[NSW] RSPCA All Pet Adoptions $29 (or Less)

Related Stores

RSPCA New South Wales

• 1
• 2

• 

  shtewe on 15/02/2017 - 14:49

  +41

  Adoption should be the only way to get a pet in today's world but still people would rather get a "new" pet. Very sad

  • 

    Pretzel_Ninja on 15/02/2017 - 15:03

    +12

    Agree, puppy mills are horrible.

    • 

      rottwell on 21/02/2017 - 19:38

      -1

      ive never seen a puppy mill , i don't even know what a puppy mill is

  • 

    inamberclad on 15/02/2017 - 15:08

    +4

    surely there are some decent animal loving breeders out there?

    • 

      Bad Wolf on 15/02/2017 - 15:40

      +9

      There are some great breeders around. They test and breed specific to minimise the genetic faults of their breed, maintain breed standards etc. DNA testing, X-rays All very costly.
      Generally a waiting list, selective on who can adopt and pile of adoption forms.
      Puppies are $x,000 each being the main deterrent, I don't think people understand that upfront cost might avoid vet expenses/ shorter lifespan of poor breeding over the 10-15+ lifespan of dogs/cats

      For those not fussy on breed or able/willing to get from a reputable breeder rspca adoptions are better then puppy mills/backyard breeders(gumtree)

    • 

      smashed on 15/02/2017 - 15:43

      +7

      Why would you put your beloved pet through cycles of pregnancy and labour if you really loved your pet?
      There is no way that it is done for the benefit of the animal, just the breeder.

      Neuter and spey .. straight away.

      • 

        smashed on 15/02/2017 - 15:57

        +2

        To the neg voter..would you care to give me a valid reason why you would keep breeding your pet if not for financial gain? The best thing for the pet is to not have to breed..simple.

      • 

        Xizor on 15/02/2017 - 16:30

        -5

        Same could be said for sections of the community. Ahem baby bonus, multiple wives in some Islamic groups etc

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 16:50

        You cant even adopt in SA right now. There is nothing to adopt!

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 16:52

        +1

        Smashed - Have you seen wild dogs? (mostly in poorer countries) They will breed non stop until they can no longer do so. It is in the animals nature to breed often.

      • 

        inamberclad on 15/02/2017 - 17:30

        +2

        @smashed: didn't neg you. but you're being manipulative in your argument there, no? IF you REALLY loved your pet.

        if those dogs were feral, they'd be popping out a litter too. without (or until) human intervention

        yes there would be a profit motive behind "forcing your dogs through cycles of pregnancy and labour". they can do it with a bit of love and respect though.

        same as saying oh if you really loved dogs, you wouldn't butcher them through something as savage as desexing.
        or if you really loved animals, you wouldn't eat meat.

        having said that, we prefer adoption through rspca/local pounds. many animals needing care so we don't want to source from a breeder

      • 

        smashed on 15/02/2017 - 18:00

        +3

        @justin_tsoi:

        Reasoned response :)

        If you own a dog as a pet then you will want what is best for it.

        A male will have aggression /dominance /spraying issues etc unless you remove its dangly bits.
        A female has other monthly issues and the op significantly reduces the risk of other infections and cancers throughout its life.

        This is why it makes perfect sense to have the procedure, aside from the risk of unexpected pregnancy or your dog trying to hump another in the park.. or your female dog being humped by a procession of dogs.

        It is a very simple choice for a pet owner.

        However, as I mentioned, a dog breeder has an entirely different thought process.

        They have chosen to mate their dogs because they want babies to sell on. This is clearly not for the benefit of the dog.

        IMO it is a very simple argument. I cannot see how any loving pet owner would go through pregnancy without a financial motive. You should spey and neuter for the reasons outlined above even if you do not intend on any litters (for the reasons outlined above).

      • 

        PeterPan on 15/02/2017 - 19:01

        +4

        @smashed:

        Yes we want whats best for our dogs, but that is not the same as saying we do everything to the benefit of our dog. Ultimately owning a dog is a bit of selfish endeavour. We (or at least I) do it in part for the joy of owning a dog. I don't see how breeding your dog is inherently bad for that dog.

        And breeding a single pair of dogs is not a get rich quick scheme. After costs of deworming, food, dna test and time invested, I'd be suprised if a dog breeder walks a way with much monetary gain to show for it. I would argue that most responsible dog breeders breed because they love dogs.

        To me its not such a black and white argument. Take the counter argument that dogs need to breed to exist. If we want to continue to own dogs, we need dogs to breed. Its best to have responsible breeders to do this.

