tdierikx

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.

Apparently there are different levels of accreditation... I asked somebody who has been through a similar experience. General public access is not overly hard to get someone to accredit the dog/handler for, but for things like flying it must be done through the specifically named accrediting agencies. I spoke to someone who had a similar experience, and they went to their state and federal members about it - the result was that the federal government ended up paying for him and his dog to fly to Melbourne to get the required accreditation by the required agency. Can anyone see the irony in that? He was allowed to fly with the dog (in the cabin) to where he could get accredited to be allowed to fly with the dog in the cabin... bureaucracy at its finest methinks. I agree with @Dogsfevrabout the fact that it seems that just about anyone can call their dog (or some other species) an "assistance" animal nowadays... and some are gaming the system to the detriment of those who are truly dependent on their animal to get them through each day safely. I will go so far as to say that sometimes even the most highly thought of agencies supplying assistance animals can get it wrong... my brother (who is legally blind) was given a dog by Seeing Eye Dogs Australia who was highly dog reactive. Every time it saw anther dog, it would launch at it... in what universe is that safe to guide a blind person around? Said dog had all the proper accreditations required for full access everywhere too. Needless to say that the dog was sent back, and hopefully they either fixed the dog reactivity issue before giving it to someone else, or rehomed it as a pet after some rehabbing of the issue. T.

One would think that in a highly populated are like Sydney, one would be able to find someone capable of accrediting her dog? T.

Very well said... thank you! T.

I really have no issue with the creation of new breeds - as long as the motivation is not purely to meet a demand for financial gain. The Cobber Dog (I'm not fussed on the name) is an example of this... and it hasn't been easy. The purebreed "community" could do with an injection of new blood and new breeds, as right now, many traditional breeds may be restricted into extinction. Personally, I have a preference for well-bred purebreed dogs, but am open to sharing my life with mixed breeds also, and I don't think I'm that different to most of the pet owning public - the right dog for me at any given time of my life may come from any number of sources, so why restrict myself to only one of those sources? T.

Sadly, access for dogs has steadily been decreasing everywhere for some time now. Those who do the right thing are being penalised for the actions of those owners who don't. Politicians are basically restricted to creating and enacting legislation... that is their sole purpose. This means that in order for them to be seen to "do something" about a problem (even only a perceived one based on a few complaints), they immediately sit down to formulate legislation to "fix" that problem, and that "solution" usually has a consultation phase where the public are able to raise their concerns and arguments against said proposed legislation. Unfortunately, that consultation phase is rarely widely advertised to the residents of the council area (or state/federal jurisdictions), and the consultation phase receives very few submissions - with the exception of those who are calling for those changes, and that can skew what is called "community expectations" to particular groups active in this sort of endeavour. The political lobby group I'm with are trying our best to be across when/where all such animal-based legislation is due for review, specifically because it isn't widely advertised by councils - and I can tell you it's a bloody hard slog going through every council website in Australia, finding their animal related legislation, and when it may be up for review. Council websites are notoriously obtuse at best, and at worst downright impossible to navigate to find such information. Queensland council sites are actually easier to find this info than some other states - don't even bother trying for most NSW council websites, as the info is usually either completely absent (or out of date), or buried so deep the average person won't find it. The fact that council animal management plans can also be reviewed and/or changed at any point in time if the need to respond to a community "need" arises, makes our task even harder. A typical consultation phase at local levels will generate maybe a hundred or so submissions... from a community of 50,000 residents or more (some councils have maybe a couple hundred thousand residents in their area) - is it any wonder that the politically active groups seem to be getting their agenda through when the rest of us are largely unaware or uninterested in standing up for ourselves when restrictive legislation is proposed? What I advise is that everyone who has animals in their care make themselves familiar with their local government legislation, and when it's up for review or open to community consultation. Avail yourselves of your right to actively participate in the formulation of such legislation so you aren't blindsided by groups who actively lobby to restrict what can and can't be done with our animals. The simplest way to do this would be to find the "have your say" area of the council website, and check it weekly (or even monthly) to see what consultations are open for public submissions. When one that affects your care for or use of animals in your area, make a submission... it's really that simple. T.

