This was posted 6 years 9 months 3 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

$29 for All Puppies, Dogs, Kittens, Cats and Rabbits @ RSPCA (Excludes WA/TAS)

1870
$29 for All Puppies, Dogs, Kittens, Cats and Rabbits @ RSPCA (Excludes WA/TAS)
Go to Deal
trenttn on 19/02/2018 - 18:46 rspcavic.org (6356 clicks)
Last edited 23/02/2018 - 10:20 by 2 other users

RSPCA VIC:

"This weekend we’re clearing our shelters! We want to make sure every single animal finds their forever home, so we’re reducing all adoption fees to just $29* from this Friday to Sunday!

Please SHARE this post to help us spread the word!!

*Excludes horses. Standard adoption process still applies so we can make sure each animal and owner is matched properly to live a happy life together. Please allow extra time for your visit during this busy event."

UPDATE:

RSPCA NSW

RSPCA NSW desperately wants to find forever homes for every single one of our shelter animals. For this, we need your help! From 23 February to 25 February 2018, adopting a pet from RSPCA NSW costs just $29, whatever the animal’s age, size or species. There’s no better time to find your new best friend! If the adoption fee is normally $29 or less, the animal will be fee free during this period.

Please note that pre-registration does not guarantee adoption but if you do adopt on the day, your details will already be in our system, maximising valuable time spent with your new pet.

Don’t forget to bring along your unique number (you will receive this in an email once you register) proof of identity (e.g. drivers licence, proof of age card, passport etc.) Please note that our standard adoption procedures still apply, this helps ensure each animal is rehomed with the perfect forever family. Each adoption fee includes desexing and microchipping services, vaccinations, behavioural and veterinary checks.

RSPCA ACT

All are available for adoption this Friday and Saturday at the RSPCA ACT Shelter in Weston Creek and select Pet Barns in Canberra.

WHAT: 'Clear the Shelter' $29 Adoption
WHEN: Friday 23rd and Saturday 24th February 2018
WHERE: RSPCA Shelters including selected Pet Barns.

RSPCA QLD

See adoption fees drop for 3 days only during RSPCA's national Clear the Shelter campaign.

The idea is to adopt as many RSPCA rescue animals that are available for adoption as possible within 3 days of the campaign running. From the 23rd to the 25th February 2018 all animals available for adoption from $29*

Save time and pre-register online now. Once our RSPCA team has received your details and entered them into our system, you will receive a unique ID number. Bringing this ID number with you on the day will ensure you get a head start in the adoption application process. Make sure you bring your Driver’s License and confirmation that you are allowed to keep pets at your home.

RSPCA SA

Friday 23rd February until Sunday 25th February
Includes RSPCA Lonsdale, Whyalla and Port Lincoln Shelters
Extended opening hours at RSPCA Lonsdale’s Shelter: 25 Meyer Road, Lonsdale
Friday: 10am – 8pm
Saturday & Sunday: 10am – 3pm
All adoption fees $29 – including dogs, cats, kittens and rabbits
200 animal urgently seeking homes
All animals desexed, microchipped, vaccinated and vet-checked

RSPCA NT

WHEN: 23 – 25 February 2018 (see our website for opening hours)
WHAT: $29 Adoption rates
WHERE: RSPCA DARWIN, 80 Boulter Rd Berrimah.
Check out our animals available for adoption on adoptapet.com.au https://www.adoptapet.com.au/

Mod Update - This is available Australia wide apart from WA/TAS. News Article

It’s expected to be a huge weekend, says RSPCA NSW spokeswoman Stefania Kubowicz, and will mark the organisation’s biggest adoption drive yet, with the campaign extending to all states except WA.

Another site has reported that TAS is also excluded in addition to WA.

Pets

Related Stores

RSPCA Victoria
RSPCA Victoria

closed Comments

  • Scab on 19/02/2018 - 18:49
    +83

    $29 For All Puppies, Dogs, Kittens, Cats and Rabbits

    JV: How much is it just for one?

  • jdr on 19/02/2018 - 18:59
    +15

    That's not good that puppies are included in the $29 special. It reduces the chances for the older dogs I believe. Also, puppies take more time and attention in the first months at least and shouldn't be a cheap item to keep the kids quiet. Normally when they do similar specials in Queensland they seem to exclude puppies under 6 months I think.