      • 

        Ryballs on 15/02/2017 - 20:43

        +1

        Just like to add that being a 'backyard breeder' does not necessarily mean you're unethical. Likewise a registered kennel is not guaranteed to be an ethical breeder. I've seen many registered breeders heavily inbreed their dogs, not socialise them properly, sell them too young and keep them in small cages with their own filth. I've also seen many home breeders breed happy, well adjusted and properly looked after animals.

      • 

        deadpoet on 15/02/2017 - 21:17

        @Fincky:

        They don't let you adopt unwanted animals from the pound in SA?

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 22:47

        +1

        @44sunsets: There is just no unwanted dogs in the pound in SA at the moment. My mothers ederley dog passed away at the ripe old age of 16 and was looking to adopt a new one.

      • 

        Scab on 16/02/2017 - 07:44

        +2

        @smashed:

        A male will have aggression /dominance /spraying issues etc unless you remove its dangly bits.

        Absolute nonsense, there is no evidence this is the case and there are plenty of castrated males that are dominant.

        Plenty of female dogs also have aggression and dominance issues.

        Regardless, even if that were the case, it's the owner's responsibility to train and control the dog, not butcher it.

        Desexed male dogs have a higher incidence of prostate and bladder cancer, not to mention the risk of surgery, but nobody every mentions that.

        Just recite the old myth that castration is a magic procedure that is safe and will control an unsocial dog.

      • 

        Flet on 16/02/2017 - 09:20

        @smashed: Spey/neuter is a cultural issue. We follow USA. Europe is mixed and in Scandinavia only about 7% of female dogs are neutered and they do not have a homeless dog problem.
        The fears about intact males being aggressive or humping and peeing in the house are exaggerated to the point of being propaganda. It arose from the convergent objectives of those in the rescue/shelter movement who were traumatised by euthanizing puppies and the veterinary corporate interests who did not want to miss the revenue flow from neutering many millions of male dogs (there are currently more than 80 million dogs in USA). At least that is the conclusion I draw from an article by retired vet Ron Hines who outlines the history of spay/neuter in the USA. http://www.2ndchance.info/spayneuter.htm

      • 

        smashed on 16/02/2017 - 09:31

        @Scab:

        Desexing increases the lifetime of a dog by 13.8% in males and 26.3% in females.

        I didn't say a magic procedure, but it helps. We are talking likelihood here. Removing testicles and reducing testosterone definitely reduces the likelihood of dominance and spraying and cat fights etc.

        It obviously doesn't mean that it will cure a dog with behavioural issues but it will have helped if the op was done when the pup / cat was young.

      • 

        smashed on 16/02/2017 - 09:34

        @Flet:

        I know a lot of vets too but everybody only knows what they learn from somebody else (unless they are doing the research themselves).

        I was directing the territorial marking towards male intact cats, not dogs. Neutering definitely reduces the risk of your cat doing this.

      • 

        Flet on 16/02/2017 - 10:15

        @smashed: Figures for effect of spay/neuter on lifespan differ very much from different sources. Dr Karen Becker, the Illinois vet with a big following of her daily emailed articles has different conclusions. Here is one article among many relevant ones on the site: http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/201…

        Another good source of information is a facebook group, Ovary Sparing Spay and Vasectomy Info Group. See the "Files' section. The moderators there will only put research in their files and avoid opinion pieces. https://www.facebook.com/groups/alternativealteringinfo/

        Vasectomy and ovary sparing spay is available in SE Qld. My male dog has recently had a vasectomy (not castration, which is the usual desexing). I would have kept him intact but he plays with a few intact females and we do not want puppies.

      • 

        resisting the urge on 16/02/2017 - 10:20

        @Fincky: There are lots of wild dogs in Oz. One of the most serious environmental challenges farmers have to deal with, like rats, cats, toads, etc. all caused by human studpidity.

        Don't have to go far to see them, or the damage they do. Just outside (or towards the outside) of any city.

        And people breed more effectively than any animal, that is why we are the root cause of all the problems we (and most of nature) has.

      • 

        smashed on 16/02/2017 - 10:24

        @Flet:

        Why did you go for the unusual route of a vasectomy?

      • 

        Flet on 16/02/2017 - 11:38

        @smashed: The dog still has his hormones, just cannot sire puppies.
        I have waited til retirement to have a dog so my memories were of the family dogs from the 60s through to the 90s. They were intact males - two German Short haired Pointers and a large spaniel. In the extended family were a couple of Wiemaraners, GSDs and a dashhound, all intact males and all very nice dogs with no behaviour problems despite no formal obedience training. I knew from experience that male dogs are not hellhounds if intact so I wondered what else the public is told that is misinformation and exaggeration. There is plenty to read that gives a realistic perspective eg the links in my previous post, UK dog behaviourist Stan Rawlinson "The Angry Vet" website, the book "Pukkas's Promise" by Ted Kerasote. You just have to take the time to read.

