In just a few days a range of pain medication containing opioids will disappear from chemists shelves. On February 1, a law change will prevent the sale of such familiar brand names as Nurofen Plus without a doctors prescription. It is hoped that this move will prevent Australia from becoming engulfed in the opioid death cycle that is ravaging America.
Unfortunately, the unnecessary use of opioids has been growing. Because they have been freely available without a prescription some people have been using them long term for minor pain without realising their addictive properties. The death toll here is estimated at about 2700 in the past five years.
Now there are moves to limit the right of General Practitioners to write scripts for these drugs. There is concern that people who already have an opioid addiction will react to the withdrawal by seeking prescriptions and that many doctors will be brow beaten into complying with those requests. We could see the supply of all opioids restricted to the dispensing power of specialists and palliative clinics.
There is a very real danger here that we may be condemning those on the fringe of society to a very panful death, and such a restriction would be an insult to the many GP's who treat the dying in their homes because they have a fear of death in the unfamiliar and unsympathetic ward of a general hospital. That is of particular concern in country areas, where suitable hospital care is a long way from home and caring loved ones.
We all must eventually die and the termination of life is often accompanied by one or more of the diseases that deliver excruciating pain in its final stages. It is evident from research that most people would prefer to die at home and that is also often the wish of relatives attending them. Such a death should not be panful and many GP's are the attending doctor who prescribes appropriate pain relief to ease their passing. To remove prescribing rights would disarm doctors from this function, which many years of training has equipped them to deliver.
The vast majority of GP's are very responsible people and they will treat prescribing opioids with care, but in any profession there is an unfortunate element that is only concerned with personal wealth and has little concern for professional ethics. Such people may willingly write scripts and it may be necessary to monitor their practice accordingly.
All scripts are processed through the Medicare system and an excess of prescriptions against any particular doctor should trigger an alarm. Selective withdrawal of opioid prescription rights would be a far better option that a general ban on GP's.
Opioids are addictive, but they have a place in modern medicine and there are circumstances where they are the right treatment at the right stage of the progress of a disease - or to ease the end of life. We need to be careful that we do not over react - or we simple deliver unintended misery!
Sunday, 28 January 2018
Saturday, 27 January 2018
Releasing Dangerous Prisoners !
The ideal concept of sentencing someone to a term in prison is the hope that they may be rehabilitated and not continue to offend when they are released. The judge hearing the case has the difficult task of fitting the time to be served to the criminality of the offence for which the prisoner is before the court. Automatic remissions for good behaviour apply and in most cases the convicted do not serve the entire sentence.
There is an obvious problem when a prisoner is nearing the end of the prison term and showing no remorse or any attempt to mend their ways. It may be that it involves a psychiatric problem, but it is evident to the staff guarding such a prisoner that he will quickly reoffend after release.
Just such a problem is facing those responsible for holding " Simon ", a 51 year old male prisoner who is serving a maximum twelve year sentence imposed in 2009 for aggravate sexual intercourse without consent. It was a particularly brutal rape. His time behind bars has been marred by repeated attacks on prison staff and he has threatened to rape the wife of one of his guards.
Simon first came under consideration for parole in 2015 and again in 2016 but was deemed unsuitable. He is now due for release between January 20 and February 6 but Corrective Services has appealed to have his release revoked on the grounds that he " is unable to adapt to normal lawful community life ". That appeal has been rejected.
When Simon walks to freedom he will be subjected to strict supervision and this will include fitting an electronic tracking bracelet. He will be required to live at an approved address and will not be allowed to visit Randwick, Waverley or Woollahra until his sentence fully expires in April, 2020.
The New South Wales prison system is under space pressure. Early release is essential to make room for newly convicted felons and parole can be an important bargaining chip in imposing safety restrictions while easing prisoners back into society. Those that are refused parole will re-enter society on their own terms when they fully serve their sentence.
That is the limitation of our justice system. Prisoners only serve a sentence for the particular crime for which they have been convicted. We can not extend their time behind bars, for crimes we know they are gong to commit in the future. Even the most violent and worst criminal must walk free when the full length of their sentence has been served.