    • nuchalis on 19/02/2018 - 21:17

      This time of year is the end of kitten season so most of the kittens are gone and they're trying to home the poor older cats who just spent 4 months watching kittens go home, maybe it's the same for puppies/dogs?

      • Scab on 19/02/2018 - 21:29
        +4

        Shelters are always overwhelmed at this time of year from unwanted Xmas puppy gifts.

  • syousef on 19/02/2018 - 19:11
    +1

    This annual "clearance" is how they have managed to get their kill stats down. I don't know if it's good for the dogs in the long run in terms of their welfare, and yes if they suffer it is worse than dead. But those stats use to be much higher. You can see them in the RSPCA annual reports on their website.

    • nuchalis on 19/02/2018 - 21:14
      +9

      how they have managed to get their kill stats down.

      Lol, like the RSPCA is out there rubbing their hands gleefully, all "Ha, this'll fool them!"

      It's just a marketing tactics to get animals into homes, and relieve pressure on their resources. They do tons of different things like this, each attracts attention just like now…

      No-one could ensure every animal gets a perfect owner, and imho the RSPCA does a fine job overall :)

      • syousef on 19/02/2018 - 22:05
        -2

        RSPCA were and still are coping a lot of flak (and rightly so) for their kill numbers and ratios.

        They're all here.
        https://www.rspca.org.au/facts/annual-statistics-2015-16/pub…

        1999-2000
        Dogs received 67,204 Euthanased 26,339 (39.2%)
        Cats received 50,485 Euthanased 31,202 (61.8%)

        2015-2016
        Dogs 45,256 Euthanased 5,872 (13.0%)
        Cats 55,570 Euthanased 16,205 (29.2%)

        As you can see it's gotten a lot better. I'll still never donate to them though.

        • Blitzfx on 19/02/2018 - 22:40
          +32

          Why are RSPCA copping flak for destroying animals? This is the general public's fault and breeders for letting unwanted pets go free and for over breeding.

        • Blitzfx on 19/02/2018 - 23:04
          +21

          @syousef:
          Wait what? Who's going to front the money for looking after these unwanted animals then? Where's the RSPCA supposed to get unlimited funds for looking after the 10-15 years of the life of the cat / dog if it doesn't get adopted?

          How did that conversation end huh?

        • googoogaga on 19/02/2018 - 23:22
          +10

          @syousef:

          and the alternative is? glad an organisation are taking in unwanted pets. Can't blame RSPCA for the mistake of others.

        • CVonC on 20/02/2018 - 01:29
          +2

          @syousef:

          bit of a naive opinion there mate.

        • theraque on 20/02/2018 - 07:11
          -2

          @syousef:
          Yeah, syousef.

        • syousef on 20/02/2018 - 08:24

          @CVonC:

          So it isn't naive to donate money to an organisation tasked not only with the welfare of animals but also with their control and not realise that you're supporting the killing of animals? Is that it?

        • syousef on 20/02/2018 - 08:24

          @googoogaga:

          The alternative is to separate animal welfare from animal control.

        • syousef on 20/02/2018 - 08:27
          -7

          @Blitzfx:

          It ended with a straw man, clearly.

          RSPCA should be giving up those animals to a separate organisation tasked with animal control when they can no longer afford to keep them. You shouldn't have the same organisation tasked with the protection of animals also tasked with their elimination. If I donate money I want 100% going to preserving the animal for as long as possible, not being siphoned off to dispose of them.

          And I'm tired of having this same conversation again and again here. It's predictable. People won't even look at what I'm actually saying. It's like primitive roid rage: "He hate RSPCA. Must downvote. Ugh".

        • King Steuart on 20/02/2018 - 08:35
          +5

          @syousef: I don't think there is such an organisation. Feel free to start one.

          There's no simple solution and at the end of the day, the environment thanks the RSPCA for their tiresome thankless job. Imagine if all these animals simply roamed the streets! We'd have no native wildlife left.

        • syousef on 20/02/2018 - 08:38
          +1

          @Putnum:

          "Feel free to start one". Yeah no problem mate. I'll just change my career, work out a different way to support my family while I start a nation wide organisation. Thanks for the practical and realistic solution. Rabbiting on about me not appreciating a "thankless tasks" was just the icing on that cake. Do you even understand that irony? Well done.