      • 

        EmCKay on 16/02/2017 - 14:45

        My cousin's dog has been bred many times and he loves her like he loves his children. So, why do it? Because she is a former police dog that has an amazing temperament and is incredibly skilled. Not all her puppies make it into the police force but the majority have. Doing this gives a much higher percentage of compatible dogs that will service the community along with their handlers. I am sure it would be the same for other service dogs.

      • 

        Ultimate999 on 18/02/2017 - 07:53

        I used to foster kittens and it made me sick how many times people would request they NOT be desexed so that they could have their kids 'witness the miracle of childbirth'. Then they would get pissy at me when I said they all come desexed. There is no 'miracle of childbirth' in the animal kingdom. For a lot of dogs and cats, it's a miserable experience and most of them look exhausted and sore by the time their kittens/puppies are old enough to be adopted out.

  • 

    pubo on 15/02/2017 - 15:10

    -1

    puppy adoption fee = $300+
    kinda counter productive to "encourage" adoptions don't you think?

    • 

      jermm on 15/02/2017 - 16:10

      +11

      There are significant costs associated with bringing in rescues, ie desexing, working, vaccinations, food, etc

      Most agencies are run by volunteers too and apart from donations the only source of income is the adoption fee

      $300+ isn't unreasonable IMO

      • 

        harkoliar on 15/02/2017 - 17:44

        Agree with that. I bought mine from a local family,not from a breeder. Puggle, love her to bits.

      • 

        immortalbjr on 16/02/2017 - 10:13

        Exactly. People dont realise the costs involved with looking after and getting the animals taken care of properly before they go out for adoption. If you think $300 for a animal is too much you shouldn't be planning on owning one in the first place anyway - thats how they end up here in the first place.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 15:23

    Actually, there should be a license for owning/buying a pet and much much harsher penalties for animal cruelty, including the breeders.

    But alas, left wing ideology dictates we must forgive the perpetrators and those that do the right thing must suffer and have laws such as the one you have suggested forced upon us.

    • 

      deadpoet on 15/02/2017 - 21:21

      +6

      "Left wing ideology", wat.

      You're not gonna seriously suggest that those who are pro-greyhound racing and its many associated abuses are lefties?

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 16/02/2017 - 16:02

        -1

        You missed my point, typical of the left. Cruelty is inflicted across the whole political spectrum, but its the left wing that won't allow a human to rot in prison for torturing an animal. They just get a slap on the wrist and move on.

        But good to see that 4 people (as expected) advocate the cruelty of animals and that their precious little left wing petals, that still think their grade 3 teacher will wipe their crocodile tears.

        Again nothing new from a section of the community that never grew up.

      • 

        deadpoet on 16/02/2017 - 20:30

        @skimmermilk:
        Eh, I know lots of "lefties" who'd gladly see animal abusers get lengthy jail sentences. I've never come across a "left winger" who would just slap an abuser on the wrist and let them go.

        I'm more classical liberal but that probably qualifies me as a leftist in your eyes. I abhor animal abuse but I don't support a greyhound racing ban.

    • 

      btst7000 on 16/02/2017 - 04:54

      +2

      Actually, there should be a license for owning/buying a pet

      That's just stupid. The last thing this country needs is more regulation and restrictions on activities. Common sense and basic education is all you need to take care of a pet.

      much harsher penalties for animal cruelty

      I'm fine with this.

      • 

        resisting the urge on 16/02/2017 - 10:27

        People can't be trusted to look after animals, and there are too many people to trust anyhow.

        What way do you suggest we control our urges?

        (And, yes, I am in the camp that says animal use, (and a test to prevent child birth whilst we're at it) because by doing that we could keep native animals as pets instead and reduce the pressure of cats and dogs which shouldn't be here either)

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 16/02/2017 - 15:59

        Btst7000,it was in response to the suggestion of the banning all breeding of dogs. If we banned all breeders, there would actually be no dogs in 10 years.

        So licensing would be a better option and i'm nmore than happy to pay money to ensure the safety of animals, it's just a shame most people wont

      • 

        btst7000 on 16/02/2017 - 20:09

        +1

        @skimmermilk: I'm a huge proponent of animal rights but too often licensing leads to over-regulation and an excess of costs. Not worth it!

  • 

    snuke on 15/02/2017 - 15:27

    That is immensely myopic. Adoptions only come about due to surrenders. In many cases there are very good reasons for surrenders that make a large amount of animals not suitable for others. Many are looking for specific breads for specific reasons. Many have other animals that would be far better off with a new puppy being raised in that type of environment. There are an immense multitude of reasons that adoption are not the correct option. It is great when it can happen, but to say it should be the only way is just plain wrong.