It was not always that way. In the distant past people who the authorities considered a " nuisance " were jailed indefinitely, and many simply died in prison. Today, we strictly enforce a penal code that enhances the " rights " of the prisoner. Even when a crime results in a " life " sentence marked " never to be released " even that is now subject to review.
It is inevitable that shortly Simon will again walk the streets of Sydney - and no doubt we will hear of him again - in a lurid news story where his freedom has resulted in a personal disaster for some other member of the public. It seems that " freedom " delivers many outcomes, depending on who is the perpetrator and who is the victim !
There is an obvious problem when a prisoner is nearing the end of the prison term and showing no remorse or any attempt to mend their ways. It may be that it involves a psychiatric problem, but it is evident to the staff guarding such a prisoner that he will quickly reoffend after release.
Just such a problem is facing those responsible for holding " Simon ", a 51 year old male prisoner who is serving a maximum twelve year sentence imposed in 2009 for aggravate sexual intercourse without consent. It was a particularly brutal rape. His time behind bars has been marred by repeated attacks on prison staff and he has threatened to rape the wife of one of his guards.
Simon first came under consideration for parole in 2015 and again in 2016 but was deemed unsuitable. He is now due for release between January 20 and February 6 but Corrective Services has appealed to have his release revoked on the grounds that he " is unable to adapt to normal lawful community life ". That appeal has been rejected.
When Simon walks to freedom he will be subjected to strict supervision and this will include fitting an electronic tracking bracelet. He will be required to live at an approved address and will not be allowed to visit Randwick, Waverley or Woollahra until his sentence fully expires in April, 2020.
The New South Wales prison system is under space pressure. Early release is essential to make room for newly convicted felons and parole can be an important bargaining chip in imposing safety restrictions while easing prisoners back into society. Those that are refused parole will re-enter society on their own terms when they fully serve their sentence.
That is the limitation of our justice system. Prisoners only serve a sentence for the particular crime for which they have been convicted. We can not extend their time behind bars, for crimes we know they are gong to commit in the future. Even the most violent and worst criminal must walk free when the full length of their sentence has been served.
It was not always that way. In the distant past people who the authorities considered a " nuisance " were jailed indefinitely, and many simply died in prison. Today, we strictly enforce a penal code that enhances the " rights " of the prisoner. Even when a crime results in a " life " sentence marked " never to be released " even that is now subject to review.
It is inevitable that shortly Simon will again walk the streets of Sydney - and no doubt we will hear of him again - in a lurid news story where his freedom has resulted in a personal disaster for some other member of the public. It seems that " freedom " delivers many outcomes, depending on who is the perpetrator and who is the victim !
Friday, 26 January 2018
Essential Services !
The right to disagree over what we are paid comes with a number of options in Australia. The obvious one is to quit and go and find another job which offers better money. Joining a union delivers the safety of " Collective Bargaining " when it comes to negotiating pay and that brings with it the option of strike action if agreement can not be reached.
There are some professions that are deemed to be " essential services " and for which the strike option is unthinkable. That certainly includes the armed forces that protect this country from external threats and the police services which maintain civil order. Many people would also apply that term to the doctors and nurses who staff our hospitals and the fire service responders.
We were about to experience a complete shutdown of the New South Wales train system because the people who drive the trains have rejected a pay offer but that has now been deferred to March by way of a "no strike " order from the Fair Work Commission. It seems that negotiations between the union and the government reached a settlement that the union approved and this was put to the 6,100 members involved for decision by way of a text message on their mobile hones. It is believed that this message asked for a return verdict if the pay offer was approved, but left the option of a rejection open.
Just 362 members bothered to respond in the affirmative. We are unaware how many sent a negative reply, but the union took the stance that all unanswered messages were automatically a denial of the offer. This strike would cost the NSW economy more than a hundred million dollars and many low income casual workers will lose a days pay. Perhaps it is time our transport system received essential service status.
The only way essential services pay can be insulated from the dickering between the unions and government is to place its decision in the hands of a respected third body - and the High Court of Australia is such a trusted institution. We accept the verdict of the High Court on matters that divide politics and sometimes intrude on the basics of religion and making it the arbiter of pay levels for essential services would seem to deliver a degree of fairness.
