BJean

Good luck Wilderblu, hope it all goes well for you and Zena ;)

I think you better ask in the trainers section. Have you been taught how to use a halti or check chain?

Is the goats milk getting a workout? Did the ultrasound show more than two? U/s showed four but now it's apparent that the girls were counted twice. So the two pups on the other side, were just tiger and dragon being April fools day tricksters Yep the goats milk is getting a work out, but if their mum's milk doesn't come down soon I'll have to switch to biolac.

If people want to desex their pets, that's great - if they feel it is the best thing for their pet and their circumstance. Emotional black mail should not be used to push people into making a decision about their pet (s). The cold hard facts are that over 250000 companion animals are PTS every year because their aren't enough good homes but people just keep producing puppies and kittens. If it stops people thinking that they'll have a litter to "calm their dog down", "let their children experience the wonders of life" or just because "she's such a nice dog" then that's good enough for me. People need to know and accept that if they bring more kittens and puppies into the world then they are responsible for them. I don't see it as emotional blackmail - dog savvy people that choose not to desex their pet but keep them contained and don't add to the unwanted pet population probably wouldn't feel "emotionally blackmailed" as they do the right thing. I have heard people suggest that people dropping their pet off to an animal shelter should be made to watch them be PTS - is that emotional black mail or making them accept the consequences of their actions? If we don't do anything because we might make the poor humans feel bad then what hope is there? Yes the overpopulation myth has been done to death and nope I dont buy it. If you want to equate unwanted with overpopulation that's your business, may even be a good strategy; fact is dogs end up pts not because there are too many but because they are not wanted - similar yet different. No time to find for you the old threads and data on this- there's some in rescue and general. I dont feel emotionally black mailed when I read crap like: The 10 top reasons to have your pet spayed or neutered were just killed in a shelter - bcz I know its not true; but others might. I think there's enough valid reasons for pet owners to desex their without adding misinformation about 'pet overpopulation' which is another agenda altogether. The issue of unwanted pets is a complex problem and to imagine that it can be solved by mass desexing of pets is simplistic at best. The Queensland Government also commissioned research by two independent experts: Dr Linda Marston of the Animal Welfare Science Centre, Monash University Professor Jacquie Rand of the Centre for Companion Animal Health, University of Queensland. Their reports include reviews of the 5300 public submissions, analysis of relevant scientific literature, interviews with key stakeholders in Queensland and interstate, and detailed reviews of desexing and early-age desexing as tools to reduce unwanted breeding. Due to the high level of interest in this program and the content of the reports, these reports to the Queensland Government are available to the public. Have you read their literature review? Very few dogs are killed in Australia because there are more dogs available than there homes. Dogs and puppies are euthanised in shelters most frequently because they are not suited to available homes, rather than because there are no homes available. Their conclusions are no different to the study actually done on the matter (and better written) And that is dogs are not dying in pounds because of an 'oversupply' problem. dogs are being pts for other factors helath, temperament, etc. There is an oversupply of cats, but these cats are mostly unowned cats, and therefore are not impacted by mandatory desexing programs. Dogs face an unwanted problem. Independent of supply.

First up you cant equate adult dogs with the market for puppies because a lot of homes want puppies and a lot of homes aren't suited to an older dog. If 10 adult dogs are killed in a pound and 10 puppies bought from a byb that week, it doesn't mean 10 dogs lost their lives because 10 puppies were sold. You cant compare two mutually independent markets. That's like saying less wheat was purchased because more copper was purchased. Dogs and puppies are not perfect substitutes. If you are going to use economic terms like supply and demand, then at least stick to market theory.If a person buys a puppy and then 3 years later dumps that dog because it does not fit in with their lifestyle and / or has behavioural issues - if that dog is then pts at a pound - do you see that as a oversupply problem or an unwanted problem? Puppy grows into a dog. Wheat does not turn into copper. Not sure I understand your economic analogy. No analogy - you referred to the economic equation of supply and demand to explain why there is an oversupply of puppies/dogs. I am saying this is incorrect - adult pound dogs and advertised puppies are not in the same market; they do not compete for the same buyers - therefore you cant draw up a Puppy/adult pound dog supply and demand axis. The demand for pound dogs is not determined by the supply of advertised puppies. Copper and wheat? Exactly there is no correllation between the demand for one and the supply of the other. When you speak of supply and demand wrt advertised puppies and adult dogs in the pound, it incorrectly assumes that adult pound dogs are in the same market as advertised puppies - whereby demand for one is a function of supply of the other. If you are going to assume this then you are also assuming that the two are perfect subsitutes. They aren't. Yes you would like them to be, but fact is people have certain traits that they are looking for in a dog, and it doesnt matter if there are 10 000 dogs to be pts, a person is going to get the puppy/dog which is the perfect match for their circumstance - as they should. Do you think if 1 dog is pts at the pound, that dog was pts because its home went to a puppy sold on the outside? Or is it that we should not think or want or own a dog, any dog, except for the dog that is next due at the pound?

