BJean

You can ship through as freight, not as excess baggage

nicolau I have gone off on a tangent on your thread It is best to keep the dog on the one airline if you can I would contact Philippine airlines directly about your dog's transport. Their cargo office: [email protected] If you have enough time in Manila, they may let you check on your dog, but your dog will not be allowed to leave the cargo area and the ground staff will accompany you. They wont let you take your dog out of the crate (most wont) but at least you can make sure your dog is in an air-conditioned area and has adequate water. And as always it wont matter what the Australian staff say as the departing country, it is how the layover and arrival country deals with travelers and their pets that will determine what you can and cannot do. I hope you and your dog transport safely, best wishes

AQIS Export Procedure does not require an agent. If having an agent was needed for animals ex. Australia, it would be on the AQIS website. I believe you should shop around for International Airlines - the need for a 3rd party, is determined by Airline Policy. http://www.daff.gov.au/aqis/export/live-animals/companion NB: because I am a nutter for details, I checked with my vet (AQIS approved) and I am okay to go Melbourne - Kuala Lumpur or Melbourne - Ankara with my dogs. With Qatar they fly in the cargo hold and I pay $50EUR/kg. I just did this last Friday the other way round [ex. Turk] and that is how it went.

I believe this must be Qantas policy only (requiring an agent). Passengers can check their own dogs in as freight and fly on the same flight. It is the Airline's policy which determines if you will pay the freight rate or the excess baggage rate or extra baggage rate. By freight I mean the dog travels in the pressurized cargo hold, not on board with the people in the cabin.

I only followed this up because iot affects my logistics plans and I was surprised to learn that Australia had become more oppressive. So from Qantas and AAE - you don't have to use an agent but the dog goes as freight. (Unless this has been updated and their website is out of date). http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/travelling-with-pets/global/en http://www.aae.com.au/services/express_your_pet If you are booked on an international flight (QF001-QF399) or a domestic sector of an international flight, or if you are not traveling on the same aircraft as your pet, your pets cannot be carried as free baggage. You must send your pet pack as freight and pay the applicable freight charges. The above is Qantas requirements. Qatar say I can check the dog in (not at the passenger terminal but at QATAR cargo) and I get charged excess bacggage fee of 50EUR/kg. If you fly on the same flight with your dog and if you fly business/first your dog will get better treatment, or rather the OWNER :D will fret less because you can ask for more for your dog.

I'd just use terramycin powder (aka pinkeye powder for horses), it is good for closing wounds and dogs do not object to it as much as the spray. Antibiotics: you can use amoxicillin if you have any at home.

Yes very familiar with Australia and its Border policies Many other countries also require dogs to enter/leave the country as freight. Turkish Airlines and Uzbekistan are quite unique in their border polices with pets. The National carrier often reflects the country it represents. Hence with Qatar: Falcons yes, dogs no. A traveler, even Ex. Australia, is better off booking their freight with the Airline and the flight they are traveling on. The dog still gets loaded and offloaded the same way, and travels in the pressurized cargo hold. The traveler just pays less, and I maintain the dog will get better treatment on the ground, when accompanied. ETA: I just checked. Qatar will let me book my dog on as freight: Melbourne - Doha - Ankara. 50EUR / kg All import permits, vet certification, travel crate are my responsibilty. Must carry documentation blah blah

Yep. Pointer Mix combined with some Ridgeback / Mastiff / Dane Heritage. No Dally, No Lab. Morphology all wrong.

Manila wont be a problem if your stopover time is short. How your dog will get treated depends on the airline and the ground staff, but its the airline who determine everything. Make sure your dog gets a PRIORITY sticker on his crate, so that he is first in and first out during any plane transfers. Are you traveling Business Class or Economy? On costs, transport companies quoted $5000-$6000, for what cost me $800 in excess air freight. (2 dogs: Turkey - Qatar - Malaysia) Use this site: www.skyscanner.net and this one: www.expedia.com.au to find the best itinerary for you and your dog ie: look at airlines, arrival / departure times, and layover time. You are better off in Manilla for a four hour stopover at 1am, than in Hong Kong for 2 hours at 1pm. NB: If you are going to give $2500 to Dog Tainers, you may as well give that $2500 to the Airline, travel Business Class and your dog will have a much better level of service than Dog Tainers could ever arrange.

