practice_for_the_Welfare_of_Dogs_in_the_ACT_A52614760.pdf When you consider that 2 of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) members are the CEO and head vet from RSPCA ACT, and another is a prominent animal rights lawyer, is it any wonder we are seeing such changes to legislation and codes of practice. In the explanatory opening paragraphs on the consultation page it explicitly states... "The draft code is underpinned by an updated animal welfare framework that recognises: animals are sentient beings who can feel and perceive the world around them animals have intrinsic value and deserve to be treated with compassion and have a quality of life that reflects their intrinsic value people have a duty to care for the physical and mental welfare of animals." and "Proposed changes include: - introducing a new animal welfare framework which recognises dogs as sentient beings who can feel and perceive the world around them" @persephoneyou may be interested in the change that forbids tethering of working dogs for longer than 2 hours also... as the proposed COP also applies to working dogs. I'm thinking that if you were subject to this COP, the Boss would have to build fancy kennel blocks at the farm to house the dogs when not working, and take temporary kennelling with him if out working on other properties, so he doesn't tether the dogs when they are not working. Interesting to note that all disease prevention stuff - vaccinations, parasite control, etc - are only mentioned as guidelines (read NOT mandatory). Microchips and registration ARE mandatory, yet the basics like vaccination or parasite control are not?? Yes, I understand that over-vaccination is a thing, but titre testing can be used to check immunity levels to ensure that doesn't occur. Note that RSPCA can do you over for your dog having a worm burden or lack of adherance to a schedule of preventative measures for same... so worth noting that the guidelines may also be used against you in a legal sense if RSPCA wants to mess you up. Then note the guidelines for feeding your dog... "G2.3 Dogs benefit from a range of foods which should contain all the proteins, fats, carbohydrates, fibre, vitamins, and minerals to maintain good health. This is most easily and safely provided by a complete commercial dog food which, if used, should include all the essential ingredients for a healthy diet and be fed according to the manufacturer’s recommendations or nutritional analysis as performed by an animal nutritionist or registered veterinarian based on metabolic needs of the dog. G2.4 Although home-prepared diets may consist of a variety of fresh food including meat, vegetables, fish, and rice or a similar carbohydrate, it is unlikely to provide complete and balanced nutrition without vitamin and mineral supplementation. Before feeding dogs a home-prepared diet, advice should be obtained from a veterinary nutritionist or a registered veterinarian. Vegetarian diets pose particular risks; therefore, registered veterinary advice is essential to ensure such a diet is complete." This inclusion basically pushes the idea that processed foods with chemical supplements are the "best" diet for your dog, and beware if you choose to feed them anything else. The last bit about vegetarian diets must have been hard fought against the vegan animal rights input - as they would argue that simply adding chemical supplements to "make up" the shortfalls should be ok... note: they are NOT. I suggest that everyone read the proposed COP, as if it passes in the ACT, other states will follow suit... T.

Interesting concept... but very hard to police it methinks. How in dog's name are the authorities going to enforce that rule? I'd think it would be impossible to prove one way or the other unless there was 24/7 surveillance in place. Yet another example of the animal rights mobs dictating legislation (or in this case, codes of practice) without any thought as to how such stupid edicts will be policed. T.

Funny that the payslip with the minimum wage hourly rate says "Animal Attendant"... which is fancy talk for kennel hand... *grin* T.

I worked at one of those pet resort places a couple years back. They had ONE "deluxe suite" on site... and it certainly didn't look like the ones pictured. In essence, it was a separate building sort of like a converted fancy shed that had a cutesy "bed" thing (read the kind of dog bed that vaguely resembles a human bed) in it instead of the standard trampoline bed in a regular kennel, and it had it's own "courtyard" area. Cleaning that "suite" was a bugger and took longer to do than a regular kennel - especially if the dog housed in it wasn't appropriately toilet trained... ewww! Things may have changed since then, but if they have, I'm tipping that kennel hands hate it due to the extra work involved trying to keep the "suites" presentable and clean. T.

Does snapping a finger tendon tucking in a cover on the couch count? It was on the dog couch... T.