    • 

      NobalaKoba on 15/02/2017 - 20:35

      I'm simply after white "bread" .

      • 

        Peck on 16/02/2017 - 10:18

        +2

        Mixed grain have less problems!

  • 

    syousef on 15/02/2017 - 16:49

    I tried to adopt from the RSPCA once. I introduced my current dog. One RSPCA staff member asked the other what the heck she was doing. "Introducing the dogs" "Not that one you don't". Next thing I know the dog I was going to adopt attacked my dog. Luckily we were able to separate them before any serious injury occurred. Needless to say I didn't adopt the dog. Sadly I don't doubt it was destroyed. Adopting a dog is not something every family is in the right place to do. If a dog has issues it takes a lot of time and effort to rehabilitate it if it can be done at all.

    • 

      resisting the urge on 16/02/2017 - 10:31

      +1

      A lot of dogs won't get on for unapparent reasons, and sometimes the dog that attacks is the one that feels most pressured rather than the one that is the dominant aggressor. Let alone the one that has had a few bad experiences just recently, like they might have done by the time they get to the pound.

      It's a tough ask, expecting two adult dogs to get along, you have to introduce carefully on nuetral territory and see if you can take a further step to letting them make true friends.

      • 

        syousef on 16/02/2017 - 10:38

        -3

        The dog was known by the second RSPCA staff member to be aggressive without warning and agressive towards other dogs. We did the introduction in a neutral pen. I wasn't unfamiliar with dogs back then and I'm certainly not now. My point stands. Rescue dogs from the pound are for people who's circumstances fit. Adopting from RSPCA/pound is not a panacea for saving all dog kind.

      • 

        resisting the urge on 16/02/2017 - 17:03

        @syousef: Didn't mean to say you didn't, but I think most dogs in the pound would have high to extreme levels of cortizone and even adrenalin driving their actions. All pens are strange, hemmed in places, etc. All stuff you may know too, but the fact is that adult dogs are strange beasts- perhaps as strange as us, and it is real hard to find a mate for them once older.

        A puppy is the best way of getting a new dog that is more likely to get along with an adult on its territory. Pound puppies can be good, but I'd still want an expert to help, pound staff are seldom experts, not that they aren't hard working, diligeent, well meaning and thinking carefully about the dogs wellfare.

      • 

        syousef on 16/02/2017 - 17:06

        @zerovelocity:

        Well 2 people decided that they should downvote. So clearly I'm an ass. shrug I was never into popularity contests.

        My entire point was that a rescue dog is very likely to have issues and if your family situation isn't set up to cope or you haven't owned a dog before, a pound adoption may not be for you. You said it. Adult dogs are (or at least can be) strange beasts. Much more so if they've been abused or neglected.

        There often aren't many puppies at the pound. Those are the dogs people actually want and if they arrive at the pound people soon take them.

      • 

        resisting the urge on 16/02/2017 - 17:14

        @syousef: All of which are great contributions. I only make my comments to round it out, people rad stories in different ways, etc. For sure, wear your down-voters like a badge of honour/rite of passage.

        If you don't get any DVs, you're not saying anything. Your experience, and others', is important for people to understand.

        All this is a real problem for us as a society, let alone the animals involved, how we treat them. People that buy puppies have a far easier time but fail probably as much as those who take the risk on a companion they fall for at the pound.

        The symptoms we all pay to control (eg abandoned dogs) are as bad as the harm that Prisons ultimately cause (training rather than reforming inmates) when we could be doing the opposite. It's just that we want to play video games (whilst someone else makes the effort to solve our communal problems) instead of helping anybody. Let alone insure ourselves against human frailty through education, training and organising our gubmints, corps and other orgs so that they can succeed in our interests. Instead we are happy that a few few controlling individuals do what they can, destroy what gets destroyed, and take as much as they can get away with before retiring for a final few years on a Caribbean island dealing with ill-health.

      • 

        syousef on 16/02/2017 - 17:22

        @zerovelocity:

        I don't know what the stats are for pups vs rescue dogs. It's just important for people to know what they're getting into if they're to succeed.

        I don't understand your last paragraph.

      • 

        resisting the urge on 16/02/2017 - 17:40

        @syousef: OK I tried to fix it, but probably just made it worse. Rant over, my apologies.

      • 

        syousef on 16/02/2017 - 17:42

        @zerovelocity:

        Actually I think I get the gist of it now so I think you fixed it, at least partially.