Arrange it with the airline directly - your cost will be around $20-$50 / kg for total volume ie (dog + crate). It's important to check what time of day your flights depart and arrive and how long your stopover is. You will have more flexibility if your organise your airfare yourself and your dog will get better treatment if it is accompanied by a person, rather than flying as independent cargo. Transport companies tend to stick with the status quo and are insured for certain routes where they have trade contacts in the corresponding country. The only contacts you need to make are in Macau and you can do that easy enough by contacting the Government Veterinary department. I just flew with two puppies from Ankara to Kuala Lumpur via Doha with the ultimate destination, Australia. Every transport company had a fit with the details and couldn't work with the itinerary. btw did you know Turkish Airlines lets you take your dog on board with you, and Uzbekistan Airways lets you carry on monkeys? Qatar have a good cargo service but no dogs allowed on board, only falcons :D

being nice

Yes there's a difference between barking and attacking, but you need to understand the 'difference' lies in the normal range. Dogs dont see our territory marks. Just like we dont see theres. dogs see a leash and understand "effective control"? It's the steeds they send to break up a rowdy crowd. They send dogs in when its not considered safe for man or when a dog's senses / physical abilities will be an advantage. But the canine advantage gets voided pretty quick if there is a resident dog(s) that will defend its territory and take on the police dog; or cause more of a disturbance and escalate the incident. The Police priority is to PRESERVE LIFE and then to Protect. Firing off rounds where there are children nearby and causing a bloody canine brouhaha, does not do much to Preserve and Protect.

No, we need to know why they are being dumped and who is breeding them. This. And why there is no way to stop people dumping a dog and buying a new puppy on the way home. Why should there be? Are you claiming there is a current state of emergency with citizens abandoning their pets? Are we seeing unprecedented events? BTW: 2009-2010 is nothing like the 90s recession. And so it should be that way. People were getting booted from their homes and bankrupt like there was no tomorrow. And there wasn't any tomorrows for 80,776 dogs that year (1997-1998) Probably 1996 - 1997 is worse. Always the fare of animals is a reflection of the lot of their people.

Where have you been? AUSTRALIA WIDE RSPCA BRANCHES AND SHELTERS 1999-2000 DOGS RECEIVED - 67,204 EUTHANISED - 26,339 (39.2%) REHOMED - 21,415 (31.9%) RECLAIMED - 15,323 (22.8%) AUSTRALIA WIDE RSPCA BRANCHES AND SHELTERS 2009 - 2010 DOGS RECEIVED - 68,746 EUTHANISED - 20, 177 (29.4%) REHOMED - 19,007 (27.6%) RECLAIMED - 24,223 (35.2%) ** RSPCA killed less dogs not as a result of rspca 'work' but because more owners reclaimed their pets. RSPCA actually rehomed LESS dogs in 2009-2010 than in 1999-2000. RSPCA NSW deserve a special mention of merit in 1999-2000 they received 20,631 dogs, killed 44.7% of them and Rehomed 36.5%. Ten years later despite all the chicken littles ... RSPCA NSW received 20,619 dogs [they transferred 709 to other non RSPCA facilities], killed 40.5% of them and rehomed 24.8%.

Stick to your labs sandgrubber, with their modern hips and suburban lifespan. Give Home Renovators something to do cleaning up after their neurotic lab's household destruction. I feel its fitting to throw around aspersions, its thread content afterall. Room for two, turtle watching Souff?