As a female dog is capable of being fertilised more than once over a period of up to 10 days during her estrus cycle, it's entirely possible for a litter of pups to have more than one sire. The biggest issue is if she's impregnated early in that period, and again later in that period, ostensibly the later mating pups will be gestated for less time than the first mating ones, which can result in less developed pups being born. Timing matters so much when the gestation period is only 9weeks... just one week less gestation can result in some pretty serious defects. T.

The most common cause of certain issues in dogs is their owners' unrealistic expectations for them to be like furry human children... and anxiety and the like is on the rise with human children too... maybe there's a common thread? Seriously... why can't we just let dogs be dogs? Let them do doggy things instead of expecting them to act like humans to "fit in". T.

Forgive me for being a little cynical, but I wonder how many puppies they've put down due to parvovirus rather than raising them... I'm cynical about the diagnosis being used to kill them - it way or may not be 100% the case, as unfortunately we only have their word for said diagnosis, and I don't trust anything the RSPCA says. Deformities are more likely when 2 dogs are chucked together with little forethought to the timing or suitability of the mating(s) between two dogs, so I'll concede that one. T.

OK - I spoke to another friend who is an implanter, and they still have access to enter the details of the dogs they chip directly to the database, so whatever the issue is with new owners being unable to access their pet's details is not related to that, unless vet clinics who chip dogs/cats are being slack at entering those details because they are too bloody busy with everything else they do in any given day. Most likely it's when the change of ownership information is required to be entered into the database that there is some sort of delay, but I'm pretty sure that vet clinics aren't responsible for that stage of the identification process, so whatever excuse is being given for the PetRegistry portal not working as planned is probably just made up to deflect attention from the fact that the stupid thing doesn't work because they are constantly having to change how it works every time government makes legislative changes. T.

Hey @asalI heard that there have been changes made to the NSW microchip online registry whereas licensed implanters can no longer directly input the animal's details to the chip registry in NSW via the online process? I was told that this is now supposed to only be done by local councils or vets. Is this true? As an implanter, can you still access the NSW online registry to enter details for newly chipped animals, or do you have to send paperwork or an online form off for someone else to enter those details? I was told the above during a conversation about issues with new owners not being able to register their pet via the NSW online PetRegistry portal, as there is a backlog of details having not been entered by vets or councils in a timely manner. I'm thinking that it would be stupid to remove the ability for implanters to immediately enter animal details at the time of chipping, and that the backlog most likely pertains to the change of ownership form details not being entered in a timely manner when that pet is transfered to the new owner... is that more likely the case here? T.

This is what happens when proper research into exactly what they want the database to do is not done before declaring they are building one. There are other state registries (databases) that are functioning "reasonably" well in this sector, so why couldn't they look at modelling based on one of those? It's not actually rocket science, but there are some small intricacies that need sorting out before attempting to build such a database from scratch. Quite frankly, I think that a national registry/database is needed rather than different states all doing different things in this sphere - and none of them talk to each other. T.

This is reported as coming from Randwick council. The actual figures, which took me 5 minutes to find and fact check, are... 65 attacks reported for the whole year of 2024 in Randwick LGA - and 5091 for ALL reported attacks in the whole state of NSW for the year 2024. The stats are published by quarter on the OLG website for anyone to find btw. So, 65 attacks (also broken down into attacks on humans or other animals) recorded in an LGA with 26,254 dogs microchipped as living in that LGA, doesn't seem like a massive statistic to use to claim that there seems to be a chronic issue, does it? Maybe the fact that the current fines don't actually cover the man hours spent chasing up the reports of attacks might be more to the point? The other fact that most LGA's haven't got the staff to functionally enforce the laws couldn't be an issue either, could it? Interestingly, the Randwick stats actually show a decline over the 2024 year for the number of reports made. Jan-March was 19, Apr-Jun was 18, Jul-Sep was 17, and Oct-Dec was 11... which doesn't really gel with what the article is inferring, right? As for the total NSW attack figure of 5091, when you break it down as a proportion of the total number of microchipped dogs (and this doesn't factor the numbers of non-microchipped dogs) in the state which is 3,094,312 (as at Dec 2024) - the numbers, while not great, are still a very small percentage, yes? Just remember, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics... all of which seem to be apparent in this article. Check the stats for yourself here... https://olg.nsw.gov.au/public/dogs-cats/responsible-pet-ownership/pound-and-dog-attack-statistics/ T.