• 

  thelastnoob on 15/02/2017 - 15:14

  +9

  Postage in title

• 

  Peck on 15/02/2017 - 15:19

  +3

  I hope that people realize that having a pet is expensive, and a lifetime commitment. Otherwise just buy yourself a teddy bear.

  • 

    King Steuart on 15/02/2017 - 15:24

    +6

    You're saying it's not $29 or less?

    • 

      Peck on 16/02/2017 - 10:08

      +2

      Hehe! Yep, that's the easy part. I have a tiny dog, and regular annual costs of food and medical ~$1,000 p.a. Dog minding for frequent travel ~ $1600 p.a. Plus irregular costs. Eg Vet visit with Xrays $500. But he's well worth it.

      • 

        harkoliar on 16/02/2017 - 18:13

        Do you have insurance to help lessen the blow? Or it wad a pre-existing condition?

      • 

        Peck on 16/02/2017 - 18:31

        @harkoliar: I had insurance for the first couple of years, but the refunds were very small for what I spent, and they had a lot of exclusions. He doesn't have any serious problems, just regular things happen. That's why I warn people that there are always ongoing expenses to be expected.

  • 

    Gravy on 15/02/2017 - 23:10

    Some pets are more expensive than others, and some dogs seem to have a lot more problems than others too. We have a maltese that has been fairly low cost in terms of food and care, but then it only takes one or two operations or a bad tick bight and all that could change as it gets older. We buy tick and flea collars from our local Norco farming supplies store, costs us $10 for a collar that we can cut in half and probably lasts 4 months or so. Dog goes to friends when we are away rather than boarding kennel, helps to develop a back scratching relationship with another dog owner.

    • 

      resisting the urge on 16/02/2017 - 10:36

      Be careful, Collars are highly carginogenic from what I've read. Stink too. I doubt the arachnicides they use are clinically tested on humans, let alone dogs.

      But ticks are not good for dogs.

      You can control ticks around your house by reducing their breeding habitat (and growing plants that they don't like), keeping long grass down, etc.

      Also, keep a good tick remover (not the cheapies on fleabay) handy, we even wip out the larval and nymph-stage ticks when we find them.

      • 

        Gravy on 16/02/2017 - 10:51

        Yeah its a double edged sword isnt it. Thanks for your comment. The collars we use are Preventic and contain amitraz, from a quick read online its considered a possible human carcinogen and certainly dangerous if ingested.

        We have had a few bandicoots frequenting our yard over the last couple of years and the ticks have increased since. I've had a few on me last year from our backyard.

      • 

        resisting the urge on 16/02/2017 - 16:56

        @Gravy: What are the bandicoots after? We get ticks from bats in the fig and locout trees, and the blue tongues pick them up from them also.

        If you have a big dog, you have to notice quickly and promptly find and remove if not using chemical prevention. Luckily big dogs systems' tend to handle the 'alien injection' better. So most will bite, fall off and transition to the next stage or lay thousands of eggs.

        With a small dog that you keep inside you can find the ticks but it does take regular handling / constant grooming to be thorough enough. and there is always the larger tick that gets into a place you might not notice/overlook. I do this now and use Nexgard at the beginning of the season only (3 months worse). If this regime works, we'll have nailed it as we live in a fairly tick infested bush facing zone.

      • 

        Gravy on 16/02/2017 - 23:45

        @zerovelocity: Bandicoots eat lawn grubs, especially the big white ones that look like witchetty grubs but turn into black beatles (curl grubs I think). The bandicoots are helpful in that regard, but not so good for bringing in ticks.

      • 

        resisting the urge on 17/02/2017 - 12:32

        @Gravy: Oh those are mostly christmas beetle larvae when I dig them up in my lawn. I dug them up and fed them to the dog. About 100 in one day when I was doing a major dee-weed.

        And I found getting rid of the dandilions (dig up/poison, whatever) keeps them down.

• 

  CyberMurning on 15/02/2017 - 15:37

  +2

  hi guys and girls,

  any of you has one (or two) small dogs at home, but you and wife are working full time? (ie no one at home monday to friday 8am-6pm).

  what do you think, is it possible to own a dog as pet in this kind of situation? will the dog feel lonely and suffering for example? any disadvantages for the dog?

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 15:41

    Of course it's possible, otherwise no one would own pets.

  • 

    smashed on 15/02/2017 - 15:44

    +3

    Big commitment.

    Does the dog have access to a garden when you are at work?
    Will you take it for a walk before you leave and again when you get home?
    Are you happy to never go away for a full day at the weekend unless you know somebody who can look after your dog?

