tdierikx

I agree that our animal welfare legislation should be constantly reviewed and adjusted to meet better practices in animal welfare. The problem arises when politicians react/legislate in response to what they call "community expectations". Most of the pet owning public are completely unaware of the political processes that happen at regular intervals relating to animal related legislation. Consultation processes are not widely advertised generally, and it's usually only those who are politically active that take part in such consultations... and given that the AR (Animal Rights) movement are politically active in large numbers, their agendas are usually the loudest "voice" that is being heard. Statistics: NSW has a pet ownership rate of around 60%. We have a state population of around 8 million, so around 4.8 million of us have a pet. There are around 3 million households in NSW, so around 2 million households have a pet. Take the above statistics in relation to the last couple of NSW government inquiry consultations relating to pet related issues - the vet shortage inquiry, and the pound inquiry - the vet shortage inquiry got a total of 212 submissions, and the pound inquiry got 137 submissions and 379 responses to the online survey. The inquiry into aerial shooting of brumbies in Kosciuszko National Park got 165 full submissions, and around 400 "short" submissions (less than one page). Overall a pretty poor showing from our pet owning population, wouldn't you say? Most of the full submissions were done by organisations and groups with vested interests in the topics at hand - such as various councils reacting to the pound inquiry, and vets responding the the vet shortage inquiry. RSPCA always make submissions to any/all animal related inquiries, and are also included in committees tasked with developing any legislation relating to animal welfare. Each state is different in how they apply information supplied by submissions, inquiry findings, etc. Queensland seems to run the submission process as a "courtesy", then do whatever they wanted anyway. Victoria don't seem to have paid much attention to industry based detailed submissions, and are going with "community expectations" (read myriad cloned individual submissions from AR group callouts to their memberships to make said submissions). NSW seem to be a bit of a mix of Qld/Vic tactics as to how they apply responses from inquiries etc to legislation, and look to be following the Victorian models proposed to date. South Australia not that long ago enacted some animal welfare legislation with NO public consultation at all. When I went about talking to people, vets, etc about the NSW vet inquiry and the pound inquiry, asking them to make submissions... the overwhelming response was "I'm too busy". Well, I'm saying right now, that if you are "too busy" to sit down for a short amount of time to make a submission to a political process that may directly affect you adversely because those with a different agenda found that time to submit en masse, you can't really complain when it happens, can you? Never in our history have pet owners and carers been more directly affected by the political process with regard to animal welfare legislation. Our parliaments have been infiltrated by AR ideologies - not only AJP, but the Greens as well - and these people are looking to change animal ownership in ways that none of us want, so please, please get involved when the opportunity arises, OK? T.

RSPCA actually endorsed it as "humane" during the trial run... no freaking joke,,, T.

Let's not forget that NSW Labor have their own plans to reform our animal welfare legislation during this term of government too... fun times ahead... grrr! T.

Sentience in itself is not the issue here... anyone who works with or cares for animals knows they are sentient in the normal (read scientific) meaning of the word, and the POCTA Act in each state reflects this by essentially adopting the Five Domains model of animal welfare as the basic underpinning of said Act(s). Where the problem arises is that the Animal Rights extremists have hijacked the term and their definition of it is VERY different to it's actual scientific meaning. AR extremists tend to use the fact of sentience as animal feelings being akin to human feelings and emotions... anthropomorphising at it's finest, if you will. Oh... and this proposed Bill (and the supporting Regulations - which are even scarier) does not actually define sentience fully... so it's open to interpretation on so many levels it's scary... As for the Regulations - which will underpin enforcement of the Act - they will comprise of the current POCTA Regulations AND POCTA Codes of Practice AND Australian Standards and Guidelines for Animal Welfare AND Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. Currently, Codes of Practice and the Aus Standards guidelines are not mandatory or completely enforceable... this new Act will make them both under Regulations. In order to make an informed submission to this consultation, one will need to read not only the draft Act (244 pages), but all of the current POCTA Regulations and Codes of Practice AND all of the Aus Standards and Guidelines AND the Aus Code for Animals for Scientific Purposes... I'm tipping not many will read all of that stuff, and will instead just focus on the overview documents that paint everything in a rosy light (when reality is far from that). Reading the enforcement stuff, they are proposing some pretty substantial increases of Authorised Officers (read RSPCA) powers to enter your private dwelling, to seize and destroy your animals BEFORE any legal proceedings even occur, and numerous other opportunities to abuse their power over animal owners/carers. This Bill is a bloody nightmare for all animal owners/carers... but a really big gift for the AR nutters. T.