          By the way you wouldn't have the animals roaming the streets because there are council pounds and there are other organisations, including no-kill shelters.

        • King Steuart on 20/02/2018 - 09:05

          you wouldn't have the animals roaming the streets because there are council pounds and there are other organisations, including no-kill shelters.

          There aren't enough though.

        • Jolakot on 20/02/2018 - 10:32

          @syousef: Why change career? Just do it in your spare time, 8 hours of work, 8 hours of cleaning dog crap out of cages, and 8 hours for sleep.

        • syousef on 20/02/2018 - 10:43
          -2

          @Jolakot:

          But where would I fit in having such wonderful indepth conversations on Ozbargain?

          8 hours to yourself. Are you perchance single and childless?

        • Ken Kenobi on 20/02/2018 - 12:24
          +6

          @syousef:
          I don't know if you're trolling but I'll bite this one time because your comments are naive and uneducated.

          Regarding the euthanasia rates, it would be great if context is put in place as well. Such as, of the 5872 dogs euthanised, 3941 was for behavioural reasons and 1450 for medical reasons. Behavioural issues could mean it's unhomeable or poses risks to others or it has severe anxiety and poses a risk to itself. Cats have far more medical issues, accounting for 44% of euthanasia, whilst behavioural is 20%. And while we can focus on the unfortunate truth that animals can be put down, 78749 (78%) of all cats and dogs that have been in their care, were rehomed or reclaimed.

          "RSPCA should be giving up those animals to a separate organisation tasked with animal control when they can no longer afford to keep them". They do, they give them to specialist organisations after RSPCA exhausts all their options. But then those organisations also have finite resources, space and availability. But you wouldn't worry about that. You also seem to think there are endless resources at the council pounds, they don't. Once their capacity limit is met, they reach out to other organisations such as the RSPCA.

          "You shouldn't have the same organisation tasked with the protection of animals also tasked with their elimination". Do you know what they do other than being a shelter? Do you know where the animals come from? Why don't we have another organisation with euthanasia and their "kill stat" would be justified. Or we could just let the the animals that can't be homed roam the streets, possibly harming other wildlife or people, or possibly continue to reproduce to create what is already an issue in Australia.

          "If I donate money I want 100% going to preserving the animal for as long as possible, not being siphoned off to dispose of them". That's up to you to decide which organisation you wish to donate to but unless you start up your own Charity, you won't be able to control what they do will donations. Speaking of finances, Revenue of RSPCA NSW has been between $30M-$35M for the last 4 financial years, but they have run an operating loss for the same period of $11M to $22M. Don't forget space is finite, and costs are ever increasing.

          I am in no way affiliated with the RSPCA, and whilst I don't agree with everything they do, they have a task no other organisation is willing to "flak" for. Your knowledge of this organisation is juvenile. When you decide to have an opinion again, please ensure it's an educated one.

          /rant.

        • syousef on 20/02/2018 - 12:56
          -4

          @Kenobi bargain:

          Naive and uneducated? Let's talk about that shall we.

          First on the stats. It's pretty clear that you're not going to kill ~40% of dogs and ~60% of cats for "behavioural reasons", which is what they were doing in 1999-2000. Yeah it's gotten better. It took about a decade and a half. My point is - and I can't believe I have to keep repeating it - THE SAME ORGANISATION TASKED WITH ANIMAL WELFARE SHOULDN'T BE TAKING CARE OF ANIMAL CONTROL. If I donate my money, I don't want it to go to animal control or euthanasia. I would think that would be an easy thing to understand. It is my personal choice not to donate to an organisation that puts down animals. I'd call that pretty damned educated and not so naive. If you don't like it or don't want to do the same, that's your issue.

          Then some unresearched nonsense about the procedures followed for euthanising animals. Where did you pull

          "they give them to specialist organisations after RSPCA exhausts all their options." from?
          Because the RSPCA vets are the ones that put them down. That is my beef. I have had to put a dog down for medical reasons and it's not fun. I will NOT pay for animals to be destroyed. MY CHOICE. What knowledge do you base your assumption that they outsource the kills on? Or is it a case of "I can make up any nonsense I bloody well choose"?

          "You also seem to think there are endless resources at the council pounds, they don't."

