tdierikx

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.

A friend's husband once told me that Trouble (my Labrador) couldn't be a Labrador because she wasn't fat. I reminded him that she didn't dictate how much she ate, I did. T.

It says dogs must be registered with council by the time it is 3 months old, and microchipped within 2 months after that. Interesting. How does that work for breeders who may have pups from litters that take longer than 12 weeks to get new homes? $213 for first time registering, then annually between $48 and $213 depending on desexing status, whether the dog is of a certain category (service, etc), concession card holder... funnily enough, microchip status isn't on the list of things in the calculation for annual fees, but a responsible dog owner license is (but doesn't change the annual fee at all if you have one). The average annual fee for a pet desexed dog is $162. I'm thinking the annual registration fee is a little high. Maybe a lower annual fee might attract more renewals? I'm also a bit leery of having to register by 3 months of age, as most dogs will not necessarily be desexed by that age, and thus "justifies" the $213 initial fee. I can't find anything that says cats must be registered with council though... just that they recommend microchipping and desexing. T.

Vet visit for the dog, and get a full blood test and checkup... xray if nothing shows on the blood test. I'd also suggest that your room mate might think of getting a checkup from his GP too... a blood test also. Sometimes dogs can pick up on medical issues in humans. I used to have a Rottweiler that was very sensitive to human illness, and she went nuts at a friend one day for no reason we could see. She had known him for years and loved him, but just this one day, she barked and backed away from him like he was on fire. A week later the friend had a massive heart attack and ended up surviving after a quintuple bypass operation. The next time he visited my place, the dog was back to her usual self loving on him like normal. That said, this same Rottweiler was very protective of me if I wasn't well... so something to think about for your own health as well. T.

That article applies to SA, but other states are slowly changing their tenancy legislation to allow more pets in rentals to. Worth checking in your own state as to what the law is regarding this. T.

If the Boss takes Clive to work, does that leave you without a dog yourself? That seems a bit rough... and your bond with Clive is special too. Clive helps you in so many ways, and you'd feel "less" and/or "lost" without him. Does the Boss really need a novice dog out on a feral goat trip? If Clive doesn't work well for him, he will be more hindrance than help, yes? And feral goats are very different creatures than "tame" sheep used to being herded by dogs. Clive has the same genetic makeup as Dags, so maybe he's better used as a stud with another good working female, and his pups may end up with better instinct than him and be assets for the Boss instead? T.

As horrible that situation may be, it still doesn't necessarily mitigate the fact that the child was effectively left unsupervised in a public space (a car park no less) long enough for him to try to get into the pool area, and then actually get into the dogs' yard. In that short amount of time, he could also have been hit by a car coming or going from the motel... or worse still, taken by a stranger with evil intent. As far as the coroner's recommendations on this case go, I agree with the findings that there could be stronger containment rules for dogs housed in high public access areas... but to suggest anything more relating to general dog ownership (especially what breeds of dog we are allowed to own) is way beyond his purview based on the facts of this case. T.

In all honesty, all of the reputable cat rescues are overflowing, and have been for a long time. It's almost impossible to get any of them to even answer an enquiry - let alone a phone (if you can find a phone number for many of them). One of the lost/found Facebook groups I'm on has this list of cat rescues regularly posted as maybe being able to help with found cats, so surrenders might also be taken in... Cat Rescue 901 Maggie’s Rescue DABS Desexing & Rescue (0459 410 700 Campbelltown) Westie Cats Support Lap Warmers Cat Rescue (Western Sydney) Rescue Cat Project Urban Cat Alliance Urban Kittens SAFE Animal Rehoming (0404 753 227 Roseville) Inner City Strays Brighter Future Cat Rescue Peggy’s Promise World League for the Protection of Animals (WLPA) Firefly Animal Rescue ([email protected]) Furry Friends Forever Rescue (Sydney) The Cat Orphanage Inc (Rozelle) Tommy’s Rescue, Kittie Kat Rescue (Castle Hill, Ryde & Hills District) Hills Cat Rescue (Hills District) Best Friend Fur Ever Rescue (Wollongong, Shellharbour, Hawkesbury) Sydney Cats For Adoption and Sylvia’s cat rescue. T.