Train drivers are demanding a pay increase of six percent a year over each of the next four years and this contrasts with the government offer of a 2.5% increase. Train drivers are skilled people and most receive in excess of $100,000 a year. A demand for a twenty-five percent increase over four years would imbalance other public service pay, and this pay agreement accepted by the union - and rejected by the drivers - was for just a small increase on that original 2.5% offer.
The danger is that militant essential service workers using the strike weapon to force excessive pay increases may force the railways to adopt driverless trains as a necessity, before all safety aspects are fully evaluated. This will eventually be inevitable, but the human element is still the safest option as technology develops and most passengers feel safer knowing that a human is controlling the train.
In this instance, the union is being reasonable and it is the rank and file exhibiting greed. Our economy is now so finely balanced that a to return to the industrial chaos that was so prevalent in yesteryear is unthinkable !
There are some professions that are deemed to be " essential services " and for which the strike option is unthinkable. That certainly includes the armed forces that protect this country from external threats and the police services which maintain civil order. Many people would also apply that term to the doctors and nurses who staff our hospitals and the fire service responders.
We were about to experience a complete shutdown of the New South Wales train system because the people who drive the trains have rejected a pay offer but that has now been deferred to March by way of a "no strike " order from the Fair Work Commission. It seems that negotiations between the union and the government reached a settlement that the union approved and this was put to the 6,100 members involved for decision by way of a text message on their mobile hones. It is believed that this message asked for a return verdict if the pay offer was approved, but left the option of a rejection open.
Just 362 members bothered to respond in the affirmative. We are unaware how many sent a negative reply, but the union took the stance that all unanswered messages were automatically a denial of the offer. This strike would cost the NSW economy more than a hundred million dollars and many low income casual workers will lose a days pay. Perhaps it is time our transport system received essential service status.
The only way essential services pay can be insulated from the dickering between the unions and government is to place its decision in the hands of a respected third body - and the High Court of Australia is such a trusted institution. We accept the verdict of the High Court on matters that divide politics and sometimes intrude on the basics of religion and making it the arbiter of pay levels for essential services would seem to deliver a degree of fairness.
Train drivers are demanding a pay increase of six percent a year over each of the next four years and this contrasts with the government offer of a 2.5% increase. Train drivers are skilled people and most receive in excess of $100,000 a year. A demand for a twenty-five percent increase over four years would imbalance other public service pay, and this pay agreement accepted by the union - and rejected by the drivers - was for just a small increase on that original 2.5% offer.
The danger is that militant essential service workers using the strike weapon to force excessive pay increases may force the railways to adopt driverless trains as a necessity, before all safety aspects are fully evaluated. This will eventually be inevitable, but the human element is still the safest option as technology develops and most passengers feel safer knowing that a human is controlling the train.
In this instance, the union is being reasonable and it is the rank and file exhibiting greed. Our economy is now so finely balanced that a to return to the industrial chaos that was so prevalent in yesteryear is unthinkable !
Thursday, 25 January 2018
The Electric Car Option !
At the moment, the electric car is a miniscule percentage of the Australian car fleet, but there is the expectation that it will grow exponentially in the years ahead. The factors making the average motorist reluctant to make the change include price, distance delivered by a full battery charge and the scarcity of re-charging points.
Some overseas countries have announced that they will force their citizens to drive electric cars by simply banning the production or import of new vehicles powered by petrol or diesel internal combustion engines. Britain and France will implement this law from 2040 and Norway and the Netherlands from 2025. Pressure is building for Australia to adopt a similar stance.
We would be wise to adopt the " softly-Softly " approach because Europe is composed of many countries with very large populations, occupying a land mass far less than a typical small Australian state. As a result, their citizens are concentrated in cities and driving distances covered are much shorter than in this country.
There is the expectation that electric cars will soon drop in price to parity with petrol and diesel cars and battery range is ever extending. The expectation of electric cars becoming a trend is causing investors to finance a sharp rise in re-charging stations which will eventually become as common as petrol reselling stations are now. There is no doubt that we are on the cusp of the electric car age.
The difference between Australia and Europe is the concentration of people in small countries compared to Australians spread over a very big continent. It is obvious that the electric car will first find favour with people in our major cities and this seems set to coincide with the advent of the self driving car becoming legal.
