tdierikx

Sounds like the dog was redirecting it's anxiety at being leashed when it probably wanted to get away from something. While taking a dog for a walk can mostly be good for stimulating their senses and getting some exercise, not all dogs actually enjoy the experience. Should we be forcing them to do things that stress them to the point of attacking their handlers? So many people who adopt rescue dogs that then display adverse behaviours seem to want to think that the dog had been abused in some way, and that somehow justifies the bad behaviours... but in a lot of cases, dogs from poor breeding matches can have mental instabilities such as anxiety, or the dog hasn't had the proper socialisation interactions at certain stages of their emotional development. Dogs who are emotionally unstable may not see a walk as a fun thing to do, and then they act out in ways that we don't like. Maybe rather than taking the dog for a walk that it doesn't want to do, other means of activity in a more familiar environment could be more beneficial - playing fetch in the yard or doing simple agility or obedience exercises at home for example. Spend the time you would have spent on a walk doing other fun things with your dog at home. T.

When the article said that the dog had damage to the spine and aortic valve, I had to look up where the aortic valve was in dachshunds... who knew that the aorta ran dorsally? It's not clear in the article whether the dachshund was on a lead at the time of the accident, but it seems maybe not? LMO, I know the off-leash park you mentioned, and it's a stupid setup with the cycle path running right through the middle of it... you get lots of joggers and cyclists using it too. Why on earth did they run it right through the middle of the dog park, rather than off to one side and putting some sort of barrier to protect the dogs and the cyclists? T.

For sure it could be attributed to a record keeping issue... but sloppy record keeping doesn't always equate to definite animal welfare offences, and would only attract a PIN (infringement notice), rather than a prosecutorial charge of abuse. This is why the legislation is murky, as in NSW for example, recent changes made to our POCTAA and EAPA legislation could be read to mean that PINs may be taken as being charged by RSPCA for an offence, and that can preclude a person from working in the animal industry, and/or loss of license for employers that hire someone who has been charged with an offence. PINs can be given for such trivial matters as not displaying a vet phone number prominently enough, not printing a dog's microchip number on their kennel card, and other non-welfare related paperwork type things. Here's a link to a checklist used by RSPCA NSW to audit a dog/cat breeding facility... https://public-library.safetyculture.io/products/animal-welfare-code-of-practice-breeding-dogs-and-cats Note the following... Would there be many people who would give access to 3 years worth of written/digital records to a kennel hand or volunteer helper? Well, if you don't, then you can get a PIN for that. I don't see the relevance of a visitor needing to be able to see the vet contact details, as long as staff have access to it should be sufficient. But you can get a PIN for it not being displayed for all to see. Funnily enough, as I foster mums and pups (including pregnant/whelping bitches) for rescue, being aware of all of the regulations for breeding facilities, I actually apply them all to my care and rearing of those foster dogs/pups. I keep meticulous records of all the checklist requirements, etc... but I can guarantee that many rescue foster carers don't, and funnily enough don't seem to be held to the same account by the authorities in any case... but the circumstances/requirements for care are exactly the same to whelp/raise any litter regardless it be done by a registered breeder or a rescue foster carer, wouldn't you think? T.

Having been up close to how RSPCA operate when they decide to go for someone, I can guarantee that those 3 years were not spent sitting idle. There would have been a lot of back and forth in legal paperwork in order to run up the defendant's legal expenses, which could have been in the hundreds of thousands of dollars over that timeframe. Not to mention that our legal system is in such a state that most cases of this nature will take at least 2 to 3 years before they get to see a court date set... and RSPCA definitely use that fact to their advantage, both behind the scenes and in media releases at regular intervals. I also know how the RSPCA intentionally lie in their briefs of "evidence" with regard to charges they decide to deliver to a defendant, and how their "expert witnesses" are also encouraged to make findings in RSPCA's favour. I have no doubt that there were breaches of standards for breeding dogs at the Tasmanian facility, but some of the claims made by RSPCA have been completely physically impossible - 6 litters delivered by a single bitch in a 23 month period as one such absurd claim. Then we have the fact that RSPCA are claiming all the credit for shutting down this facility and were/are actively touting for donations for the care and rehab of the 200-odd surrendered dogs, which they farmed off to multiple private rescues to do... and you can guarantee that none of the money raised has gone to those rescues who are doing all the actual work here. I wonder how many people are aware that after every "successful" prosecution by RSPCA, defendants are forced into a "non-disparagement" legal clause that precludes them from ever telling their side of the story or to say anything contrary to RSPCA's version of events. T.