The ABC coverage of this story says that the mother of the little boy had been supervising him playing in the car park, and had just gone inside for a "few minutes" to get a drink, and that's when he wandered off and got into the yard with the dogs. CCTV footage shows him trying the pool gate, but when he couldn't open that, he went to where the dogs were and managed to get in. Ummm... wouldn't most people think that an unsupervised toddler in a car park of a motel was probably not a great parenting choice either? And a "few minutes" is enough for an active toddler to manage to get into a life threatening situation. What is telling is that the owner of the dogs was not charged with any offence, but he did surrender the dogs for euthanasia immediately after the incident. I think the Coroner is exceeding his purview in his recommendations about pet ownership as a result of this particular case... where are the recommendations about "child ownership"? If the child's parent had made a different decision about leaving her child unattended in a public place, this incident would never have occurred. Remember, the dogs were contained on private property when this happened, they did not escape and do this of their own accord. T.

Posties have a job to do, and if you want your mail to keep being delivered, then please ensure the postie has safe access to do that. Councils also need to step up in this area, as quite frankly, they are not doing that right now. Complaints about free roaming dogs are often met with total inaction. We have laws about free roaming pets, but if they aren't being policed effectively, then incidents will only keep happening with increasing frequency. I'm all for posties boycotting houses where a dog is not effectively contained to prevent injury to passers by... and for them to bombard local councils with complaints about properties (and pets) that cause problems for them to do their job. Complaints from posties should also be prioritised for immediate action. T.

Am I reading correctly that the dog owner had not only a secure enclosure he kept the dogs in, but a fenced and gated yard that he exercised them in also? And that the child in question had managed to enter that yard while he played unsupervised? The dogs in this story were not free-roaming... but the child was. Where is the accountability for an unsupervised child? What happened here is tragic, but in all honesty, the dog owner seems to have done the right thing by containing his dogs in areas they couldn't free roam among the public. The last tenants next door to me had young children who would regularly kick their footballs over the fence into my yard. When I caught one of them attempting to climb over the 6 foot colourbond fence into my yard, I luckily stopped him before he succeeded and returned his ball to him. I then went around to the front door of their house and spoke with the parents. I told them I'd happily return any stray balls if the kids came to my front door and asked for them back, but please don't allow them to climb into my yard, as I had a large dog that might be unpredictable when faced with a stranger in her yard. As a dog owner, I am legally required to keep my dog contained effectively on my own property, and I do that. I should not be accountable for the actions of others who decide to enter my property uninvited. My dog stays in her yard, and your kids should stay in theirs. Personally, I'm sick of the total lack of accountability for those who let their children roam at will. Children are not always capable of assessing danger to themselves, and should be supervised (not unlike dogs) when out and about. Yes... larger breeds of dog are capable of inflicting horrific injury to a human body, and the smaller that body, the greater risk of that damage being fatal. Let's not forget though that ALL dogs are capable of inflicting serious damage by biting, and again, the smaller the target human, the more extensive that damage could be. A friend of mine who works in a pound had her top lip ripped off by a small maltese... she was an adult and well versed in handling fractious, frightened, and stressed impounded dogs, yet still suffered this injury... a child would have suffered much worse injuries in that scenario though. Legislation over the years has seen the opportunities for dogs to become properly socialised diminish significantly. There are already so many restrictions on where and when a dog can be out in public, and adding even more restrictions on dog ownership isn't going to make the problem any better. I'd like to see any future legislation include accountability for human action that may contribute to an attack happening. This is especially significant if the dog owner has to all intents and purposes contained their dog so that it cannot escape into a public area. If a dog is contained on private property, then uninvited or unauthorised access to that private property should be a mitigating factor in the event of an attack occurring on that private property. T.

There aren't enough dogs waiting in Victorian pounds then? T.