And this is the crux of the matter... ostensibly this is what all zoo animals are touted as being... ambassadors for their species that help raise awareness about the plight of their wild counterparts. Keeper talks and signage clearly indicate that aim. But as a zoo environment is an artificial construct, we see normally solitary animal species kept in groups - mostly for reasons of space and/or the cries of the uninformed that all animals need company (not exactly true, but it comes down to the aesthetic that solo animals may evoke feelings from humans that the animal is "lonely"). Hand raising can be beneficial if/when an animal is clearly going to be used in up close and personal customer experiences, school visits, and the like. Having an animal who is totally comfortable around humans is an amazing asset to aid the delivery of the message regarding their wild counterparts - but I'd like to see an addition of a caveat that the animal being used for such interactions is not exhibiting all natural wild behaviours due to the fact that they have been raised to be human interactive. Hand raising can also add a level of complexity and danger when those young animals must be reintroduced to a group that has not been hand reared. The group may at best reject interacting with the hand reared animal(s) at best, or at worst, try to actively remove them from the group as they aren't displaying the correct social behaviours that can generally only be gotten from their mother animal. We keep puppies and kittens with their mothers for a set period specifically for this reason, so why should it be different for other captive animals? Case in point, Kaius the baby gorilla hand raised by the curator of Mogo Zoo. Kaius has not successfully been integrated back to the main gorilla group to my knowledge, as they have rejected his behaviours. Fortunately, Mogo had another adult hand raised gorilla who never really fit in, but was tolerated by, the group, and they've taken her away from that group to pair her up with little Kaius to make their own group. This scenario has worked for Mogo, but there wouldn't be too many zoos that could offer this workaround for large and potentially dangerous animals. Lets not forget that while Kaius was still small and manageable enough, he was used for photo ops and customer interactions, and some politicians made good use of that opportunity to boot (where's the vomit emoji?). Now he's not as cute and easily manageable, he's now got to learn to be a "real" gorilla and "be with his own kind"... can anyone imagine how hard that is for an essentially still baby gorilla who has only ever known human care? The painted dog pups at least have each other if they can't be successfully integrated back into their family group, and could be housed separately as their own group - but breeding would not be advised for siblings, so the genetics may stop there. As they reach maturity, they may need to move off to other groups in other zoos to take part in their breeding programs, but will they fit in with those groups if they haven't had the correct social upbringing as members of their original family group? Only time will tell... We humans need to be mindful of the choices we make for captive exotic animals in our care. We either allow the animals to procreate and raise (or reject) young as naturally as possible, or we allow human intervention as par for the course, but have established and workable contingencies for what happens to those hand raised animals once they don't need intensive human involvement any more. And don't get me started on human intervention for orphaned wildlife, and the critically poor outcomes suffered by most when they are eventually released back to the wild... Like I said before, just because we can, doesn't necessarily mean that we should... T.

Yep... and the irony isn't lost on one when a very active NSW politician that wants to ban all animal-based research is perfectly happy to undergo treatments for her own ailments that are only available due to that animal-based research. Back to the original topic though... captive animals (and companion animals too) are nothing like their wild counterparts after generations of captive breeding programs. Their needs are completely different, yet this fact is also lost on those who advocate that all animals should be "wild and free", and that every captive animal should display behaviours indicative of their wild counterparts. When one considers that natural wild animal behaviours centre around traits necessary for their very survival, such as hunting prey and staying alive, one needs to think about what behaviours are desirable for animals where the need to ensure survival is not top of their list of things to deal with. Personally, having worked with a wide range of species - both domestic/companion and exotic, I'm not happy with the fact that keepers/carers are not allowed more real interaction with the animals they care for on a daily basis. Human-animal bonds can and do happen, and can be extremely beneficial for both parties. Captivity is an artificial construct, and therefore should not be considered in any way a "natural" environment, nor have expectations placed that are not necessarily based on any scientific (or historical) fact. When I go to my friend's monkey sanctuary for a visit, there are a few individual monkeys who instantly recognise me and start calling for me to come interact with them... mostly because I bring them yummy treats, but one or two will reach for my hand and hold my finger whether I have a treat for them or not, and/or try to groom me as one of their own species. When I brought them a boombox (digital speaker) loaded with cool do-wop tunes, we all had a great time dancing to the music... and this facilitated some new interactions with some of the more stand-offish monkeys - they enjoyed "aping" (excuse the pun) my dubious dance moves, I also copied some of theirs, and great fun was had by all. In a zoo environment, constrained by strict protocols and legislation, such fun activities and hands-on contact with the animals is usually frowned upon... which I think is sad when I know how much fun my friend's monkeys have had with novel interactions... When I worked for a petting zoo, I knew EVERY animal as an individual... and we had a couple hundred of them. Of course this was a completely different scenario to a classic zoo environment, and my job was basically hand-raising them to be human-interactive, but knowing their individual likes and dislikes was crucial to ensuring they (and our customers) had the best experiences when out and about. Some years ago, I had the privilege of being allowed in the tiger holding den area of a small local zoo. After many visits there, the tigers appeared to "know" me, and as soon as I spoke to them, they were "oh, it's you", and came up to the bars looking for more interaction, chuffing and purring like regular house cats... my heart nearly burst with love for them at that point, but I wasn't allowed to touch them no matter how much they were asking for it... *sigh*... I did get as close as was safe and experienced their breath on my face though... T.