  • 

    miicah on 15/02/2017 - 15:54

    Our dog is fine, but that could just be him. We almost always take him to the park as soon as we get home though.

  • 

    Ayedeevee on 15/02/2017 - 16:07

    +2

    Lots of variables to consider. All dogs are different - some might bark/destroy things when left alone and others will be angels. Some will require extensive training and others will be naturally obedient.

    I believe all dogs get separation anxiety when left alone, but the degree varies from dog to dog.

    Personally, I leave my lab-cross inside alone every weekday and all he ever does is sleep unless someone knocks on the door - then he will go absolutely bonkers until they leave. He also has a dog door to get in and out when he needs and gets walks/ball throws pretty much every evening. My parents' dogs on the other hand will bark, howl and destroy everything they can when left alone for extended periods of time. It's definitely a mixture of nature and nurture and you won't truly know what you're in for until you give it a go.

    Raising/re-homing a dog is very rewarding and I would definitely recommend it for couples without children as "practice".

  • 

    CyberMurning on 15/02/2017 - 16:20

    +1

    thanks for all the replies!

  • 

    KBZ on 15/02/2017 - 16:21

    Also take a look at a dogshare. We leave our lab during the day with another owners dog in his backyard; so he has a friend to play with.

  • 

    syousef on 15/02/2017 - 16:51

    +3

    I have always owned dogs in pairs. They keep each other company. I had tried it with one dog early on and yes it was lonely. Make sure you can afford to feed, vaccinate and buy the accessories. And that you have enough room, shelter in heat and rain.

    • 

      deadpoet on 15/02/2017 - 21:24

      +1

      This. Dogs are pack animals, they will get very lonely by themselves and might start barking like crazy when the owners aren't around and generally irritating the hell out of the neighbours etc.

      • 

        Gravy on 16/02/2017 - 12:16

        A pair of dogs will still bark, although more at people walking past rather than just talking to themselves.

      • 

        syousef on 16/02/2017 - 17:49

        @Gravy:

        Yep they sure will. 2 dogs can equal twice the noise. Not just people too but other animals. We have cats in the neighbourhood.

        My 2 know the command (usually yelled louder than their barking ) "quieeeetttt!!!" :-) I also keep them in at night. More than half of my neighbours own dogs and so understand. That helps too.

    • 

      resisting the urge on 16/02/2017 - 17:59

      +1

      Except humans are enough family for one bonded dog, IF the humans engage regularly and appropriately, go for good/exciting walks, and are around it more often than not. Dogs don't mind being alone, but not more than a few times a week, for more than a few hours, not inside (even small dogs NEED nature, ie. a garden with other smells and life in it)…

      Dogs need things to do. Couping them up damages them. Being apart from the pack (the pack went off without me, what have I done wrong??) all this begins to sap their spirits and impacts them mentally.

  • 

    hashtagbargain on 15/02/2017 - 17:07

    +1

    Simple, get your dog a pet to keep it busy while you are away.

  • 

    harkoliar on 15/02/2017 - 17:46

    Same situation. And no access to garden because have no fence. Toilet trained her to do it in every walk which is 3 times a day. No issues, had her checked last month.

• 

  DEvok on 15/02/2017 - 15:44

  Officeworks price match?

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 15:47

    +1

    Only for cows.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 16:21

      +3

      dont talk aboout my wife like that

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 16:43

        +3

        Which isle is she in @officeworks, I will avoid it.

      • 

        ChillBro on 15/02/2017 - 17:50

        +2

        @ms: I can see her hogging up aisles 3-8.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 19:44

        +1

        @ChillBro:
        She's generally in 6 and 9

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 20:09

        @tuzii:

        Phew… Thought I saw her in 69.

      • 

        arcticmonkey on 15/02/2017 - 22:52

        @tuzii:

        With all this 69 action, I think it's safe to say you don't have bitches?

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 16/02/2017 - 04:59

        +1

        @arcticmonkey:
        … At least not in unprecedented heat.

• 

  biggweilo on 15/02/2017 - 15:52

  Depends if you define it as a clearance item.

• 

  IPYF on 15/02/2017 - 16:09

  +14

  I know it'd be fair to neg me for this, but I'd avoid going to RSPCA when they're running a promotion. It's not a fit environment to make such a big decision. We had a horrible experience at RSPCA when they were doing 'no fees for felines'. At Burwood by 9.05am the place was crawling with literally dozens of punters vying for one of the 16 free cats they had. We were 10th in line and waited two hours before being shown a couple of the poor cats remaining that nobody wanted with about 20-30 families after us ready to pounce if we didn't take them. It was really hard, felt so competitive and we couldn't commit to taking an animal under such high-pressure circumstances. Went down to Lort Smith early the day after and it was a completely different experience and we were able to make a much better decision. I'm not saying RSPCA is not a good way to go, and I have no experience with NSW centres and it's obviously great that most of these animals get homes, but I would never go to RSPCA during any kind of promotion ever again, and I do wonder how many animals just wind up coming back because a family got rushed into a decision.