It is likely that petrol and diesel will persist for a long time in rural Australia because of the vast distances involved. Just as the four wheel drive initially became an icon of the " bush " it seems that electric cars will predominate as city transport. We would be wise to let this develop at its own pace.
Perhaps the biggest issue not yet addressed is taxation. A huge proportion of the price we pay for petrol and diesel is tax and both the Commonwealth and State will have no option than to try and recover that component of their income stream. There are tentative plans to adopt a " distance driven " tax measure and obviously that would include the toll system to calculate the charge. Those expecting electric to lower motoring costs are likely to be disappointed.
There is also the question of subsidies to get people to make the move to electric. That needs a degree of caution. People who have outlaid a lot of money on an existing high end petrol vehicle may resent its resale price drop caused by new vehicle subsidies - and refusing to move to electric can quickly become a cult following.
The electric car needs to establish itself in users minds by overcoming initial objections progressively. Many will find satisfaction from contributing to lower emissions delivering a healthier planet but we humans tend to get ornery if we feel pressured. Forcing electric cars on people is likely to create a backlash !
Some overseas countries have announced that they will force their citizens to drive electric cars by simply banning the production or import of new vehicles powered by petrol or diesel internal combustion engines. Britain and France will implement this law from 2040 and Norway and the Netherlands from 2025. Pressure is building for Australia to adopt a similar stance.
We would be wise to adopt the " softly-Softly " approach because Europe is composed of many countries with very large populations, occupying a land mass far less than a typical small Australian state. As a result, their citizens are concentrated in cities and driving distances covered are much shorter than in this country.
There is the expectation that electric cars will soon drop in price to parity with petrol and diesel cars and battery range is ever extending. The expectation of electric cars becoming a trend is causing investors to finance a sharp rise in re-charging stations which will eventually become as common as petrol reselling stations are now. There is no doubt that we are on the cusp of the electric car age.
The difference between Australia and Europe is the concentration of people in small countries compared to Australians spread over a very big continent. It is obvious that the electric car will first find favour with people in our major cities and this seems set to coincide with the advent of the self driving car becoming legal.
It is likely that petrol and diesel will persist for a long time in rural Australia because of the vast distances involved. Just as the four wheel drive initially became an icon of the " bush " it seems that electric cars will predominate as city transport. We would be wise to let this develop at its own pace.
Perhaps the biggest issue not yet addressed is taxation. A huge proportion of the price we pay for petrol and diesel is tax and both the Commonwealth and State will have no option than to try and recover that component of their income stream. There are tentative plans to adopt a " distance driven " tax measure and obviously that would include the toll system to calculate the charge. Those expecting electric to lower motoring costs are likely to be disappointed.
There is also the question of subsidies to get people to make the move to electric. That needs a degree of caution. People who have outlaid a lot of money on an existing high end petrol vehicle may resent its resale price drop caused by new vehicle subsidies - and refusing to move to electric can quickly become a cult following.
The electric car needs to establish itself in users minds by overcoming initial objections progressively. Many will find satisfaction from contributing to lower emissions delivering a healthier planet but we humans tend to get ornery if we feel pressured. Forcing electric cars on people is likely to create a backlash !
Wednesday, 24 January 2018
A New " Atrocity " !
The United Nations was supposed to be the world body with the power to stop wars and provide the impartial judgement to settle disputes. Perhaps its finest hour was its intervention in the war when North Korea invaded its southern neighbour in 1950. Troops of many nations fought under the United Nations banner to repel that invasion. Now a new atrocity is happening before the eyes of the world and the UN seems to be impotent.
A million Rohingya refugees have fled across the border from Rakhine state in Myanmar and are sheltering in squalid camps in Bangladesh. They are unwanted in either country and now an agreement has been signed to allow them to return to the very people who burned their villages and committed a massacre that forced them out of that country.
This agreement seems to be steeped in bad faith. Myanmar is a predominently Buddhist country and the Rohingya are Muslim. They have lived in what was then Burma for many generation when they were imported to solve a labour shortage, but they have never been accepted as citizens. They are denied the vote or access to passports and over the years there have been repeated pogroms that made their life miserable.