          Now how educated is throwing that straw man at me? Please point to where I said council pounds had endless resources? The hyperbole is ridiculous. Still if people want to donate to animal control, let them donate there. Or let them be taxed more for it. Anyone who works pays taxes. Anyone who owns a home pays rates. But I'm not going to voluntarily be complicit with the kills.

          "Or we could just let the the animals that can't be homed roam the streets, possibly harming other wildlife or people"

          Once again please point to where I said the animals should be allowed to breed uncontrollably and roam free??

          I AM SICK TO DEATH OF OZBARGAINERS GODDAMN STRAW MEN. IF YOU ARE GOING TO ARGUE AGAINST SOMETHING, MAKE SURE IT'S SOMETHING YOUR OPPONENT ACTUALLY SAID.

          I'm not going to respond to the rest. It doesn't even represent what I said. Why should I waste my words on that?

          "Your knowledge of this organisation is juvenile. When you decide to have an opinion again, please ensure it's an educated one."

          How about instead of a self confessed rant, you actually read what was bloody well said instead of accusing others of being naive, juvenile and uneducated. The way you conduct an argument puts you in no position to throw stones in that glass house.

          And one last thing: Take a look at my other posts on this thread. And you accuse me of trolling? Seriously? Why would I try to educate people about the cost of animals if I were trolling? A clever smoke screen to waste my time just so I can get a rise? You really want to throw around the word juvenile?

        • CVonC on 20/02/2018 - 13:49

          @syousef:

          So your main gripe is the fact that the RSPCA does both; the welfare and the control? And if the control was passed off to another organisation, you'd be completely okay with that and hence would then donate to the RSPCA? Would you then have issues with the lone organisation that does the control??

        • syousef on 20/02/2018 - 13:54
          -1

          @CVonC:

          My donation wouldn't go towards the actual kill, so yes I'd feel better about that. In fact my donation would make it LESS likely that they would have to hand over the animal as it would all go to welfare, instead of it being split between welfare and destroying animals.

          No I wouldn't be donating anything to the company doing the kills. But my issues would be limited to having nothing to do with it.

        • CVonC on 20/02/2018 - 13:58

          @syousef:

          Understandably, that's a fair point. However, funding is always limited and we don't have the luxury of such an organisation unfortunately. At least the donations to RSPCA still do go to welfare, even if it's split. Just donate your money to the many independent, self-funded and private shelters and rescues out there so that 100% goes to welfare instead :)

        • syousef on 20/02/2018 - 14:03
          +1

          @CVonC:

          Which is exactly what I said. I won't donate to RSPCA.

          For that not only was I downvoted on most of my replies, but I was called uneducated, juvenile and naive.

          I did not even say that people shouldn't buy their pets from their shelters. I just tried to make sure those signing up for pet ownership understood the costs.

          I'm in 2 minds about whether this is a good way to do things. On the one hand their headline stats are much lower. No question I'd rather see RSPCA kill half or a quarter as many animals. On the other hand I don't know how many of those pets adopted by people trying to save a buck will be well treated. Are the pets just dying under the care of others? I sincerely HOPE they are treated well enough that they're not better off dead, but I can't think of a way to track that.

        • CVonC on 20/02/2018 - 14:22

          @syousef:

          I think because your opinion is rather black and white: RSPCA euthanise animals, therefore they're bad and we shouldn't support them via donations due to that responsibility alone. The argument is that they do good work too (when they actually can and do) and is the largest organisation to be able to. If only we lived in a utopian world though.

        • keffola on 20/02/2018 - 15:24
          +5

          @syousef:

          What exactly is the difference between RSPCA doing the euthanizing as opposed to them giving the animal to another agency to do the deed? The animal still ends up dead, presumably just more admin is required to do the handover between agencies?

          Not really understanding your moral stance with that argument but as others have said you're free to donate to whichever organisation you like. No need to donate to the RSPCA if you feel their methods are lacking.

        • lonewolf on 20/02/2018 - 15:33
          +2

          @syousef:

          So where will this other organisation get funds if you arent willing to donate…? Seriously? …anyway waste of time talking to people like this.

        • syousef on 20/02/2018 - 15:45
          -2

          @lonewolf:

          If you're going to tell me I'm a waste of time to talk to, have the courtesy of reading the damned thread. The other places terminating the animals can get their funds from people who don't object as I do to donating for animal control, through council rates and taxes (mentioned above).