In my experience, when an animal is booked for their final vet visit, it is generally a pretty emotional process. The client is not always calm and fully prepared for what is about to happen, and these heightened emotions from owners could have the opposite effect on a surviving pet from what is intended, as they pick up on those strong emotions from their humans. I have had big burly "macho" men collapse into my arms in a sobbing mess once their beloved mate has passed... and this certainly affected me, so what effect would that have on a second pet present for that outpouring of emotion? Alternately, when one of my own dogs died suddenly in my back yard, her "best mate" dog sat on her grave for nearly 3 weeks, even though he had witnessed her passing. The other 2 dogs appeared to take it all in their stride. I would seriously look at the option on a case by case basis, as there is rarely a one size fits all solution. T.

I'm a little torn on the artificial rearing of exotic animals in zoos. On the one hand, we would like to see the global population of endangered species increase, but on the other, these animals are never going to be released back to the wild, and cute babies get humans through the gate of the zoo, so there are always some financial gain factors in play when decisions like this are made. I might be a little less concerned if these pups were part of some breeding program for release back to the wild, but they are not. The fact that the keeping of animals in zoos has evolved to be as "natural" as possible - read mostly hands off with regulated human interactions with the animals ostensibly to create the illusion that the animals are "wild" and exhibit their "natural" behaviours - should dictate that unsuccessful outcomes with regard to animals born in captivity are taken as part of the "natural" process. I'm not a huge fan of this evolution of captive animal keeping myself, as obviously captive animals do not have the same conditions and stressors on their existence that their wild counterparts do, and humans still dictate every aspect of their lives. What will happen next time the adult wild dogs breed? Will their next attempt be any more successful? Will the adult animals have "learned anything" from this experience that might ensure a better success rate than this time? Will the early intervention that ensured survival of these pups mean that they are now imprinted on domestic dogs and humans rather than on their own species? The possible long term outcomes are myriad. Sometimes nature is a complete biatch, but that doesn't mean that we humans should automatically consider that we know better than nature, regardless a negative outcome if we don't intervene. Just because we can, doesn't necessarily mean we should... T.

In my experience, urban/city people tend to treat their pets more as furry children than as animals... rural living sees pets outside more in general. T.

There will be competitions at the Sydney Royal next year for Oodles.... https://www.rasnsw.com.au/competitions/animals/dog-details/ Oh... and RSPCA have decided that all dogs being offered by them should be referred to as "Rescue-oodles"... https://www.rspcansw.org.au/blog/campaign-promotions/meet-the-rescuoodles/ Dog help us all! T.

I'm surprised that the RSPCA at Yagoona didn't factor in methods of heat/cold reduction when they spent the $12 million of taxpayer money given to them by the NSW State government to build all those shiny new kennel blocks they have there. It's certainly not the case that they weren't aware that summer temperatures in Sydney could get over 40 degrees for multiple days, as right before the grant was sought/given, we'd just had a summer that did just that, along with major bushfires, etc. The current NSW inquiry into pounds has already had one hearing, where the RSPCA sent a delegation of witnesses to give evidence from their perspective. This resulted in some very pertinent questioning by Emily Suvaal (Labor) regarding RSPCA NSW's financial position. It makes for some VERY interesting reading if you are interested... link to the transcript here... https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/transcripts/3140/Transcript - Portfolio Committee 8 - Pounds in New South Wales - 14 November 2023 - UNCORRECTED.pdf - RSPCA stuff starts at page 55 of the transcript, and goes into what they have so far done with the $40.5 million the outgoing Perrottet government allocated them in the pre-election cash splash. You may want to contrast RSPCA actions with AWL actions to see exactly where their priorities lie - AWL are building a new rehab/rehoming centre with the $5.5 million they got, complete with dedicated space for animals displaced in domestic violence matters, where RSPCA have used all of their $40.5 million to grow their inspectorate arm... I'll let you draw your own conclusions on those differences. RSPCA pulling out of all their pound activities is covered too (you might want to go back in the transcript to see how that will be affecting Blue Mountains council). Emily Suvaal goes into RSPCA financial records in some detail, and it's gripping stuff... Oh... and just a reminder that the second pound inquiry hearing is set for next Friday, 15th December... if anyone is interested. Unfortunately the schedule of witnesses has not been posted yet, but the lobby group I'm with will be giving evidence at that hearing. I'm tipping that the rest of the witnesses will be from various rescue organisations all asking for funding to let them continue taking on the responsibilities that government have basically abrogated with the enactment of Emma Hurst's Rehoming Bill last year. My group's position will be that in order to receive government funding, conditions must be met - basically that means that some form of regulation and oversight needs to be in place to make sure that any grants/funding are used effectively, and have the desired welfare outcomes for homeless animals. In my experience, rescue is not exactly rocket science, but it does have a level of complexity that may be being missed by rescues who focus on numbers of animals rehomed, rather than focusing on making sure every animal is 100% behaviourally and physically acceptable to be rehomed. The back stories that are being given to "excuse" certain behavioural issues needs to stop now. Rescue animals should NOT be universally regarded as "broken", rather they should be seen as a source for amazing pets that may have had a rough start, or have had a setback causing them to become homeless, but are fully ready to begin the next chapter of living their best lives with carefully selected new loving families. T.