Recently, a militant element emerged in Rohingya ranks and this resulted in an armed attack on a police post. The response from the Myanmar army was swift - and deadly. They unleashed a terror attack, burning villages and indiscriminately shooting men, women and children. Rape was common, and widespread. About a million Rohingya fled across the border with just the clothes on their backs.
Myanmar is a country emerging from as military dictatorship. Aung San Suu Kyi heads a civilian government but power remains in the hands of the army and it seems that the Buddhist majority are complicit in forcing the Rohingya to leave. Myanmar has come under heavy world criticism and it seems to be reluctantly bowing to world pressure in allowing this return agreement.
But the Rohingya will return - to what ? Their villages are burned to the ground. They crops and farm animals are gone and whatever industries that delivered a living have been destroyed. They will not even be returning to their former " place of origin ", but to new refugee camps in other regions.
This is not a plan to allow them to peacefully resettle. The intent seems to be to herd them into uncomfortable and dangerous refugee camps in the hope that privation will cause them to migrate elsewhere - and solve the problem for Myanmar.
There is a remarkable resemblance here to the Palestinian problem in Israel, and it might have a similar outcome. We might see the emergence of a simmering civil war like the Intafada that delivers terror attacks - and their consequent reprisals. An unhappy people who are impossible to govern does not auger well for a prosperous future for Myanmar.
Unfortunately, it seems that the UNHCR will simply stand aside as an interested observer and let this happen !
A million Rohingya refugees have fled across the border from Rakhine state in Myanmar and are sheltering in squalid camps in Bangladesh. They are unwanted in either country and now an agreement has been signed to allow them to return to the very people who burned their villages and committed a massacre that forced them out of that country.
This agreement seems to be steeped in bad faith. Myanmar is a predominently Buddhist country and the Rohingya are Muslim. They have lived in what was then Burma for many generation when they were imported to solve a labour shortage, but they have never been accepted as citizens. They are denied the vote or access to passports and over the years there have been repeated pogroms that made their life miserable.
Recently, a militant element emerged in Rohingya ranks and this resulted in an armed attack on a police post. The response from the Myanmar army was swift - and deadly. They unleashed a terror attack, burning villages and indiscriminately shooting men, women and children. Rape was common, and widespread. About a million Rohingya fled across the border with just the clothes on their backs.
Myanmar is a country emerging from as military dictatorship. Aung San Suu Kyi heads a civilian government but power remains in the hands of the army and it seems that the Buddhist majority are complicit in forcing the Rohingya to leave. Myanmar has come under heavy world criticism and it seems to be reluctantly bowing to world pressure in allowing this return agreement.
But the Rohingya will return - to what ? Their villages are burned to the ground. They crops and farm animals are gone and whatever industries that delivered a living have been destroyed. They will not even be returning to their former " place of origin ", but to new refugee camps in other regions.
This is not a plan to allow them to peacefully resettle. The intent seems to be to herd them into uncomfortable and dangerous refugee camps in the hope that privation will cause them to migrate elsewhere - and solve the problem for Myanmar.
There is a remarkable resemblance here to the Palestinian problem in Israel, and it might have a similar outcome. We might see the emergence of a simmering civil war like the Intafada that delivers terror attacks - and their consequent reprisals. An unhappy people who are impossible to govern does not auger well for a prosperous future for Myanmar.
Unfortunately, it seems that the UNHCR will simply stand aside as an interested observer and let this happen !
Tuesday, 23 January 2018
A Looming Storm Danger !
Most Sydney residents have a very good reason to remember June of 2016. A severe low pressure system formed off the New South Wales coast, causing massive waves to crash against the shoreline and vivid television pictures showed the damage being caused to homes in Pittwater road, Collaroy.
That storm surge devastated homes fronting the beach. The sand on the beach disappeared and the wave action eroded inland until it was washing under the foundations of homes and causing them to collapse. Most striking was the sight of an entire in-ground swimming pool which was displaced and left in the beach shallows when the water finally receded.
Eighteen months later and those same residents are still fighting to get council approval to construct a seawall to protect their properties. The Northern Beaches Council requires a development application to be processed through the bureaucracy before any work can begin and this has developed into a fight between what the residents want and what the council demands.