This article raises an extremely valid point... basically, why, if microchipping is mandatory in nearly every state and territory in Australia, and state governments are tasked with creating and maintaining legislative requirements regarding pets, then why the heck have most state governments been happy to effectively outsource critical components for that legislation to work to third parties? Anyone who has ever had dealings with RSPCA in any state fully understands how frustrating that can be, either when trying to report on animal cruelty, or being a target of investigation into same. Policing of laws should not be handed over to an essentially privately run and unaccountable charity organisation - especially one that has a business model that may have it in direct competition (in a business sense) with those it is tasked to police. Policing of laws MUST be retained as a government owned and operated function. And now we have a privately run microchip database going offline and putting the reclaimability status of potentially thousands (if not tens of thousands) of pets at risk. NSW and South Australia are leading the way with having a central (State) database for tracking microchip details... as it should be at the very least. I do believe that recent legislation in WA may have the creation of a state-wide database happening also... but don't quote me on that... I'm sure that it was mentioned in the legislation that was passed by their state government. Of course, none of the state run or private databases actually "talk" to each other, so if an animal is found wandering and scanned, if the animal's chip is not in the preferred database of that region, then it's details will not come up... and pounds/vets/etc are not inclined to go check every single possible database for those details, as they may need to seek authorisation/permission to access those databases, and the process just gets too convoluted and time consuming. I'm all for a National database system where anyone that scans a chip can access a single site, enter the chip number, and the system will check ALL available databases for any details for that chip number. This would NOT be a hard task to achieve if created and maintained by a National/Federal entity, who can get the required access authority for searching each database, and incorporate the search to return the details for ANY chip implanted/registered in Australia. Seriously, it's NOT rocket science... T.

Pounds are only required to check the main chip database for the state they are located in... and if a chip doesn't come up with details, then that's where the search stops. The chip could be from another state or registry, but those aren't checked, mainly because either pounds don't have quick access to other registries, or don't have the staff/time to go and check every possible registry available out there. It's a major flaw in the system IMHO. @asalI'm pretty sure that DogsNSW was included in the consultation leading up to this legislation... T.

Interesting. I grew up over that way, and we used to swim at Clontarf beach (opposite the Spit to the east), where it was regularly noted that grey nurse sharks bred and would get snarky if you swam outside the enclosed area. We didn't see bull sharks back then... maybe the grey nurses chased them off too? T.

They have a point about burying animals that have been put to sleep by lethal injection. If the body breaks down and leaks Lethbarb into the soil... or worse still the water course... the implications could be nasty for small wildlife, or even for humans. That said, one of my Rottweilers died in our back yard, so no chemical assistance, and we buried her up in the back corner about a metre or so deep, with a piece of steel mesh fencing over the top of her to stop any upward movement, or digging by other dogs. She's still down there some 20 plus years later. T.

OK, made some inquiries, and they are still allowed to do prosecutions, but have to have them approved to go ahead by DPP first, which is most likely why there have been only 14 commenced... all the bullsh!t ones were tossed out... T.

Ummm... didn't RSPCA Qld have their prosecutorial powers severely limited by the Qld State government in the last 18 months or so? After all the findings of the inquiry into their illegal activities on numerous fronts? T.

According to a Google search, the sweat glands that produce body odour smells (ammonia, etc) don't mature until a person hits puberty. Young children sweat, but it's just water and salt basically, so smells different to adult sweat. Regardless, proper socialisation with humans of all ages during a pup's development should negate that factor as being a trigger to chase/bite children... but won't reduce bites due to other child interaction causes, like squealing, running about idiotically, or uncontrolled annoying of the dog by a child. Children need as much social education as dogs... probably more methinks. T.

Off-lead areas still have rules as to their use. All off-lead animals must be under full control of their owners by law. Maybe certain off-lead areas might have rules rethought about the sharing of the space with small children - if the area is regularly used by small children, then maybe dogs should be on-lead in that area, or children could be excluded from that area. A little bit of common sense can see both groups catered to effectively. T.

They could stabilise the leg with a splint to give time to find the owner. I've personally seen a dog's leg with a femur shattered into 5 pieces put into a Robert Jones splint to stabilise it until surgery could be performed a few days later. I have also stabilised a goat's badly broken leg with the same splint method until it could be seen by the vet the next morning. T.

Since joining with the rescue group I'm with, I've been feeding all my fosters Savour Life kibble and raw food, and all of them have done really well on it... nice stools and a lovely shiny coat... even the tiny foster puppies do well on it. The added bonus to feeding Savour Life is that they donate 50% of all their profits to rescue... and our rescue has been funded for surgeries, and also gets regular donations of the food for our dogs in foster care. When I had the staffy mumma with 7 babies, Savour Life donated a massive amount of kibble and raw for them specifically, along with a few boxes of all manner of yummy treats. My previous foster arrived with an upset tummy and within a couple of days on the Savour Life had lovely stools, no tummy grumbles... and her breath improved 100% also. It could be worth giving Savour Life a try. You could get a small bag of the kibble and maybe a box of the raw patties and mix them for Albert's meals and see how he goes. If he does well, then larger bags of the kibble are available. You can get it from Petbarn. T.