        • syousef on 20/02/2018 - 15:47
          -2

          @keffola:

          What exactly is the difference between RSPCA doing the euthanizing as opposed to them giving the animal to another agency to do the deed? The animal still ends up dead, presumably just more admin is required to do the handover between agencies?

          The difference is that all of my money goes towards helping the animals, not putting a needle in them.

          I don't want to be involved in the termination of animals because someone has decided it's too much paperwork to have a different organisation do it.

        • lonewolf on 20/02/2018 - 15:48
          +2

          @syousef:

          I did read the whole thread which was why i was upset at the absurdity of your comments. It makes no sense at all. Just say you are selfish and dont believe in donating etc and thats fine, every person has the choice. But to take a stance on that just doesnt make sense because there is no-one else who is willing to take over that job. I am sure the RSPCA dont get any joy or thrill out of doing it but they have a task to do and they do it. If It wasnt for them who knows what it would be like.

          Ideally i agree that there shouldnt be any killing of animals ,but that is the fault of the public and the government, so in protest you shouldnt donate to any charities that fund people and not animals as well as not pay any taxes so the government get no funding from you.

        • syousef on 20/02/2018 - 15:52
          -1

          @lonewolf:

          You didn't bother to read what I said, but you're upset by what you did read. Do you understand what's wrong with that or do I need to explain it?

          And no I won't say I'm selfish or that I won't donate. Only that i won't donate to the RSPCA. But hey why let what i really said get in the way of your abuse, eh buddy? I said nothing about other charities. Not one damn thing.

          And then your reductio ad absurdum - that I shouldn't pay taxes because of what I believe is just nonsense. There is a difference between paying your dues and making a voluntary donation and you know it.

        • syousef on 20/02/2018 - 15:55

          @CVonC:

          Please point to where I said that YOU shouldn't support the RSPCA. I said I choose not to support that. Huge difference. I didn't even say that the RSPCA is all bad. Do I need to start outlining everything I didn't say? Because that could get quite time consuming.

        • lonewolf on 20/02/2018 - 15:57
          +1

          @syousef:

          haha, Do you even read? i said i did read every comment on that thread.

          My abuse? What are you on about, I was saying a person can just say they are selfish or they dont want to donate and i would understand that, but to make a point over what the RSPCA have to do…. thats what doesnt make sense.

        • syousef on 20/02/2018 - 16:01
          +1

          @lonewolf:

          So calling someone selfish and a waste of time to talk to is your idea of a friendly conversation?

          I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you. It's not my responsibility to explain it any further. This was all triggered by me saying I wouldn't donate to them, not some strange crusade against the RSPCA. To respond, I had to explain my stance. You don't like it? Fine. You don't understand it? Not my problem.

        • keffola on 20/02/2018 - 16:08
          +3

          @syousef:

          There's no issue with you're original argument that RSPCA's kill rates are too high.

          However, your solution of having the RSPCA split off its animal control department away from its animal welfare department does nothing to solve the actual problem.

          It is likely the same amount of animals will still be dying. You didn't actually explain what the difference was between the RSPCA doing the euthanasing as opposed to them passing it onto another entity to do the deed beyond saying "its not the RSPCA doing it" therefore its ok?

          Any likely increase in donations from people such as yourself would probably be offset by potential splits in donations to the new "animal control" entity as well as any administration costs in passing the animals between the entities.

          Ultimately the problem needs to be fixed at the source. Which is educating people on being responsible with pets. They are not toys, do not buy them on a whim. The issues you have with the RSPCA don't go towards solving the actual problem.

        • lonewolf on 20/02/2018 - 16:12

          @syousef:

          Mate, my problem is that you dont understand. I never said you were selfish, i said if you had said you were selfish or dont believe in donating, then that would be fine. But to make a point like what you made was what i had an issue with.

          And look at the thread, there is nothing friendly about your comments on it at all. Frankly if people met you in person and you spoke that same way to them in person, you wouldnt be standing for long.

        • syousef on 20/02/2018 - 16:12
          +1

          @keffola:

          I am not looking to solve the problem.

          I'm looking not to have the animal's blood directly on my hands, thanks to my donation.