If that were the case then surely the fine would have been much larger, and the dog would have been seized and euthanised, don't you think? T.

While I agree that there is no excuse for the dog attacking the little girl, the above line in the article stands out... it implies that the child's mother (or any other adult) wasn't necessarily paying close attention to her child while they were in the dog park. Honestly, children should be closely monitored in such places, don't you think? I'm not a fan of young children running around in dog parks... too many opportunities for things like this to happen if/when adults aren't closely monitoring interactions with strange dogs. That said, $300 seems a very small fine for a dog actually causing harm/injury to a person... maybe there are facts we aren't being told in this story? One would think that at the very least the dog would have been impounded while investigations into the incident were taking place? T.

Perfect summation of society today... unfortunately... T.

Seriously... after how many news articles and TV coverage of same regarding dingoes on K'gari are people going to understand that it's not a great place to be taking your kids to for a holiday? As the article states, dingoes are opportunistic hunters, and children are by nature not all that clued in about self preservation, not to mention that parents seem to have so little control of them in most scenarios. Seriously, why would you take a child to a place known for wild animal attacks? T.

The Invasive Species Council always advocate killing as many non-native species as possible, by any means - despite that approach not being successful in any way, shape, or form to date. They are strong proponents of widespread baiting, which also tends to kill non-target (read native) animals. They are not interested in any other form of population control, only killing is on the table as far as they are concerned. The aerial culling of brumbies specifically is new, but aerial culling of other species - deer, pig, fox, dingo, etc - has always been one of the "population control" methods utilised in national parks. No matter the species, it's not the most humane method, with animals not always killed outright, and terrain is too hard to get into to correct a non-kill shot, so wounded animals are left to die a slow and painful death, be that by bleeding out from, or by infection of those wounds. Despite the use of all the different lethal culling methods, we still see adverse numbers of the non-native animals in the park, so obviously that method isn't actually very effective for those species, is it? Probably because after a cull, there is no follow-up with any other control methods until numbers go up again and another mass killing is ordered. The original count offered as evidence for the need to enable aerial culling of brumbies was between 12,000 and 22,000 individual brumbies in the park. They have killed around 6,000 of them, and now state that the count is between 3000 and 4000... ummm, anyone here think that maybe the initial count may have been a bit off? Regardless, now that brumby numbers are down to the legislated target, what actions are they looking at to keep control of numbers? Now we see the Invasive Species Council petitioning to kill the rest of them... no interest in non-lethal means of control at all. Is anyone also interested to hear that the number of signatures on their current petition (11,300) is almost exactly the same as the number of pro-forma submissions (11,200 from memory) to the consultation as to whether this barbaric cull should be considered in the first place? Essentially, the Invasive Species Council stacked the consultation with thousands of identical "submissions" that they provided for their followers to use to submit to that consultation - 11,200 copies of the same single submission. This practice is usually curtailed by combining all such pro-forma submissions as a single submission, which stops such large group actions being used to sway the legislative process unfairly - but the NSW government decided that in this particular case, they were counting them all as individual submissions, as they had already decided to enable aerial culling, and they needed the "support" of those pro-forma submissions to get it happening. Anyways, as we see much support for keeping the heritage status of the brumbies in Kosciusko, they are still aerial shooting other non-native species at regular intervals with little public resistance... are not Bambi, Babe, or Basil Brush as worthy of a humane passing as a brumby? Dingoes are native animals, yet they are also targetted for culling everywhere in this country... endorsed by the Invasive Species Council... double standards much? T.

Ummm... pademelons aren't generally found high up in trees. (tongue in cheek comment there) What isn't really being mentioned is how much foliage was (or wasn't) on the trees that the koalas were spotted and shot in. If they were all virtually leaf free, then I suppose spotting koalas in them would be easier than usual. That said, triaging from a moving platform at a range of 30 metres or more via binoculars would still be an impossible task, don't you think? Also, if the fire damage in the area was so extensive as to render the trees leafless, then it also stands to reason that undergrowth would also have been removed by said fires too... which should have made on foot incursions to the area less onerous than when the area was in full vegetation, yes? So I'm calling bullsh!t on the supposed reason for deciding on aerial culling as being "too hard" to get to on foot. Pretty sure there were at least dozens, if not hundreds, of wildlife rescuers completely willing to trek in there and do the job with less totally lethal outcomes for at least some of the animals that ended up being killed - and those that did need to be euthanised would have been given some dignity in their deaths. T.