  • 

    syousef on 15/02/2017 - 17:04

    Read about my negative experience above. TlDR; Prospective adoptee dog attacked mine.

    They do these promotions to keep their kill stats down. And they've done quite a good job getting the raw numbers down.

    Last financial year 12.98% of total dogs is a lot better than 39.2% of dogs in 1999-2000.
    And 29.16% of cats is much better than 61.8% of cats in 1999-2000.

    But that's still more than 1 in 10 dogs and almost 3 in 10 cats that die once the RSPCA gets hold of them. Not good enough that I'll ever donate. In my opinion RSPCA and animal control need to be separated before I'll give them a cent, and even then RSPCA would have to surrender animals to animal control when they can't be homed.

    The following stats are from RSPCA themselves.
    https://www.rspca.org.au/facts/annual-statistics-2015-16/pub…

    1999-2000
    Total animals received 138,607
    Dogs received 67,204 (48.5% of total)
    Reclaimed 15,323 (22.8% of dogs)
    Rehomed 21,415 (31.9% of dogs)
    Other 4,127 (6.1% of dogs)
    Euthanased 26,339 (39.2% of dogs)

    Cats received 50,485 (36.4% of total)
    Reclaimed 1,612 (3.2% of cats)
    Rehomed 15,162 (30.0% of cats)
    Other 2,509 (5.0% of cats)
    Euthanased 31,202 (61.8% of cats)
    Other animals received 20,918 (15.1% of total)

    2016-2016
    Total animals received: 137,391
    Dogs
    Reclaimed 17,766 39.26% of total dogs
    Rehomed 16,643 36.78% of total dogs
    Currently in Care 2,839 6.27% of total dogs
    Transferred 1,931 4.27% of total dogs
    Euthanased 5,872 12.98% of total dogs
    Other 205 0.44% of total dogs
    Total dogs 45,256 32.94% of total animals

    Cats
    Reclaimed 2,594 4.67% of total cats
    Rehomed 31,178 56.11% of total cats
    Currently in Care 3,795 6.83% of total cats
    Transferred 925 1.66% of total cats
    Euthanased 16,205 29.16% of total cats
    Other 873 1.57% of total cats
    Total cats 55,570 40.45% of total animals

    Other animals
    Reclaimed 3,754 10.27% of other animals
    Rehomed 5,757 15.75% of other animals
    Currently in Care 1,831 5% of other animals
    Transferred 7,495 20.50% of other animals
    Euthanased 15,681 42.89% of other animals
    Other 2,047 5.59% of other animals
    Total other animals 36,565 26.61% of total animals

    • 

      canyoudoitcheaper on 15/02/2017 - 17:38

      +2

      Not good enough that I'll ever donate.

      So what? They should just release the animals back on the street if they can't be re-homed? I'd much rather they are humanely euthanised than being run over and starving on the streets.

      • 

        syousef on 15/02/2017 - 17:39

        -1

        Read what I wrote. I don't think RSPCA should be responsible for animal control and I don't want to donate for that. They should hand over the animals they can't home to another entity. Please spare me the straw men and reductio.

      • 

        canyoudoitcheaper on 15/02/2017 - 17:51

        +3

        @syousef:

        Hardly a straw man since this is what's happening on the streets every day. I'd also really like to know what this mythical 'other entity' is that you've been lauding. Every shelter in this country either has a low cap on the animals they can take, or kills the excess.

        From your other posts, it looks like you have an axe to grind with the RSPCA because they could find you a 'perfect' dog.

      • 

        syousef on 15/02/2017 - 17:59

        @canyoudoitcheaper:

        I tried to find a dog at the RSPCA once. I've owned 4 dogs as an adult. Accusing me of having an axe to grind over that is childish. That story warns people that adopting is not always suitable.

        My "axe to grind" is over a society for the protection and care of animals that kills between 10% and 50% of the animals they get depending on the type. And before you tell me it's for their welfare take a look at the breakdown of stats.

        I'm saying another entity should be established. It's no more "mythical" than the RSPCA was before it was founded.

        I would dearly love to know where you live that you see dogs being run over and starving on the streets every day.