I'm not necessarily a fan of this approach - there is a very fine line between what is "truth" and what is considered a legal defence against defamation and/or libel. Also, this sort of knee-jerk reaction to a rescue making mistakes (and occasionally even the very best rescues might make a mistake) only results in public distrust of ALL rescues, which is certainly not desirable. I will go so far as to say that most rescues are set up and run with the very best intentions with regard to tackling the problem of pet animal homelessness, just that some may over-simplify what their role actually should be in that sphere. Some have a focus on how many animals they can rehome as quickly as possible, ostensibly so they can take in more animals needing help, but this approach has some rather serious flaws in the way it may be applied, and the long-term welfare outcomes for the animals rehomed. Some rescues may focus on the harder cases that may take longer to rehabilitate before they can be rehomed, but that can also lead to issues if more animals are taken in than can adequately be cared for - and possibly become "hoarding" type situations if carers become too attached to the animals in their care. There really is no "one method" approach that is 100% perfect when it comes to rescue, as each animal taken into care will have it's own individual requirements before it should be considered for rehoming to the general public. Regulation of the industry would be able to set basic codes of practice for those operating within it. Those who don't follow those codes would then be accountable for breaches of those codes in a very real sense. Regulation is the sensible option now that the industry has become such a large part of the pet animal sector. T.

I would certainly prefer education over legislation, but when the only "education" getting out there is that of the bleeding heart sob stories that "all" rescue animals have some kind of issue, then I think something needs to be done legislatively to ensure that not fit for purpose animals are not being rehomed irresponsibly by well-meaning, but essentially clueless, people calling themselves "rescue". There are constant calls to ban all breeding of companion animals while our pounds and shelters are full, but the reality is that a very tiny proportion of the animals ending up with that fate are bred and homed by registered breeders - but it's those ethical and responsible breeders that become the easy target for authorities enforcing current and proposed legislation. Meanwhile the largely "underground" practice of backyard breeding carries on as normal, because apparently it's too hard to even attempt to sort that issue legislatively. As for the rescue industry, one only has to look at the OLG list of approved rescues - those who get exemptions from desexing and registration costs when taking animals from the pounds - there are only some 90-100 groups on that list, but just in Sydney alone, there are MANY more than that number operating. In order to get the OLG approval, rescues must commit to keeping a range of records about outcomes for animals in their care, and submit details about their foster carers - so those who don't bother with the approval process aren't required to keep any records at all, can have unsuitable foster homes that may be overwhelmed by having more animals foisted on them than they can appropriately care for in order to "save" as many as possible, and then there are those who are simply disguising other practices, such as hoarding and/or backyard breeding the animals they take in. In what sense of the word are those practices actually "saving" the animals in question? I'm sorry to harp on about it, but it's beyond time that the rescue industry was regulated legislatively. Those operating ethically and responsibly already will not have any issue with this concept. T. T.

People looking to rescue to source a family pet need some guarantee that the animal they are receiving is suitable for the task. Making excuses for poor socialisation or reactivity and expecting someone else to take that on is just not fair on the animal, or the new family it goes to. The aim for anyone rehoming any animal from ANY background should be that it is fit for purpose... T.