Are you or anyone you know handy with wood and tools? You could make up a stair frame with pine framing struts and brackets from Bunnings, then use plywood to make the actual stair platforms on the frame. This would be relatively lightweight if you use 18x18mm pine framing and 7mm thick ply. It's actually easier than you think to make. T.

In Victoria, didn't they enact new sections to the Domestic Animals Act 1994 regarding whole of life tracking for racing greyhounds? Was in 2023 I believe. That may make it difficult to move a racing bred greyhound to a domestic pet register. T.

Unfortunately, animal welfare laws are decided at state level in Australia, so each state sets it's own rules and regulations. Each state enacted the compulsory microchipping of pets in different years (eg. SA was as late as 2018). Note: NT does not have state based legislation regarding microchipping, but some local councils have introduced it in their by-laws. See the following page for each state's requirements and when they started... https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/is-microchipping-mandatory-for-cats-and-dogs/ And each state that does have mandatory chipping has it's own registry and requirements as to what information is contained in it. This means that each database is set up differently, and would be a nightmare to try to merge them all into one central national database. A smarter move would be to set up a single login site that can search all states' databases by microchip number and to return info on which registry that chip is active in - those fields would be the same in all registries. Once that info has been found, then a request to that state's registry could be made for owner details. Right now, what happens in NSW is that NSW CAR is checked for the chip number found in a lost/found dog or cat, and if it doesn't return owner details, then that chip is deemed as empty and ownership can be transferred to whoever has the dog/cat. The fact that the chip may actually hold owner details in another state is essentially ignored. I'd say that this would be the same for other states too. Despite the fact that in most states microchipping is compulsory, it obviously can't be enforced unless an animal is found without a chip, and the owner has come forward to reclaim it. A huge number of dogs and cats in pounds do not have a microchip, so that shows how well the message is getting through to owners about their legal obligation there. Same goes for registering dogs/cats with councils... if they aren't chipped, then they aren't registered either. T.

One of the news articles says that the dog pulled the lead out of the sitter's hand. That tells me they weren't paying enough attention to the dog they were walking. A professional sitter would surely be holding a lead with 2 hands to ensure control if any untoward behaviour happens on a walk - especially with a large dog like a Bull Arab that is essentially unknown to the walker. Regardless, if the dog managed to pull the lead out of the walker's hand, then they did not have effective control of said dog, and should be held responsible for the outcome. How the owners can be held liable for this is beyond me. They are overseas, and the dogs are/were in the care and control of pet sitters who then took them out for a walk. Liability rests with the adult in control of the dog at the time of the offense... T.

Being allergic to cats, I'd hope to be advised if one was to be travelling under my seat on a flight, even if only to know to take an antihistamine before boarding. Luckily I only break out in hives and get runny eyes and nose, but what about others who may have worse reactions? That said, what are the dimensions of the space under a Virgin airline seat? Surely it's too small for any conventional sized pet carrier, like a PP20? T.

Ummm... under most legislation (in Qld also), the person in control of the dog at the time of an offense can be held liable. Why the suggestion that the people walking the large dog are not in any way responsible has me stumped. They were legally in control of said dog, and obviously didn't have full control if it managed to get free and attack another dog. Under the new legislation passed earlier this year, I'd say that the dog will be destroyed, and the owners will cop a massive fine as well (or even jail time)... but as the owners were not the ones in control of the dog at the time of the attack (they were/are overseas), then those who were should get some penalty also IMHO. T.

I wish I had that problem... around here they just let their dogs sh!t on people's front lawns and keep walking, so we have the "pleasure" of having to pick it up and put it in our bins ourselves... grrr! T.