Yet RSPCA who were "observing" the trial of aerial culling that produced the "average 7.5 shots" (note that some took up to 15 shots delivered before death), have approved the method as "humane". Robert Borsak tore them a new one in the inquiry the other week... I've never seen RSPCA witnesses look so uncomfortable before... was a fun watch... RSPCA testimony starts at 4:30hr/min mark if you'd like to watch... My colleagues from Animal Care Australia testified at the hearing too... theirs starts at 2:07hr/min Claire Galea on the inaccuracy of the count that preceded the aerial culling decision starts at 2:47hr/min - very interesting testimony that calls into question the validity of the data produced by the count performed. Enjoy! T.

Interesting second part to the article too... T.

They appear to have capitulated to the animal rights mob and are stopping surgical AI procedures. The animal rights mob reckons that performing reasonably minimally intrusive surgery to enable procreation is "inhumane"... whereas performing a complete hysterectomy on a very young puppy or kitten is perfectly "reasonable"... go figure! T.

I'd be leery of anyone saying they are crossbreeding for "hybrid vigour"... run a mile from anyone using that term to describe their animals for sale. I'm with @sandgrubberre the Cobber Dog example. T.

Not necessarily, dogs can develop meat protein intolerances from tick bites... and so can humans... it's not unheard of, but fairly rare. T.

Wasn't there another news story that said that the transport trailer was unlocked? Fingers crossed the pup is found and gets back to it's owners soon. T.

You'd be amazed at what can actually pass through a dog's system with no issues. I had a dog with pica (the desire to eat things not normally regarded as food), and doing poo patrol was always an adventure. I would watch your pup for any signs of an upset stomach, such as hunching, or drinking much more than usual, or if she becomes lethargic or seems "off" in any way. Otherwise, just keep trying to keep things she shouldn't chew out of her reach, OK? At 5.5 months of age, she is probably teething, so will be looking to chew on things to get her loose puppy teeth to come out. Give her safe things to chew on to assist this process. T.

Maybe you need to put a warning re the description of this procedure in this particular case... it is quite distressing to listen to. I have personally been present for 3 different animals for intracardial euthanasia... a puppy with parvo, an old and very sick rooster, and a rabbit. The puppy and the rooster were so ill that they didn't even register that the needle had been inserted, and passed quickly without incident. The rabbit had a broken leg that couldn't be fixed, and he was much more alert, so he was anaesthetised before the procedure, and also passed peacefully. Other animals I have had to have euthanaised where the usual leg vein was unable to be accessed, have had the needle inserted into the jugular vein (predominately goats/sheep and a calf in my case), and they have passed peacefully just as if the leg vein had been used. Working with animals is not all sunshine and roses... but when they need to get their wings, we always do our utmost to make it as dignified and peaceful as possible. I would say these people's story is NOT the norm at all, and the vet who performed it should be censured at the very least. The claim that this happens regularly at shelters and/or pounds is not necessarily true either. Neonate animals where a leg vein can't be accessed may have this method performed, but a well trained vet generally finds the heart first go, and the death is quick. T.