Sadly... yes it's true. T.

Not a fan of government only giving an option of filling in a survey type form. Note that they aren't giving any option to provide any other form of submission. The questions in the form/survey also require a considered and articulate response if proper change is going to result, so I suggest downloading the form and filling it out in your own time, so that answers aren't rushed (as often happens with online form responses) - most of my answers to the questions run to several paragraphs. Read the Discussion Paper before doing the form, as it gives a very clear insight as to what areas they are looking at specifically for changes, and what other sources they are looking at for recommendations for change - so maybe you might want to look up the reports from the listed inquiries to see what they recommend, and whether you agree with them. This is our chance to try to make the NSW government think long and hard about the realities of pet ownership, and not allowing them to make stupid kneejerk reaction type legislation that will only make pet ownership harder - simply based on the worst case scenarios that are usually highlighted in inquiries - worst case is NOT the norm, but is widely reported on in the media, so government feel the need to be seen to be trying to solve issues that may not necessarily be as widespread as the media will have you think. Case in point, the coroner who recommended making ownership of larger and more powerful dogs much harder, based only on his inquiry into ONE fatal attack - a fatal attack that had numerous failings from people other than the owner of the dogs in question that led to the death of a child. We have MILLIONS of pet dogs in this state, and fatal attacks, while tragic, are quite rare, so to make sweeping legislative changes/restrictions for ALL pet dog owners based on a rare occurrence is not something I'd wish to encourage. Cats are another issue that requires a multifaceted response if we are going to make effective changes. Take note that State governments are being encouraged by the Federal government's plan for managing cats, and the Federal recommendations are draconic - basically, if a roaming cat is not chipped and registered, it will be targetted for destruction under the Federal recommendations from the Cat threat abatement plan. At the very least, we will most likely see the NSW state government look to enforcing pet cat containment in some form. This is a chance to have your say about changes that may be coming... I suggest that you take the time to at least have a look at the Discussion Paper so you have some idea of what those changes might be. All that said, this is still only the first step in the process. What happens next is hopefully the NSW government will look at the responses thoroughly and propose legislation that might be workable - and then we'll have our chance to look over those actual proposed changes and again have our say before the end result is put to parliament for a vote to enact those changes. The wheels of government move slowly, so the next stage could be some months away... T.

Ummm... I find "show" Labradors are generally heavier set than some pet Labradors... just sayin'... and no offence intended here. T.

It depends on why your dog is becoming destructive. If he is suffering from some form of separation anxiety, that would require one approach, but if he's just bored, that would require a different approach. Maybe a cctv type setup might indicate what is actually going on with him while you are away? The knocking over of items and scratching at doors seems to me that he's possibly looking for you or a way out of the house, so maybe separation anxiety? If that is the case, then he needs to do activities to build up his resilience to being alone... start with very short periods, and as he masters those, extend the time you are away in small increments. Make sure he has things to do that divert his attention from chewing furniture or scratching at the doors. I have found crate training to be quite beneficial if you are only leaving the dog for shorter timeframes (say less than 4 hours), but if you are away a lot and for longer timeframes, containment to a crate might be a less attractive option for the long term wellbeing of your dog. If that is the case, then maybe a pen option could work, so that the dog is contained to one area, and you can leave him with puzzle toys, chew toys, interactive toys to exercise his mind and chewing instincts while you aren't there. T.

I did the fee calculator thing on their website, and having the RDOL didn't reduce the fee at all. The biggest reduction was desexing your dog. The lowest renewal fee I could get it to give for a desexed dog with an RDOL and a microchip was $162 - if you aren't on some form of concession or own a working dog. I reckon that an annual renewal fee of more than $100 is a bit steep - here in NSW it currently costs a $78 once off lifetime registration fee for most pet dogs, less if you are a concession holder, and $0 for service or working dogs. Note that there are people who think that one off fee is too expensive (and they can't afford it). We also require dogs to be microchipped BEFORE registration, unlike NZ that requires it AFTER. T.