tdierikx

Not a lot of actual info going on there... a link to the study would have been nice. Anecdotally, I've found that a lot of neurotic dogs have somewhat neurotic owners... and a lot of these people have "oodle" type dogs. You know the ones... they get offended when you call their "purebred xxxx-oodle" a crossbreed. T.

They say that they can desex 3000 dogs for $1.2 million... that's $400 per dog. Desexing doesn't actually stop dog attacks though. Some roaming may be curtailed if said roaming was looking for mating opportunities, but if the habit is already ingrained, then desexing alone won't stop it. The only thing desexing will curtail with any certainty is population. T.

Funny how none of the legislation enacted over the past 10 years has seen any decrease in the homeless pets problem... in reality, it's actually increased. Pounds, shelters, and rescues are all full to overflowing... but now the excuse is cost of living or the housing crisis. Funny how neither of those issues are stopping people from acquiring pets, but as soon as those pets become "inconvenient" to own... well... you can see the outcome. Essentially what we have is a retention problem, and no-one seems to want to either acknowledge that, or address it. Legislation is all well and good, but only when it's actually followed/enforced. It has been the law to microchip dogs (and cats) since around 1998 in NSW, yet very few ending up in pounds seem to have a chip. There is no data that measures the efficacy of any legislation enacted, but if you look only at the microchipping issue, the trend isn't all that hard to see, right? The cat stray problem became so onerous for council pounds in NSW that the law was actually changed a while back to allow them to roam, so less would find their way into pounds... how well has that worked? The "community cat" issue has exploded for one... What we seem to be forgetting when we call for government to "do something" about the issues we face with homeless pets nowadays, is that the only tool they have readily at their disposal is enacting legislation... but legislation only works if it is enforced, and that aspect needs a serious overhaul. Currently enforcement is only a reactive process, where the enforcement agencies rely on reports of issues already occurring before they can/will act. What is needed here is proactive enforcement so that issues are headed off before they compound, but that would also mean that those enforcement agencies would need greater powers to literally door-knock to check pet ownership matters... and no-one wants their privacy breached in that manner - especially when certain enforcement agencies have a "take no prisoners" attitude to their work. There is a difference between animal management and animal cruelty prevention. Different agencies are tasked with each, and those agencies need to be kept separate. Local government (councils) are tasked with animal management, and RSPCA/AWL are tasked with cruelty prevention (in NSW). I think that some tweaks to animal management processes might actually be what is needed here, so we end up with a lesser workload for those tasked with cruelty prevention. If councils were able to door-knock to check registration status of pets, then maybe the result would be greater take-up of same. The nay-sayers will argue that dumpings/surrenders may increase if this were to happen, so we are at an impasse... *sigh* Whatever the case, we need to be looking to head problems off before they occur, as continuing the reactive-only status quo isn't working. T.

While no excuse for what this guy allegedly did is valid, one could ask why the dogs in question had been in his yard on more than one occasion? What is the point of mentioning the dead chicken in his yard - do they mean the dogs killed it, or he killed it? The owners of the dogs could have prevented this incident by keeping their dogs secure at their own home - especially if they were aware of previous incidents of them getting into that neighbour's yard. I'm thinking that if he was incensed enough to drive home to deal with the dogs on this occasion, he was probably not averse to letting the dogs' owners know he wasn't happy with them coming to his property on any previous occasion. There is also no excuse for vigilante attacks on his property... his wife and kids aren't to blame for the incident, and endangering their lives by committing an arson attack is beyond the pale. Trying to chalk it up to rising crime in Victoria just doesn't cut it. Saying that no vigilante attacks have occurred for 9-10 months is just stupid and mean spirited... like they hoped it would continue? Quite frankly, none of the players in this drama have done the right thing by the dogs. Were the dogs' owners fined for their dogs being at large? Should have been... T.

Of concern is the bit where it says that the people running this operation, after having their membership to DogsNSW cancelled, are simply saying that they will just try to get membership to another breeder body so they can continue breeding. I will say that in all fairness, some of the photos of muddy enclosures were taken after a particularly heavy rainfall event. The enclosures, while not perfect, were relatively sufficient if such rainfall events are not regular. The dogs pictured look well fed and relatively well cared for otherwise. The more worrying evidence supplied is the list of health issues coming out of the breedings. The recently enacted legislation regarding fertile female numbers limits totals to 20 per premises, and supposedly exemptions to allow 50 fertile females in total for the next 10 years to allow for natural attrition of a dog's breeding lifespan for the larger breeding operators. Note that this only applies to fertile females, so breeders can have as many males and non-fertile females added to those totals as they can house. I will also go so far as to say that there will always be rogue operators, or those who get out of their depth... but these do NOT represent the entire breeding "industry", and they shouldn't be portrayed as such. The vast majority of registered breeders are fully vested in producing the best that they can. T.