Homeowners affected are prepared to spend $150,000 each on a seawall construction to protect their property but what the council demands may run to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and many think the council is shifting the protection for both neighbouring properties and the public beach by demanding a seawall that will achieve that protection - at their expense.
What is causing residents ire is the contradictions of council decisions. Valuable hotel properties damaged by the storm were ordered to carry out repairs while reasonable plans for their own property protection are being blocked.
This situation must chill the hearts of many people living near a beach. At any time the weather may repeat that high wave phenomenon and it may be another suburb that suffers similar damage. That all depends on the storm intensity and the direction from which it arrives. It also raises the issue of rising sea levels caused by global warming.
That presents both a short and a long term problem. The type of seawall residents propose in Collaroy will offer protection for perhaps the next twenty or thirty years, but in more than a hundred years many Sydney suburbs may be more like Holland, below the natural sea level and in need of protection by dykes.
Some council planners think we would be wise to abandon beach front properties and force residents to live on higher ground inland, and with that in mind propose to reject plans for rebuilding or renovation of existing beach front homes. That thinking claims seawalls are a waste of money and we should bow to the inevitable.
Building approvals are being rejected for land that is obviously prone to tidal surges but existing property owners have the right to try and protect their investment in at least the short term. The fact that these properties which received damage eighteen months ago can still not get seawall approval is simply a disgrace. The decision on the viability of any proposed seawall needs to be taken from council hands and decided by independent engineers.
It is unreasonable to expect owners of beachfront property to walk away from their valuable property and make no effort to protect their investment. Even a modest seawall will extend the life of the property while this global warming and rising sea level debate reaches a conclusion.
That storm surge devastated homes fronting the beach. The sand on the beach disappeared and the wave action eroded inland until it was washing under the foundations of homes and causing them to collapse. Most striking was the sight of an entire in-ground swimming pool which was displaced and left in the beach shallows when the water finally receded.
Eighteen months later and those same residents are still fighting to get council approval to construct a seawall to protect their properties. The Northern Beaches Council requires a development application to be processed through the bureaucracy before any work can begin and this has developed into a fight between what the residents want and what the council demands.
Homeowners affected are prepared to spend $150,000 each on a seawall construction to protect their property but what the council demands may run to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and many think the council is shifting the protection for both neighbouring properties and the public beach by demanding a seawall that will achieve that protection - at their expense.
What is causing residents ire is the contradictions of council decisions. Valuable hotel properties damaged by the storm were ordered to carry out repairs while reasonable plans for their own property protection are being blocked.
This situation must chill the hearts of many people living near a beach. At any time the weather may repeat that high wave phenomenon and it may be another suburb that suffers similar damage. That all depends on the storm intensity and the direction from which it arrives. It also raises the issue of rising sea levels caused by global warming.
That presents both a short and a long term problem. The type of seawall residents propose in Collaroy will offer protection for perhaps the next twenty or thirty years, but in more than a hundred years many Sydney suburbs may be more like Holland, below the natural sea level and in need of protection by dykes.
Some council planners think we would be wise to abandon beach front properties and force residents to live on higher ground inland, and with that in mind propose to reject plans for rebuilding or renovation of existing beach front homes. That thinking claims seawalls are a waste of money and we should bow to the inevitable.
Building approvals are being rejected for land that is obviously prone to tidal surges but existing property owners have the right to try and protect their investment in at least the short term. The fact that these properties which received damage eighteen months ago can still not get seawall approval is simply a disgrace. The decision on the viability of any proposed seawall needs to be taken from council hands and decided by independent engineers.
It is unreasonable to expect owners of beachfront property to walk away from their valuable property and make no effort to protect their investment. Even a modest seawall will extend the life of the property while this global warming and rising sea level debate reaches a conclusion.
Monday, 22 January 2018
Ending the " Pet " Dog Trade !
It seems that many councils are refusing a permit to allow home owners to legally breed puppies because of publicity given to what are termed " puppy farms " - where unscrupulous people churn out endless numbers of litters from exhausted mothers, often in overcrowded and filthy conditions. These unvaccinated pups are then sold through pet shops.