          If I could magically make every pet owner responsible I would, but as I don't live in fantasy land, all I am trying to do is not be personally involved in killing the animals, to the limits of what's practical and lawful (hence no tax evasion). For reference I can't end starvation, murder and rape, make all men and women respect each other either. It doesn't mean I want a part in those things.

          If you have a better solution, by all means contact those dedicated to working with animals with your idea.

        • syousef on 20/02/2018 - 16:16
          +1

          @lonewolf:

          Look at the top of the thread. I wasn't insulting anyone.

          Now look at what you just wrote, which could be interpreted as a not so subtle threat to knock someone's block off, whether intended that way or not.

          With an attitude like that do you expect me to stand by and be called naive, uneducated, juvenile, have my point of view twisted and words put in my mouth and not defend myself?

          I am not obligated to have a point of view you like or find consistent.

        • keffola on 20/02/2018 - 16:19
          +2

          @syousef:

          You're just arguing semantics. You still haven't explained how blood is not on your hands from your donation if the animal still dies. The RSPCA will still decide which animal will die when they pass on the animal for euthanizing.

          Agree with you that we don't live in fantasy land. The RSPCA exists as it does because its resources are finite. Hence my belief that you are looking at the problem the wrong way.

          Anyway don't think I'm going to convince you so keep your donation for what you deem to be worthier causes.

        • lonewolf on 20/02/2018 - 16:21
          +2

          @syousef:

          man you are always looking for the negative and thats why the thread is the way it is. I said if you had spoken to all these people on the thread the same way in person, one of them would not have taken kindly to it and it would have gotten aggressive. I didnt say thats what i wanted to do. Because you did come on here with an agenda.

          Otherwise why come on here, you should have just stayed away because you dont like the RSPCA. Why come here and start throwing around accusations at the RSPCA as well as posting stats about how bad they are etc. If you didnt have an agenda.

          Frankly you should have just not posted and just dont donate any money. But you decided to start this whole thing about them then took offence when other people were shocked or had a different take on it and what you were saying. And you still are doing that.

          You say you dont like in a fantasy land but you do because you dont realise if the RSPCA dont do what they do, who will?

        • syousef on 20/02/2018 - 16:21

          @keffola:

          I'm not arguing semantics at all. I don't know what you're struggling with here.

          • The organisation I donate money to doesn't do the killing, therefore my money isn't spent on killing animals.
          • Passing on the animal isn't the same as killing the animal.
          • The staff who look after the animals focus on looking after animals not humanely destroying them.
          • Less money on lethal drugs should mean more money for keeping the animals longer.
        • syousef on 20/02/2018 - 16:23

          @lonewolf:

          I am glad you know what I'm thinking and why I came here better than I do.

          Look further down and I'm actually giving advice to people looking to adopt. Again don't let reality interfere with the conclusions you choose to jump to.

          I've already repeatedly answered your question about who will put down the animals.

        • lonewolf on 20/02/2018 - 16:24

          @syousef:

          see the way you still respond is why people take offence, and yet you want to play the victim. Just leave the thread if you dont like the RSPCA…

        • syousef on 20/02/2018 - 16:28

          @lonewolf:

          The way I respond? Seriously mate, you just told me I have an agenda, then told me I should leave the thread and you want me to respond how exactly?

          Playing the victim my left foot. You are the last person who should be giving advice on people skills.

        • keffola on 20/02/2018 - 16:29
          +2

          @syousef:

          The difference between passing on the animal to be killed versus the actual performing of the injection should be miniscule. Afterall the animal still ends up dead.

          The staff who look after the animals still ultimately have to make the choice of passing the animal on to be killed.

          Donations from people despite their misgivings on the animal control aspect of the RSPCA mean more money for keeping the animal longer.

        • syousef on 20/02/2018 - 16:30
          -1

          @keffola:

          I've explained my point of view, and you are just repeating yourself. I have no desire to do the same.

        • keffola on 20/02/2018 - 16:31

          @syousef:

          I just wanted the last word :)

        • lonewolf on 20/02/2018 - 16:31
          +1

          @syousef:

          haha i rest my case, no wonder people responded the way they did to you.

          You did have an agenda, you wanted to tell people what you thought of the RSPCA, that is an agenda.

          and then you go on to still have pot shots at me, mate i guess it is a troll post.