We could also go so far as to query whether those dogs presenting to a vet more than once in a 12 month period may have had a pre-existing medical issue necessitating more vet visits, and possibly a reason for trying the vegan diet... but that isn't explored at all... Where is the data that tells us how long any of the surveyed pets had been on the vegan diet? Where is the data indicating why an owner has chosen the diet they have for their pet? Where is the data that shows at what age the owner decided to start feeding a vegan diet? I'd also like to see a breakdown of where owners live (metro, regional, rural), age demographics of owners feeding which diets, etc... so many unknown variables which could be very pertinent to any factual outcome reported. What purpose does peer review have in the grand scheme of things really? Surely if we general members of the public can see such gaping holes in the methodology and purported "results", a thorough peer review should have had similar questions regarding the validity of the reported outcomes? T.

Firstly, here is the outline of the course on training.gov.au... so it is a legitimate course. https://training.gov.au/Training/Details/ACM40322 And here is the list of registered RTO's that offer it nationwide... https://training.gov.au/Search?SearchType=Rto&searchTgaSubmit=Submit&scopeNationalCode=ACM40322&includeImplicitScope=true&registrationStatus=0%2C1%2C2%2C3 Unfortunately, the only actual TAFE offering this particular course would be Bendigo TAFE - all the others are privately run RTO's. Technically, an RTO that wants to keep it's registration will deliver the course as specified in training.gov, but how they achieve that can vary widely. My experience is that even different TAFEs have different methods of achieving the same qualification, and not all are actually "equal". This is due to the electives that each RTO/TAFE may choose as part of their delivery of the courses - not all electives are necessarily "equal" when combined to produce the total outcome for the qualification. For example, when I did my Zookeeping course, Richmond TAFE had the best reputation for producing quality students who were more "job ready" upon completion than Bankstown or Ultimo TAFEs that were running the same course but with different electives. I'd suggest you look at the various RTO's that are offering this course, and check which elective units they are offering with it, then work out whether those electives are the ones that will suit your desired goals. If Hanrob ticks the boxes for you, then go with them if that suits your situation. You will graduate with a valid qualification no matter which registered RTO you choose. Steer clear of any RTO that is NOT on the list above, OK? T.

@Little Gifts- this is the one I got for Alice... https://rainbowdogtugs.com.au/products/flirt-pole-and-flares?variant=48782521794850 I selected the "Flirt pole and 2 velvet flares", and it arrived here 2 days later by Aus Post... can't recommend it highly enough... Alice loves it! T.

My aunt makes a living out of writing surveys, and she confirmed that most surveys are specifically designed to slant the results towards the desired outcomes. This survey apparently also collected data regarding cat diets, and funnily enough also found that vegan diets were "healthier"... which, when you consider that cat physiology designates them as obligate carnivores, is concerning when "studies" like this push a scientific falsehood. How they can report any firm outcome when only 9% of the surveyed cats were fed on vegan diets is a mystery to me. Pretty sure that data wasn't collected as to whether the cats were indoor only or free roaming (higher propensity for free roaming cats to catch and eat things that their owners are unaware of, thus negating a true vegan-only diet). Main concerns about this study are that it has been (partly) funded by a pro-vegan entity, and the survey only focused on animals over a one year period. Interesting to note that when you look at the age demographic and diet stats, the vegan choice only starts to increase significantly for dogs aged 5 and over - younger dogs in their main growth stages appear to be fed more conventional diets. Neuter status demographic also finds a higher number of vegan diets in neutered dogs. As we all know, age and neuter status can have significant sway in many health outcomes, yet both of these factors appear to have been downplayed in this study, as the desired outcome is diet based "fact" only. Interestingly, 3 medical issues show higher stats for vegan fed dogs - heart, liver, and intestinal parasites. Personally, that would have me quite concerned. Also, there were no reports of allergies by vegan feeding owners... probably because those that found their dogs were allergic to the ingredients (grains, etc), went back to a more conventional diet? Despite all of the above, dogs are omnivores, and could very well do just fine on a vegan diet... I'd be more concerned about the results of this survey study on cats, which funnily enough also comes to the conclusion that vegan diets are good for them. T.

