Mange action needed
IF MY pet dog was infested with sarcoptic mange, dying a slow and agonising death over several months in my front yard, in clear view of the public and I did nothing I would expect some consequences?
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The RSPCA and police would certainly intervene, veterinary treatment arranged and I would be charged with animal cruelty offences and be the target of outrage from the public and media.
In contrast wombats in Tasmania are allowed to suffer the same horrendous death in clear view – on private land, in our national parks and on crown land with little or no intervention from the relevant government department (DPIPWE).
Why the difference? Wombats are an iconic and protected native animal supposable the property of and managed by the state. Wombats die a slow and cruel death from mange and allowing this is barbaric.
The state government, relevant minister and DPIPWE must take decisive action and show some leadership and compassion. If treatment is possible DPIPWE must help co-ordinate and fully support programs currently conducted by volunteer groups or humanely euthanize if treatment is not an option.
Allowing wombats to suffer and spread the mite as countless currently are across the state is criminal.
Simon White, Prospect Vale.
Tourist route
I FEEL that not every person rides a bike.
The rail line between Launceston and Scottsdale should be developed into a tourist route.
For the elderly tourist and the elderly and incapacitated people who would enjoy a trip into the country on a train that has catering and entertainment. The rail line does not need a lot spent on it to make this happen.
The extra benefit from the tourist dollar to Lilydale, Lebrina and Scottsdale would create jobs in markets and local produce.
Tourist and the bike enthusiast could use the rail to access the the North East bike trails and creating the need for accommodation.
Short bike excursions could also be made along the route. This would cater for everyone and make it a more viable proposition.
It makes good commonsense to me.
Bruce Cassidy, Norwood.
Fine print
A RECENT experience with a travel insurance policy should serve as a warning to others regarding general exclusions which provide insurers with a capacity to refuse claims. A recent Asian sojourn had to be cancelled due to the death of a close family member and, on the basis that there appeared to be no impediment to our claim under the cancellation clauses of the policy, we made our claim, confident it would be accepted.
We were somewhat taken aback when later advised by letter that our claim was refused because the family member who passed away was not a member of the travelling party and over 80 years of age when we took out the travel insurance policy. This was the 13th and final of a range of general exclusions which we had overlooked when taking out the policy online.
Yes, we should have read the Product Disclosure Statement in more detail. We mistakenly and understandably assumed that any exclusions to cancellations would and should have been listed and clearly identified in that section, as others were.
Subsequent reviews of our claim proved pointless and, even though there was scope for the company to treat our circumstances as a special case, they declined the opportunity to show us any good will other than to express sympathy for our loss.
The experience cost us several thousands of dollars and notwithstanding our bitter experience with the company, we are aware that other travel insurers have similar age related general exclusions, whilst some others don’t.
Michael Grant, Howrah.