        • CVonC on 20/02/2018 - 16:33
          +3

          @syousef:

          sigh

          No you didn't specifically say that we shouldn't and that only you won't. But your stance obviously has implications. The fact of the matter is you're not going to donate to the RSPCA simply because they also euthanise. And that's completely your prerogative. You believe that a separate organisation should handle that aspect. Setting up such an organisation would need even more funding from the government that already doesn't provide enough for the RSPCA. So yes the RSPCA (as well as every other shelter, rescue and welfare organisation out there) needs donations. Your stance, however justified it is, implicates impracticality with our situation here in Australia atm. Regardless of whether or not you donate, and however unfortunate it is, euthanisation is needed. Now again, by all means please do send your money at least to the other shelters and rescues out there.

        • syousef on 20/02/2018 - 16:43
          -1

          @lonewolf:

          Pot shots? Who is playing the victim now eh?

        • lonewolf on 20/02/2018 - 17:36

          @syousef:

          haha, i guess my first impressions of you were the right ones and here i thought maybe it was an overreaction…

        • CVonC on 20/02/2018 - 19:55

          @syousef:

          I'm looking not to have the animal's blood directly on my hands, thanks to my donation.

          So in saying that what do you think of those that do donate to the RSPCA then?

        • Ughhh on 21/02/2018 - 13:23
          +3

          @lonewolf:

          You can't argue with a professional victim/brick wall angel.

        • Munki on 23/02/2018 - 09:53

          But why the youth in Asia?

        • [Deactivated] on 23/02/2018 - 10:00

          @syousef: you keep throwing that straw man phrase around without actually understanding what it means.

        • Salmando on 23/02/2018 - 11:04

          @4sure: I noticed that too

        • Whisper Quiet on 23/02/2018 - 11:49
          -4

          @syousef:
          Why is it so hard for these people to understand??! If there's many people like you who don't support RSPCA killing animals for whatever reason, there could be potentially tens of thousands of dollars maybe more they're losing in donations. So if they did have another company handling that part then say theoretically they had all that money now in donations. Then they could take care of the animals for longer, put them in training, clear up any life threatening ailments, etc. Which would then in turn stop so many animals being put down and more being adopted.
          It's like these people are reading but they're refusing to take anything on board. Like lonewolf and keffola… (I love RSPCA! they take care of dogs so I support them 100%) They are the ones that sound naive and the ones that are so easily brainwashed.

        • lonewolf on 23/02/2018 - 12:14
          +4

          @Monstalova:

          Speaking of being naive, how will this new company be funded? RSPCA takes on a difficult task of having to do all this. I also doubt there are "many" people out there who will be donating but dont donate for purely these reasons. Because most people realise that this is part of the whole task that needs to be done. Until there are alternatives which at the moment there arent any.

          What the government should do is stop puppy farms, pet stores , dog racing or animal racing for that matter then maybe we will have a lot less animals that require help or adoption. The other option is to let all the animals just roam free which i am ok with except for the fact that they will attack a lot of the other natural wildlife , and probably will be more bites on people as a certain portion of the animals that get euthanised are ones that have got behavioural problems and not suitable to be rehomed..

        • syousef on 23/02/2018 - 21:59
          -1

          @lonewolf:

          Read what I wrote already. Your answer lies within.

    • jonow83 on 23/02/2018 - 10:08

      Its only $29 now. Why not go over to RSPCA and ask them which animals are going to be euthanised soon and adopt as many of those as you can and tell them to use the money paid on animals that aren't getting euthanised.

      Curious as to why you didn't adopt one instead of getting a puppy from a breeder.

  • Wheatgrass on 19/02/2018 - 19:13
    +16

    If you're going to get a bunny, don't go into it without doing research. They aren't pets for kids because a lot of bunnies aren't fans of getting picked up and will happily bite and scratch, and kids can be rough while bunnies are quite fragile. But they're very loving towards a good owner, and should always be in pairs so they don't get sad.
    They can live a long while (8-10 years) and should be spayed and neutered not only to prevent babies, but they also have a high chance of cancer if unneutered after 4 years old.