Sounds very much like Alice's reaction to other dogs... and she gets that "staffy scream" going on, which is distinctively loud and has just the right pitch to hurt your ears. She doesn't redirect onto her handler though, just intensely focuses on the object of her anxiety and screams. No aggression, just anxiety and doesn't seem to know what to do unless told what we want of her. We have had good success with a check chain to get her attention back on me and to follow my lead. A check chain used properly is a magical thing, just check and release, and I can get her focus back to me and loose lead walking until she sees another object to be unsure of. What gets me about the situation in the OP is why, if their dog has the tendency to want to attack other dogs that might come up to it, the people that kicked up the fuss have taken it to an off-lead park where the chance of meeting other dogs is so high. Their dog looks to be a large breed and could do a lot of damage if it did decide to react badly to another dog. Maybe they need to rethink their exercise strategy for their dog and only take it to places it won't necessarily come into contact with another offlead dog. What would have happened if someone else had wanted to run their dog in the fenced offlead area they were using? Or had they possibly guarded the gate and warned off others who might have wanted to use the area until they had finished? From that video, I'm thinking that may have been the case too... which is just as stupid and entitled behaviour as that from the guy with the offlead dog outside the fenced area. While I'd love to take Alice somewhere to have a really good run and get some easy exercise (easy for me that is), I wouldn't dream of taking her to an offlead park and letting her do so. We've bought a flirt pole and I exercise her in my yard with it at regular intervals... and she loves it! 10 minutes of chasing a ball or the flirt pole flare and she's knackered... win-win! T.

From what was in the video, it appears that the people kicking up the stink were worried that their dog that had been free running in the fenced dog park might have issues with other dogs, and they seemed worried that their dog might have wanted to react unfavorably to the other guy's loose dog. I think that both owners could have handled the situation better - the guy with the off leash dog outside the park seemed to be a bit of an entitled pr!ck, but the people filming and kicking off about his dog stopping them from leaving the fenced area could have just waited until he and his dog had passed, then left safely without any real fuss. LG, your Albert and my Alice seem to be very similar... Alice gets anxious around other dogs and can get very noisy, but not aggressive thank dog. T.

Yep... me too... Then when you have contained it, they take their own sweet time coming to pick it up... grrr! I just take them to the local vet clinic, which is a holding place for strays anyways. T.

When was she last wormed? T.

And I'd rather that owners with ANY roaming dog take all care to contain them once they have been made fully aware of their dogs' aggressive tendencies. Why does it tend take an actual injury to someone for action to be taken by the authorities - usually to the dog's detriment - when all of that could have been prevented in the first place when complaints have been made to said authorities? Don't get me started on people excusing bad behaviour "because he/she is a rescue". I used to be with a rescue that specialised in taking in dogs with special needs, dogs who had been poorly socialised, dogs that had definitely been abused (with actual proof of that abuse), and we worked bloody hard to ensure that any behavioural issues were well and truly sorted before rehoming any dog in our care. I have personally been party to decisions to euthanaise dogs who just couldn't be rehabilitated enough to ensure that they were safe to be in the community. I have held "broken" dogs as they dropped into that final big sleep with dignity and love... more often than I care to count, but safe in the knowledge that it was the best decision for their circumstance. Any rescue that rehomes a dog with behavioural issues and spins some back story to "justify" that behaviour needs a good kick in the arse IMHO. My current foster dog is getting a lot of professional help to deal with her anxiety around other dogs. She has never displayed actual aggressive behaviours as a result of her anxiety, and we have been making great progress so far. Last weekend we had her walking in a public park on a loose lead about 5 feet away from the trainer's 2 dogs, and even though there were a couple of offlead dogs chasing balls on the other side of the park, she ignored them nicely and looked to me for any reassurance she needed at any point. Her behaviours are most likely due to lack of socialisation during Covid, so she just needs to learn at this point that other dogs aren't any real threat if she just ignores them and looks to her handler for any help she might need. So far she's going great guns on that front... good girl Alice. That said, Alice was completely in her element while all the activity was happening due to getting a new roof here, and a tree falling down requiring emergency services workers to attend. Her "toll" for the workers needing to use the bathroom was cuddles and pats... she is such a trollope with people... lol! All the roofers had to cuddle her before they left when the job was finished also... they actually asked to do so... nawww... T.