Cost of living is the most common claim as the reason for surrendering pets right now, but I'm not 100% convinced it is actually the most common reason for surrender, more that it is considered more "socially acceptable" to use cost of living as the reason for offloading one's pet that may have become unmanageable for whatever reason. It is interesting that RSPCA ACT are seeing large numbers of very young animals being surrendered... pups bred for the "christmas market" that weren't selling, unwanted gifts? As for government based funding for rescues, while I agree that there are a large number of rescues who are doing their very best to responsibly find homes for the animals in their care, there are also a large number who are not acting as responsibly when rehoming. I am averse to the notion of funding a completely unregulated industry... in order to receive such funding, I believe that rescues should be held to account by following enforceable codes of practice, mandatory detailed reporting of outcomes, etc... animals lives literally depend on it. T.

I wonder if this was a case of being bitten by a tick at some earlier point... apparently that can be a trigger for dogs not being able to process animal proteins. The dog appeared to develop the problem at some point, rather than from birth, so some trigger must have happened. I'd hate for the activist vegan types to get hold of this story and use it to insist that dogs should all be vegan... aarrgghh! I'm glad that the vet finally worked out what was going on, and worked out how to rectify it. T.

I'm with you on that sentiment... T.

Considering nearly all of the pet insurance covers are underwritten by Hollards, there really isn't that much difference between them... and most are not great value for money at all. T.

Sounds easy enough, but after the injured dog has been through surgery, there would be no trace of the other dogs' DNA to test... not to mention that councils wouldn't want to outlay that sort of money on this sort of thing. T.

Not wanting to confuse matter much, but is it possible that the woman's injured dog made it's way into the rear neighbour's yard, and got attacked there, before retreating back to their own yard? That would seem the most likely reason that the other dog wasn't injured. T.

"In its decision, the tribunal found the breeder didn’t know Bobby had BOAS at the time of purchase. The woman’s first claim was dismissed, but she was successful on her second claim that Bobby was not of acceptable quality. However, the tribunal found the woman failed to mitigate her loss after declining the breeder’s offer of a refund in June 2022. The breeder was ordered to pay half the woman’s vet costs up until the woman declined the offer, totalling $4365, and her legal fees. The woman appealed the tribunal’s first decision and increased her claim of damages to $45,365. In a decision handed down on Tuesday, the breeder was ordered to pay the woman $6000 to include the cost of purchasing the puppy and all the vet costs up until the offer of refund was made. The tribunal ordered the breeder to pay the woman a total of $13,194." If the breeder had been smart, she would have asked the NCAT Member to add "with prejudice" to the first ruling, which would have negated the ability for the buyer to come back for a second go at the case. I will say that the Member's ruling in the second round was fair enough - the buyer only got what was spent up until they refused the offer of the refund and return of the puppy to the breeder. With regard to the "with prejudice" comment, at one place I worked, I was tasked with any NCAT cases customers might try to bring, and I ALWAYS asked the Member politely to add "with prejudice" if we won a case... to stop the customer coming back every time they didn't get a ruling in their favour. Trust me, after it happened twice in a row, I got smart! T.

Rebanne has formally adopted Rose... hence paying the adoption fee. T.

OK... now the internet is getting creepy... because that bloody image and story popped up in my feed less than 20 minutes ago... T.

She's gorgeous @Rebanne... please plant a smooch on that pretty schnozz from me... T.

I'm sure that there will be die hard proponents from all sides of any debate, but I think this forum has evolved beautifully over the years to be a resource for all to share their experiences in many areas of pet ownership. Those looking to stir up heated debate seem to have dropped away over time, and left us with a core membership of passionate but well tempered pet enthusiasts willing to share those experiences for the better "education" for all. I love this forum as a sane place to come when the rigours of social media become a bit much... I love the informed "debates" over various topics that are generally contentious when had elsewhere. T.