Buying a pet dog from a recognised breeder with the authenticity guaranteed by the accompanying registration with the Kennel Control Council of Australia can cost you hundreds - and even thousands of dollars. The KCC scrupulously monitors the number of litters permitted each breeding cycle. Such breeders specialise in a particular species of canine and duly registered thoroughbreds compete in competitions for " best of breed " recognition, which impresses buyers.
There is a growing movement to stamp out these legitimate breeders and make the supply of pets through pet shops entirely reliant on dogs turned in at animal shelters. These come in all shapes and sizes and within a wide age range. Each has been checked out, wormed and vaccinated, but is rarely a true copy of the precise breed the buyer is seeking. This movement is seeking to see Greyhounds that have been rejected for racing channelled through pet shops to provide them with a good home.
A pet dog was thought to be an attribute to most families. Apart from the companionship, many people found that taking the dog for a walk was a way of gaining exercise and losing weight. The family dog being taken for a walk was a familiar sight in most suburbs, but that practice is now dwindling.
Land scarcity has resulted in more apartment living and this has resulted in the smaller breeds becoming the most popular pets - and we are now seeing demand for a mix of breeds. One of the most popular couplings is a mix of a Cavalier King Charles spaniel and a Poodle, resulting in what is called a " Cavoodle ". The end result is a small, curly haired dog with a very good temperament, tolerance for children and an affinity for apartment living.
This may soon become an officially registered breed recognised by the KCC, but the whole structure of pure bred dogs being legitimately bred by industry specialists is under threat from a hostile element which seems determined to make pets only available from the rejects that are processed through animal shelters. Legitimate requests for dog breeding approvals are being rejected and any such proposal is being treated as a " puppy farm ".
It is a fact of life that where these puppy farms exist they are rarely registered with any council. It is usually a criminal element operation being run under cover and the pups sold to pet shops are on a cash basis to avid taxation. Discovery is usually through the complaints of neighbours, complaining about the smell or the constant barking of a mass of dogs kept in close confinement.
If legitimate breeders are forced out of business the only dogs available to the public will be by nature mixed breeds, and with that will go the temperaments that make us favour the type of dog we want for a pet in the first place.
Buying a pet dog from a recognised breeder with the authenticity guaranteed by the accompanying registration with the Kennel Control Council of Australia can cost you hundreds - and even thousands of dollars. The KCC scrupulously monitors the number of litters permitted each breeding cycle. Such breeders specialise in a particular species of canine and duly registered thoroughbreds compete in competitions for " best of breed " recognition, which impresses buyers.
There is a growing movement to stamp out these legitimate breeders and make the supply of pets through pet shops entirely reliant on dogs turned in at animal shelters. These come in all shapes and sizes and within a wide age range. Each has been checked out, wormed and vaccinated, but is rarely a true copy of the precise breed the buyer is seeking. This movement is seeking to see Greyhounds that have been rejected for racing channelled through pet shops to provide them with a good home.
A pet dog was thought to be an attribute to most families. Apart from the companionship, many people found that taking the dog for a walk was a way of gaining exercise and losing weight. The family dog being taken for a walk was a familiar sight in most suburbs, but that practice is now dwindling.
Land scarcity has resulted in more apartment living and this has resulted in the smaller breeds becoming the most popular pets - and we are now seeing demand for a mix of breeds. One of the most popular couplings is a mix of a Cavalier King Charles spaniel and a Poodle, resulting in what is called a " Cavoodle ". The end result is a small, curly haired dog with a very good temperament, tolerance for children and an affinity for apartment living.
This may soon become an officially registered breed recognised by the KCC, but the whole structure of pure bred dogs being legitimately bred by industry specialists is under threat from a hostile element which seems determined to make pets only available from the rejects that are processed through animal shelters. Legitimate requests for dog breeding approvals are being rejected and any such proposal is being treated as a " puppy farm ".
It is a fact of life that where these puppy farms exist they are rarely registered with any council. It is usually a criminal element operation being run under cover and the pups sold to pet shops are on a cash basis to avid taxation. Discovery is usually through the complaints of neighbours, complaining about the smell or the constant barking of a mass of dogs kept in close confinement.
If legitimate breeders are forced out of business the only dogs available to the public will be by nature mixed breeds, and with that will go the temperaments that make us favour the type of dog we want for a pet in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)