Thankyou Waiting for their mum to drop her milk ... lucky there's only two, else I'd be

First up you cant equate adult dogs with the market for puppies because a lot of homes want puppies and a lot of homes aren't suited to an older dog. If 10 adult dogs are killed in a pound and 10 puppies bought from a byb that week, it doesn't mean 10 dogs lost their lives because 10 puppies were sold. You cant compare two mutually independent markets. That's like saying less wheat was purchased because more copper was purchased. Dogs and puppies are not perfect substitutes. If you are going to use economic terms like supply and demand, then at least stick to market theory. If a person buys a puppy and then 3 years later dumps that dog because it does not fit in with their lifestyle and / or has behavioural issues - if that dog is then pts at a pound - do you see that as a oversupply problem or an unwanted problem?

How do you know the puppies individual advertisements you are referring to are disposed of?

Two lovely girls delivered earlier today Takas Crouching Tiger and Takas Hidden Dragon; so Tiger and Dragon :D Weights are 660g and 645g Its the first import bloodline for Anatolian in more than 15 years, and the girls are gorgeous so as someone who breeds on the dam line, I'm pretty chuffed

If we accept that a proportion of animals entering pounds and shelters will have to be euthanased, the reasons for euthanasia become critical in assessing the nature of the perceived pet overpopulation problem. In 2006, CEO of RSPCA ACT, Michael Linke, reported: “In 2006 no cat or dog was euthanased as a result of over population in the shelter. The main reasons for cat euthanasia were: Feral 39% Health related issues 33% With regard to dogs, the main reasons were: Temperament 57% Health 37%" In other words, the RSPCA ACT found homes for all the dogs and cats which were suited by health and temperament to live as companion animals. Indeed, Mr Linke makes a point of the RSPCA’s service to the community of screening pets for health and temperament. Rather than having an oversupply of cats, such was the demand for kittens that in 2006 19 kittens were imported from the RSPCA in Townsville and adopted in the ACT. <a href="http://www.ccac.net.au/files/Mandatory_Des...he_ACT_Cats.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.ccac.net.au/files/Mandatory_Des...he_ACT_Cats.pdf</a> The dynamics of dogs entering pounds and shelters are different from those of cats. Essentially dogs have been, at one time, owned, and the majority are abandoned by their owners (whether directly or by failure of reclaiming) because of temperament and behaviour problems. The majority of cats entering shelters are either feral (more than 16% of intake, nearly 40% of euthanasias) or are free living or stray – in 2006 only 101 cats from an intake of 2504 (4%) were reclaimed by their owners, compared to 429 of 1301 dogs (34%). While there are many proposed reasons for the low reclamation rate amongst cats entering shelters, a common reason is that they are stray or free living cats. If the source and reasons for admissions to pounds and shelters differs for cats and dogs, then it makes sense that the solutions to reduce the intake and especially the euthanasia of cats and dogs also differs. For dogs, we need to target the owners, and issues such as identification, registration, education about responsible ownership (including reproductive issues) and most especially about dog temperament and behaviour are important. Education of owners about normal dog behaviour (what to expect when you obtain a pet dog), the importance of socialisation, temperament and behaviour training, and providing solutions for behaviour problems is pre-eminent. The numbers of cats and dogs recieved by the RSPCA has decreased by 27% over the past 12 years. So if we have an 'overpopulation' problem now well it must have been at plague proportions in 1998. The number of dogs coming into Australian RSPCA shelters peaked at 80, 776 in 1997-1998 and has declined to 60,030 in 2004- 2005; this represents a reduction of 25.9%. At the same time the euthanasia rate declined by 42.7%. http://www.ccac.net.au/files/The_issue_of_...UAM06Lawrie.pdf