      • 

        inamberclad on 15/02/2017 - 18:45

        @syousef: what would separation of welfare and control achieve in terms of benefits? (Serious Q)

      • 

        syousef on 15/02/2017 - 18:48

        @justin_tsoi:

        I would donate to welfare. I absolutely refuse to donate to euthanising animals. I wouldn't be the only one. It's a lot less ironic to call yourself a "society for the protection and care of animals" when you aren't killing them by the thousands every year.

      • 

        megasaur on 16/02/2017 - 16:23

        @syousef:
        I just want to comment that animal welfare and euthanasia are not mutually exclusive terms. Sometimes (albeit not all the time), euthanasia is done out of welfare concerns, whether that be for the animal in question, or for other animals or even people involved.

      • 

        syousef on 16/02/2017 - 16:35

        @megasaur:

        Yes I'm aware of that I've had to put down a much loved pet before.

        We're not talking about critically ill or old dogs though. If that was all we were talking about I'd have no issue donating. There's a breakdown of the stats in the reports I linked to.

        Here are the stats for 2015-2016 from Table 3: Reasons for euthanasia of dogs and cats by each RSPCA Society for the 2015-2016 financial year
        Total dogs euthanased 5,872.
        Infectious 173.
        Medical 1,450.
        Behavioural 3,941
        Legal 280
        Other 28

        For cats its confusing.
        Total cats euthanased 16,205
        infections 3,936
        Medical 3,235
        Behavioural 2,520
        Legal 146
        Other 6,368

        What does other mean for cats? No idea.

      • 

        resisting the urge on 16/02/2017 - 18:11

        @syousef: Some of these animals are very poor indeed, and need to be put down if the resources do not exist to maintain them.

        Those that will never find homes because of behaviour or aesthetics represent a sizeable logistical problem. The trouble was made long before they ended up at a shelter, and only we as a society can decide to do something about that. But we're more worried about what Trump or one of our publicity-ticians says than doing anything about the problems that we make, that stare us in the face year in, year out.

        Grey hounds are the obvious example. How do you find homes for all these dogs as house-pets?

      • 

        syousef on 16/02/2017 - 18:16

        @zerovelocity:

        If Trump kills us all with his hubris and his hands on nuclear weapons, dog ownership will be moot. Concern with one thing doesn't preclude concern with the other.

        If you don't want a grey-hound cull you have to slowly wind down the industry. You'll find yourself trying to balance the cruelty of letting them race vs culling them. The dogs only live around a decade so a slow wind down would be a sensible option. Unfortunately people are rarely sensible when animal welfare the topic.

    • 

      resisting the urge on 16/02/2017 - 18:50

      The big trouble at RSPCA is that everyone is hard at work fixing problems that shouldn't be happening, and noone has any resources to do anything other than what they are told. The beancounters probably hide all the cash in the bank or in investments or something awful like the damned Councils do.

      Consider for a moment that RSCPA Management run all the pounds nationally and manage a massive portfolio of assets, accept funds by Councils, Volunteers, Sponsors, Donors, etc. Yet still they can't put more than a handful of the dogs they receive (just checked; there are 412 nationally, right now) online for people to consider each month

      NSW: 122
      Vic: 37
      QLD: 188
      NT: 20
      WA: 7
      SA: 2
      ACT: 10
      Tas: 26
      —— 412

      If you look at the RSCPA's 'adopt-a-pet' website, nationally you are flat-out finding more than a few hundred at the worst of times. I know, because I've been looking for months now. And their cookie-cutter-coded website is hardly up to the ravages of a promotion, let alone a $29 giveaway.

      So instead of fixing the site so that it is a la 2010, let alone 2017, or even making sure that every animal held gets published, they fill up to the gunnels with unwanted animals, then do el-cheapo giveaways and throw the poor animals at anyone who'll take them.

      I concur this is likely done to prevent their stats looking abysmal. But I hope… hope I am very massively mistaken.

      However the fat is that you can't find many animals online other than a small sample of their cats and dogs.

      Seriously, if RSCPA were doing a good job (today, in 2017) of re-homing the animals that need a new home, let alone returning dogs to their actual homes, they'd be putting every animal they receive online, so that everyone could play their part in helping out.

      After all, If you lost your pet and some dog-catcher caught it, they should be posting pics online the moment immediately after picking it up, from a tablet in the truck, with the #justfound or something. They could even inform the registered owner in near real-time given that the Councils all have databases of the registered pets.

      After all, they have no trouble putting a parking ticket on your car if you park it in the wrong place, and sending pictures and other admissible evidence online to help the SDRO get everyone paid as fast as possible.

      Why are the RSPCA not getting the stupid gubmint to help them get their s#*! together?

      • 

        syousef on 16/02/2017 - 19:24

        It takes a lot of man power to photograph the animals, write up stats etc. There is no way to automate that.

• 1
• 2