@Chihuahua pups Noosamaybe Michelle should refund Dee sooner rather than later if Dee is stressing enough about it to keep sending messages and threats then? Would save a lot of headaches methinks. Sometimes sticking to your guns on an issue isn't worth the long term hassle, yes? T.

Had council been to talk to the owner after numerous reports of these dogs being at large? My guess is no... If there was a report of the dogs biting someone months ago, why was there no follow-up to make sure the owner was complying with any containment orders after that attack? The system has failed here... and there is no dressing that up with claims of staffing, OHS, red tape, etc... they failed miserably and now 2 people have been hospitalised and the dogs destroyed. As much as the owner claims to be "sorry", they need the book thrown at them for not keeping their dogs on their own property. T.

Surely the catching of roaming dogs with unsavoury temperament should be part of the job description? All of the job ads I've seen for council rangers mention this particular aspect in the job description, yet the reality is that when you call council about a roaming dog, they want you to catch and contain the offending animal for them to collect at their leisure. What bollocks! If the dogs are roaming at large, every council is empowered to catch and impound them. A court order might only be needed if the dogs are back inside their own property by the time the rangers arrive, and one of those is easily (and can be quickly) achieved in those circumstances where the dogs have seriously harmed someone already. Other residents say in the article that these dogs have a history of being at large and menacing passers by. I'm confident that the owners knew their dogs were getting out regularly, and had not done enough to keep them contained regardless whether they had injured anyone up to this point. 2 serious attacks in 2 days by the same dogs indicates that these particular dogs had temperament traits that should surely have been known to the owners, and to not exercise due diligence by keeping them contained should be followed up to the fullest extent of the law. I have a small breed dog across the road who is regularly out chasing people, bikes, and the postie with menacing intent. I have reported it to our council on numerous occasions after seeing her nearly causing accidents with the bike riders, bailing up walkers in my front yard, etc. Council came and spoke with the owners in January after my first call, but despite the fact that the dog is not chipped ore registered, and their advice to the owners to get both done and to keep her contained, there has been absolutely no follow up - even after further calls about her continuing to be a menace in the months since then. 100% certain that if she was a larger breed displaying those tendencies there may have been much stronger action/follow-up, but until this small menace actually bites someone or causes an accident with a biker, I doubt anything is going to happen here. Meanwhile I can't leave the house with my dog reactive foster dog to work on her anxiety issues with other dogs (lack of socialisation as a pup during Covid, but not aggressive, just anxious about proximity of unknown dogs) for fear this small turd of a dog will try to bail her up in my front yard and undo all of the work we've been doing to make her more relaxed around other dogs. As it stands, I have to put my dog in the car and drive her up the road to start any walks we need to have, which is ridiculous, don't you think? Note that the only person this wee menace doesn't try to bail up is me, as I've challenged her on many occasions and she knows I don't take any crap from her, but I just herd her home as best I can. All that goes out the window though when she sees my foster dog, and she comes charging out barking and circling, which sets off my girl's anxiety and stresses her greatly. Neighbours have seen this menace as far up the road as a good 10 houses, so her "territory" is getting larger by the month... grrr! T.

The fact that the same dogs had put an elderly lady in hospital only the day before beggars belief... failure by the authorities to act then makes them just as culpable as the idiot owners who let them roam the streets. Hopefully the owners AND the council are held accountable, and this doesn't just end with the dogs being destroyed. T.

The OP does not have to accept a replacement, regardless of one being offered. The pup was returned as it had a major issue that the OP could not resolve, even after consulting a vet. Essentially the "goods" were not of an "acceptable quality", and the OP has returned the "goods", so is entitled to at least a majority portion of the purchase price as a refund. The pup was not returned to be sold on consignment, and the breeder mentioned is currently still selling pups regularly from other litters. Why should the OP have to wait until her particular returned pup is sold, when other pups have been sold since the return of that pup for the same price or more? The breeder should be financial enough to refund sooner rather than later. There is no excuse for either party to resort to nastiness in response to a situation like this, nor block communication from/with the other party before the issue is settled. T.