If people want to desex their pets, that's great - if they feel it is the best thing for their pet and their circumstance. Emotional black mail should not be used to push people into making a decision about their pet (s). The cold hard facts are that over 250000 companion animals are PTS every year because their aren't enough good homes but people just keep producing puppies and kittens. If it stops people thinking that they'll have a litter to "calm their dog down", "let their children experience the wonders of life" or just because "she's such a nice dog" then that's good enough for me. People need to know and accept that if they bring more kittens and puppies into the world then they are responsible for them. I don't see it as emotional blackmail - dog savvy people that choose not to desex their pet but keep them contained and don't add to the unwanted pet population probably wouldn't feel "emotionally blackmailed" as they do the right thing. I have heard people suggest that people dropping their pet off to an animal shelter should be made to watch them be PTS - is that emotional black mail or making them accept the consequences of their actions? If we don't do anything because we might make the poor humans feel bad then what hope is there? Yep. We have a massive over-supply of pets available so its common sense to get them desexed. If the advertising/promotion of this fact has to be sensationalised a little to reinforce this point, I don't really consider that 'emotional blackmail'. Are you sure we have a massive over-supply of pets? Do people dump their dog/cat because there are too many or because they are no longer wanted? Do puppies/dogs available make you want to dump your current pets or are there other issues at play?

If people want to desex their pets, that's great - if they feel it is the best thing for their pet and their circumstance. Emotional black mail should not be used to push people into making a decision about their pet (s). The cold hard facts are that over 250000 companion animals are PTS every year because their aren't enough good homes but people just keep producing puppies and kittens. If it stops people thinking that they'll have a litter to "calm their dog down", "let their children experience the wonders of life" or just because "she's such a nice dog" then that's good enough for me. People need to know and accept that if they bring more kittens and puppies into the world then they are responsible for them. I don't see it as emotional blackmail - dog savvy people that choose not to desex their pet but keep them contained and don't add to the unwanted pet population probably wouldn't feel "emotionally blackmailed" as they do the right thing. I have heard people suggest that people dropping their pet off to an animal shelter should be made to watch them be PTS - is that emotional black mail or making them accept the consequences of their actions? If we don't do anything because we might make the poor humans feel bad then what hope is there? Yep. We have a massive over-supply of pets available so its common sense to get them desexed. If the advertising/promotion of this fact has to be sensationalised a little to reinforce this point, I don't really consider that 'emotional blackmail'. Exactly. Shock tactic? Maybe. Emotional blackmail? I don't think so. This is a very, very serious issue and if a little shock here and there make people open their darn eyes and take some notice, well in my books that's a good thing. It will not make dogs/cats less disposable.

If people want to desex their pets, that's great - if they feel it is the best thing for their pet and their circumstance. Emotional black mail should not be used to push people into making a decision about their pet (s). The cold hard facts are that over 250000 companion animals are PTS every year because their aren't enough good homes but people just keep producing puppies and kittens. If it stops people thinking that they'll have a litter to "calm their dog down", "let their children experience the wonders of life" or just because "she's such a nice dog" then that's good enough for me. People need to know and accept that if they bring more kittens and puppies into the world then they are responsible for them. I don't see it as emotional blackmail - dog savvy people that choose not to desex their pet but keep them contained and don't add to the unwanted pet population probably wouldn't feel "emotionally blackmailed" as they do the right thing. I have heard people suggest that people dropping their pet off to an animal shelter should be made to watch them be PTS - is that emotional black mail or making them accept the consequences of their actions? If we don't do anything because we might make the poor humans feel bad then what hope is there? Yes the overpopulation myth has been done to death and nope I dont buy it. If you want to equate unwanted with overpopulation that's your business, may even be a good strategy; fact is dogs end up pts not because there are too many but because they are not wanted - similar yet different. No time to find for you the old threads and data on this- there's some in rescue and general. I dont feel emotionally black mailed when I read crap like: The 10 top reasons to have your pet spayed or neutered were just killed in a shelter - bcz I know its not true; but others might. I think there's enough valid reasons for pet owners to desex their without adding misinformation about 'pet overpopulation' which is another agenda altogether. The issue of unwanted pets is a complex problem and to imagine that it can be solved by mass desexing of pets is simplistic at best.

If people want to desex their pets, that's great - if they feel it is the best thing for their pet and their circumstance. Emotional black mail should not be used to push people into making a decision about their pet (s).

Not from what I saw and I have used this kennel for a few years with both the previous owners prior to Steve and Vickie taking over and then again a few times with Steve and Vickie as the owners. I always found these kennels to be light, roomy and clean, so am surprised in your assessment of them. I understand your concern about other dogs being in same kennel as your own, but whilst not ideal, this is quite a common practice for boarding kennels during their busy times. If this is common practise for some kennels, it would explain why some refuse to take certain breeds or large dogs etc - kind of hard to cut corners and put multiple dogs in together, if a few clients have their precious pets killed or maimed. I would NEVER accept my dog sharing a keenel with another unknown dog(s), just so the boarding kennel can take on more clients than they have the capacity for.