    Edit: Also, there are a number of viruses released at the moment to cull wild rabbits, the most recent has no vaccine. So you need to protect your bunnies from mosquitos and flies and be very careful with what you feed them. Many people have lost their pets to the government-released RHDV2 virus. More info here: LINK

    • PlasticSpaceman on 19/02/2018 - 19:47
      +1

      We had a (male) Dutch rabbit - beautiful, mild mannered animal. Have known some pretty evil bunnies, but heard good reports about the Dutch ones and our experience matched the reports. Sadly he died at about 7 yo after being attacked one night by a cat who got into our backyard (normally at night he'd go into his hutch, but that night he decided to go under the deck and wouldn't come out - he'd do that occasionally, and later would have a great time hopping around in the garden at night and was usually fine… Frequently going into his hutch later by himself. Sigh…)

    • CVonC on 20/02/2018 - 01:35
      +2

      Yep, contrary to the bs that goes around, rabbits are very high maintenance pets. I've always had cats and dogs my whole life. Only for the past 17 months have I been a slave to rabbits, and 4 at that. And my God, they are a heckuva lot of work. But if you're able to persevere through the first few months of strugglehell, it really becomes worth it. They are such funny and sweet pets (especially towards each other if bonded) <3

  • raiseyoursteaks on 19/02/2018 - 19:21

    Looks like I could get a few young female Ferrets for $80 per tail..

    http://rspcavic.org/adoption/adoption-fees

  • Herbse on 19/02/2018 - 19:21
    -4

    Good resale value?

    • Wallyt99 on 19/02/2018 - 19:35
      -2

      Go for it Broden. You will make a killing.

  • ydnic on 19/02/2018 - 19:34
    +11

    Hopefully they go to loving homes…

  • [Deactivated] on 19/02/2018 - 19:42
    +3

    Excludes horses

    Damn it.

    • Blitzfx on 19/02/2018 - 22:43
      -2

      Were you going to make glue?

  • [Deactivated] on 19/02/2018 - 19:47
    -1

    $29 for a rabbit… Can get one off Gumtree for $10.

    • Wheatgrass on 19/02/2018 - 19:55
      +9

      RSPCA rabbits are usually both desexed and vaccinated, which is worth the extra $19.

      • [Deactivated] on 19/02/2018 - 20:01

        Ah, fair enough.

      • Ulysses31 on 19/02/2018 - 20:26
        +2

        With the gumtree one, you'll get another 100 rabbits every year!

    • ozzpete on 19/02/2018 - 21:19
      +1

      Can catch 1 down the park . For free

    • Antikythera on 19/02/2018 - 22:05
      +1

      i duuno where dad used to get them but they were eight bucks a kilo.

  • DEvok on 19/02/2018 - 19:57
    +6

    How much for shipping?

  • PeeDee on 19/02/2018 - 20:04

    Why is it often on special at Victoria RSPCA compared to other states?

    Are there too many in Vic? Why not other RSPCA states? NSW puppies and kittens cost hundreds…

    • [Deactivated] on 19/02/2018 - 20:05
      -1

      Why not other RSPCA states? 

      All about greed.

    • freakatronic on 19/02/2018 - 20:07

      Other states' RSPCAs have monthly death festivals in which hundred of animals are slaughtered for giggles.

    • nuchalis on 19/02/2018 - 20:58

      I know my local RSPCA in NSW has it too, maybe it's national: ring yours and ask :)

    • CVonC on 20/02/2018 - 01:42

      NSW had one last year too.

      • PeeDee on 20/02/2018 - 01:44

        It's often Vic gets advertised here so I'm unaware of NSW and other states. Would be great as I hear they get slaughtered.

  • freakatronic on 19/02/2018 - 20:06
    -6

    Pick purebreds and breed them for insane profits.

    • [Deactivated] on 19/02/2018 - 20:07

      Most will be cross breeds.

      • freakatronic on 19/02/2018 - 20:08
        -4

        I'm not saying it's easy. I'm just saying there's a bargain in this somewhere, for someone willing to pick through the scraps.

        • ozzpete on 19/02/2018 - 21:21
          +7

          "Through the scraps" ? That doesn't sound a nice reference to these poor little abandoned homeless creatures.

        • poor_me on 19/02/2018 - 23:00
          +2

          The more desirable breeds would've been adopted already

          And they would be desexed

        • freakatronic on 20/02/2018 - 06:43
          -1

          @poor_me: back to the drawing board then.

        • joshm23 on 23/02/2018 - 10:51

          @ozzpete: I think @freakatronic is just kidding. This kind of logic comes up often in OzB threads, just a bit of a reference to that I'd say.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join