It doesn't call for HA temperament. Sandgrubber and her retriever man just think it does. Sandgrubber's main gripe is this: In her words: The registry that got the breed accepted by the FCI called for dogs with distinctly molosser appearance with bloodhond facial features. They also wanted a nicer temperament in the dogs. However, the other registry, the CAFIB (Club for the Improvement of the Fila Brasileiro), very strongly argues against making the dogs very heavy and coarse. And most controversially, its founders insist on breeding for what they say is a unique trait to the bred. This trait is called ojeriza. Ojeriza roughly translates as xenophobia, a deep dislike of strangers. The standard for ojeriza states that the dog should not "allow the judge (a stranger) to touch it. And if it attacks the judge, such a reaction must not be considered a fault, but only a confirmation of its temperament. Sandgrubber is not bothered by the FCI breeder trend to breed another modern mastiff with a short life span and heavy frame. Sandgrubber is concerned that the Fila breeder expects an adult Fila not to allow a stranger to walk up to the Fila and its owner and to then touch the dog. Have a think about. The dog does not allow strangers to touch it. So a stranger cannot walk up to a Fila with its owned and expect to be able to pat it. Whoa. Big controversy in a primitive guardian breed.

No sandgrubber perhaps you should attempt to learn about what you are so insistent on writing uninformed essays about. NB: The fact that you compare the Labrador to the CAFIB fila, shows that you have no knowledge beyond the temperament type of the Labrador. So yes, perhaps you should make up a hypothetical about aggressive tubby labs. As that will be a topic where you can meaningfully contribute and apply what you know to the discussion. Not what you imagine.

I am asking what breeding for aggression means or how you imagine it works, as distinct from wariness. You wrote that the thread is about breeders breeding for aggression. I am not interested in what the OP misinterprets.

what do you think this means? You're a breeder, give me an example of how you think this works.

Maybe you could tell me what you think this means. "breeding for aggression" ?

The breed standard is crudely written. To English it says, displays of aggression must be seen. It is no different, to a breeder of a guardian breed, being bred for workto say: "expect dog to hold its ground", "recognise a threat", "act on that threat" etc Unfortunately Sandgrubber, a labrador breeder, has been struck with awe about what another gun dog person, 'retriever man' has to say about a primitive guardian breed. Worth noting, that both Sandgrubber and her source, favour the FCI 'softer' Fila. Yet it is physically not as sound or robust. HA is not a basic trait like eye colour or tail set. For HA to be displayed, a combination of temperament traits must come to the fore. To say that the CAFIB calls for breeding HA, is a lack of understanding and knowledge about what constitutes a dependable guardian in this context. FWIW Sandgrubber has been engaged with on this topic many times before. imo I am usually more polite

Consider the breed standard is translated to English.

Breeders are actively and openly selecting for aggressive temperament? Or breeders are actively and openly selecting for correct temperament? No breed should be watered down to fit someone elses "ideal" IMO. That is beyond the scope of the OP.

I knew this topic would turn into another Fila debate.Since you discovered them you still have a bee in your bonnet over them.Have you ever met one yet now you are back in the states?They do not exist here in Australia and they are already banned so it is a nonsensical argument.Why dont you petition them in the States to have them banned and see how far you get.You still havent listened to anything I have had to say on the subject and I do have some first hand knowledge of the dogs.What you read in a breed standard and what the dogs are like today might not be the same thing.As society becomes more urbanised and populated those that cant fit in go by the way side.You would be hard pressed to find a Fila with real temperament in the States anymore.You would have to go to South America to places where they have a real need for them.There they are bred for a reason and still used for that reason.They are a special dog and not a crazed man eater.Not unless you f*** with them and that would be your bad. As I have stated before I could take breeds that are already here and cross them and produce a man killer if I so wanted and I dont.So what are you going to do?Ban every breed of dog over 20 kgs?Put the onus on the owner simple.It really isnt that hard.Once they realise it will be their ass on the line if their dog does something they might think twice about it.Until that happens nothing will change. It's just goes on and on lol

oh ffs From one thread to another you harp on about the Fila and temperament types.