Have sent you a PM

Hi Esky The ANKC letter on the SA website, is evidence that the ANKC agree that the claims made by the RSPCA about Pedigree dogs in Australia, are false. So why are they allowing it to remain as a 'public information' document? L:)

The ANKC letter from the Health and Welfare Committee to the RSCPA, does not address the issues of the RSPCA FAQ Document. Although it attempts to ameliorate the gulf of understanding between the RSPCA's perception of ANKC's breeder members, it fails to require that the RSPCA revoke their FAQ document. If the ANKC can assert in private letter to the RSCPA, why their claims on pedigree dogs are wrong, then the ANKC can stand up louder and prouder so the general public can see. Nor does the ANKC letter explain to their members, why their Representative Body deems it acceptable, that the RSPCA produce a publication denigrating ANKC members' practises and dogs - a publication that the ANKC acknowledges is without scientific evidence and based on no more than biased conjecture and skewed supposition. An observation: The ANKC website has no public information page about why so many RSPCA dogs are not suitable for rehoming due to temperament (57%) and health (37%) defects. (data suplied by RSPCA 2006 Annual Report). Of course we all agree it would be inappropriate for the ANKC to brandish another organisation's dogs or attempt to skew public perception of them in this manner. So why is it okay for the RSPCA?

The ANKC letter from the Health and Welfare Committee to the RSCPA, does not address the issues of the RSPCA FAQ Document. Although it attempts to ameliorate the gulf of understanding between the RSPCA's perception of ANKC's breeder members, it fails to require that the RSPCA revoke their FAQ document. If the ANKC can assert in private letter to the RSCPA, why their claims on pedigree dogs are wrong, then the ANKC can stand up louder and prouder so the general public can see. Nor does the ANKC letter explain to their members, why their Representative Body deems it acceptable, that the RSPCA produce a publication denigrating ANKC members' practises and dogs - a publication that the ANKC acknowledges is without scientific evidence and based on no more than biased conjecture and skewed supposition. No organisation can publish unfounded claims about another and expect it to go unanswered, similarly a represenative body cannot allow misinformation brandishing its members and their practises, to remain unchallenged - The ANKC need to start fighting back and stop giving into the RSPCA and start counteracting their uneducated opinions. An observation: The ANKC website has no public information page about why so many RSPCA dogs are not suitable for rehoming due to temperament (57%) and health (37%) defects. (data suplied by RSPCA 2006 Annual Report). Of course we all agree it would be inappropriate for the ANKC to brandish another organisation's dogs or attempt to skew public perception of them in this manner. So why is it okay for the RSPCA?

my bad natsu :D will PM you shortly

A new round of letters has been sent out, if I have missed anyone please let me know. cheers :D

Hi Poodlemum I have a reply from Dogs Vic - will send you a PM L:)

okay

I feel if the dog has raw bones it can eat and doesn't consume them, then its body doesn't need it. When I want to bulk up one of my dogs, I will add some dry food, and yes it bulks them up. But then I think is that really healthy for the dog? A dog may get quite thin, but it wont starve only on raw food; one of my girls will only eat what she has to from raw but will eat heaps of dry food (lol like me with vegies and chocolate )) I know that it takes 5 minutes to eat a dry food + additive mix and 40 mintues to work their way through shanks, necks and marrow. One of my girls who spent the summer quite thin by most pet standards, I've noticed has developed a lot more muscle in her rear, and where she was slightly cow hocked, she is now parallel; her weakness only now apparent when she moves away in a straight line. So the raw food and light body condition did her no detriment; quite the contary. She had plenty to eat, she just would not eat it. If I fed her dry food + appetising additive she wouldn't have dropped any weight, but then she'd be eating more than her needs and in excess of what her system required. Aye if only I could apply the same ethos to my eating habits

From the respondants so far, bloat doesn' t seem to be confined to large, deep chested breeds. Although perhaps large, deep chested breeds are more predisposed to the problems with dry / commercial feed than smaller breeds? I have two puppy buyers waiting for Anatolian pups, both have previously had danes, one has lost two danes to bloat and another has lost one dane to bloat. I can pretty much guarantee - that given a raw meaty bone diet - their Anatolian wont die of bloat before other more high risk factors. If commercial dry food causes more gas, more end product; is metabolised faster, then to me all that dense 'protein, essential amino-acid nutrient enriched food', is asking too much of the dogs metabolic system, and in some dogs this is what is giving out. Sorry Jed am brainstorming in your thread, will shutup now