Caught up with a regular dog walking mate yesterday while he was walking his young (20 month old) pedigreed standard poodle. His dog was bred in Queensland, and his microchip details are in a national chip database. He recently went to a local vet clinic to have his boy desexed, and because the chip details were not on the NSW state database, the vet declined to desex the dog until this has been rectified. Excuse me? As the vet did not offer any assistance in how to get this dog entered into the NSW database, the owner was at a loss as to how this could be done, so I explained that he could download a P1A form from the state OLG (Office of Local Government), fill in all the details, and take it to council to have those details entered into our CAR (Central Animal Records) database. I also advised that he might also need to fill out a stat dec to accompany the P1A form to declare that dog as his, which is a fairly simple process. Depends whether council want to be difficult about things... I also suggested he go to a different local vet where I did my vet nursing student work placement, tell them I sent him, and ask them to desex his dog while he waits for council to enter the details into the NSW database. Once he gets the confirmation that the dog has been entered onto the NSW chip database, he can then take his desexing certificate to council and register his dog... which was his intention all along. Seriously though, how many vets will check the actual database detail of any chip found in any pet brought to them for desexing by an owner? The chip number itself is all they need to enter into their own system in order to satisfy their requirements. And to refuse to desex an animal because they can't see that number in a single state based database is just stupid IMHO. My friend even gave them the details of how to access the national register his dog's chip is listed in, but they refused to look it up there - the dog HAD to be on NSW CAR. Is it any wonder that some people just give up on doing the right thing because it's all just too bloody hard? This is what happens when there is too much legislation, and not enough actual common sense involved in animal ownership matters. Oh - and my mate was heading straight home to download the P1A form, and to drop into the vet I suggested to discuss desexing his boy after our chat... he is still determined to do the right thing, even though it's a stupid paperwork nightmare to do so. T.

Ummm... not really. For dogs that are microchipped, the data may be somewhere in the registry database, but there doesn't seem to be any function that allows for extraction of that data to track what has happened to any particular animal, not to mention that the various agencies that access that data aren't actually interested in tracking a complete journey for any particular animal, say from pound through rescue to rehoming. This means that for any microchip number, it's impossible to find out whether that number has been through the system more than once (ie. failed adoption resulting in animal surrendered to another pound or rescue). NSW are in the process of redesigning/rebuilding the microchip database, but it has been revealed that tracking what happens to any particular animal is not high on the list of priorities - unless that animal has come from a registered breeder, or is a racing greyhound (Victoria has recently introduced whole of life tracking specifically for racing greyhounds - but it remains to be seen how that is going to work in reality). There is also the issue of those unregistered backyard breeders who don't microchip their animals, and owners who get animals from that source don't always chip them either. The staggeringly high percentage of animals finding themselves in pounds with no microchip indicates this problem, but to date, no effective remedy for the problem has been forthcoming, just more legislation that affects registered breeders who DO do the right thing. Unfortunately, the only way for authorities to actually enforce the legislation regarding microchipping and registration of pets is to go door to door and demand to scan each dog/cat found on a property... something I don't think would be very popular with the general public, and would not be a vote winner for anyone who tried to legislate that sort of action to happen. I must say that there are reports of one Queensland council who were going to actually take that action, but no news yet on how that has been received by the residents in that LGA. Let's also note that as companion animal management is a State function, each state has it's own microchip database, and those databases do NOT "talk" to each other. There are also privately run chip registries as well... including at least one that is supposed to be national. The general public are generally unaware of the fact that they can enter their animal's details on the national register - but again, this register may not necessarily be "consulted" when any chipped animal is found and there are no up to date details on the state register. Say a dog was found wandering in a state border area, and the scan came up with a chip number, but no details were found on the register of the state it was found in - you'd think that it would be par for the course in border areas to check the register from the neighbouring state, yes? Nope! That animal could be listed as "no details on chip", and considered free to be processed as unowned. Just consider the man hours required to manually check a chip number on all of the possible registries in the country, and you'll understand why pounds with relatively high intake numbers can't or won't do it. T.