Are You Serious Jo

They might have the wrong information because it does seem a bit odd and since there is so much publicity you think the council and rspca would be careful about their actions. Maybe the rspca can legally restrict them by making approval conditional? But even then don't they have to win a court case before they can place limits on a person or place. Even though I know about the problems at Moorook I would hate to see things done other than by the book.

But what special purpose do yours do? If you can have them and not work them why can't others?

If they differentiate between kennels and foster carers and dogs have to be in foster care after a certain time period it might work ok. I don't think you can justify keeping dogs in kennels long term because you have decided to be no kill, the dogs seem to be totally forgotten in the big picture. There will be an overhaul soon in SA of our laws and I'd hate to think there'll be over kill because it's the only way to deal with these sort of issues. That is why I'm vocal about not supporting rescue or breeders who do the wrong thing, there needs to be some community policing instead of sweeping things under a carpet.

I don't think they can enforce it either right now, just saying I think I know why they said this. I would hate to see something like that come in because you could bet that they wouldn't exempt dogs in foster care. I'm pretty sure things are not the same here as in NSW, where state overrules local because councils are fairly strict about dog numbers here. Why is it different in NSW? Even if Loxton/Waikerie council do start changing their rules the place is pretty sparsely populated so won't affect a huge number of people.

The two month thing would be in response to the unrehomable dogs she had out the back tucked away for years. It's just not ethical and her response shows she really puts her emotions before the welfare of the animals.

If the staff are rough and there are lots of things the dogs aren't sure of it can be stressful for the dogs, but that is environmental, nothing to do with the impending PTS.

If the dog could be reassigned then it does seem like a waste.

But some dogs get distressed when they get put under for desexing or getting their needles. Some dogs don't get distressed before being PTS. I know because I've held them. If we said we can never subject dogs to any stress then there goes any veterinary treatment for some and some owners could never leave their dog alone. The dog physically being PTS is really a minor point in all this, so I'd like to correct some of the misconceptions being posted. I don't know the full story so I can't say whether this dog could go on to be a guide for another person. But it's silly to keep claiming it's cruel.

Instinct, selection has honed it over the years, you protect your kin and social partners because it is advantageous to. Some dogs will show grief like behaviours but they cannot think about all the things they won't be doing with their dead friend or relative. They simply cannot think into the future. Being able to do so is what gave humans the huge leap they have made away from the other hominids. Caching is also an instinctive behaviour in case you were going to ask.

The concept of their own imminent death or that of an owner or another dog perhaps? I would suspect that there is a huge amount of irrefutable evidence that dogs understand when an owner, or another animal that they live with, is dying or has died. Dogs do grieve, do they not? As with any mammal in particular, they also understand when their own life is in danger and react accordingly, using the flight or fight response. In regards to this particular situation, it is a shame that the son chose to follow his mother's wishes. People who know they are dying do not always make rational decisions, just as people who are not dying also can make stupid decisions. In my opinion, this woman's decision was not entirely different to people who choose to have a fairly young and healthy dog put down for other nefarious reasons. Yes - ask any person involved in killing dogs in pounds and shelters. I suspect they know exactly what is about to happen to them. The airy fairy idea that this dog did not "suffer" in any way before being killed is just denial of the reality IMO. Some may be fearful of the smells and strange people but they really don't have a clue about death. I have been on both sides, I have held animals as they were PTS when I was doing vet nursing and I also am a cognitive researcher who has done research with dogs in order to determine what they are capable of doing and understanding. I can tell you right now there are no papers that demonstrate dogs understand death, but plenty that provide evidence they don't. Your anecdotes are just that, your own experience coloured by your emotions and it is not evidence. Trust me, if dogs could be shown to demonstrate the cognitive capabilities to understand death there's be a Nature paper and you couldn't escape the press, it would be huge news. We think non-human apes might have a limited ability to think into the future but dogs can't. Do some feel a bit of fear because of the vet clinic and someone holding their leg, sure, but it's fantasy to believe they know they are going to die. So let's not scare people with misinformation. Oh, I see, you know exactly what every dog is thinking, or not thinking. Funnily enough yes, you do your experiments the right way you can confidently extrapolate your findings to the species as a whole :laugh: Can you post a linky to your work disputing the current literature? Where did you publish :D

Don't worry, apart from a few rspca apologists here the one thing that unites us is our horror stories about the rspca.

Well I doubt that steve or I would use the term companion animal when applied to Maremmas in the sense that it is understood in the pet market. The Maremma is an associative dog, if you have had one or more you would know that. The sense in which companion is used as it relates to Maremmas is as a companion and guard dog This is the value of the dogs steve mentions she has homed with autistic and elderly. My point about the habits of the sheperdesses should not obfuscated unnecessarily. Sheep are coralled, not dogs and humans, so the dogs were coralled at night with the sheep and their humans. Maremmas are companion dogs but not a universally companionable dog. To claim other wise would simply be irresponsible What's the difference between a companion dog and a house pet animal?

But your dogs are house pet animals

Tralee's dogs are domestic pets, they live in the burbs and don't work so I am also confused about what he is trying to say. I think they can be pets if allowances are made for their traits, plenty do it.

The concept of their own imminent death or that of an owner or another dog perhaps? I would suspect that there is a huge amount of irrefutable evidence that dogs understand when an owner, or another animal that they live with, is dying or has died. Dogs do grieve, do they not? As with any mammal in particular, they also understand when their own life is in danger and react accordingly, using the flight or fight response. In regards to this particular situation, it is a shame that the son chose to follow his mother's wishes. People who know they are dying do not always make rational decisions, just as people who are not dying also can make stupid decisions. In my opinion, this woman's decision was not entirely different to people who choose to have a fairly young and healthy dog put down for other nefarious reasons. Yes - ask any person involved in killing dogs in pounds and shelters. I suspect they know exactly what is about to happen to them. The airy fairy idea that this dog did not "suffer" in any way before being killed is just denial of the reality IMO. Some may be fearful of the smells and strange people but they really don't have a clue about death. I have been on both sides, I have held animals as they were PTS when I was doing vet nursing and I also am a cognitive researcher who has done research with dogs in order to determine what they are capable of doing and understanding. I can tell you right now there are no papers that demonstrate dogs understand death, but plenty that provide evidence they don't. Your anecdotes are just that, your own experience coloured by your emotions and it is not evidence. Trust me, if dogs could be shown to demonstrate the cognitive capabilities to understand death there's be a Nature paper and you couldn't escape the press, it would be huge news. We think non-human apes might have a limited ability to think into the future but dogs can't. Do some feel a bit of fear because of the vet clinic and someone holding their leg, sure, but it's fantasy to believe they know they are going to die. So let's not scare people with misinformation.

Yes, dogs are awesome and they don't need any anthropomorphic projections to make them special, they are already

I don't understand what your position is tralee, how do you know your dogs are good workers because you keep yours in the suburbs and don't work them. Don't they stay alone while you go to work each day, where is their intelligent companion then? No one would leave their workers for 6 months without checking them because they would be risking their stock if the dogs were dead.

The concept of their own imminent death or that of an owner or another dog perhaps? I would suspect that there is a huge amount of irrefutable evidence that dogs understand when an owner, or another animal that they live with, is dying or has died. Dogs do grieve, do they not? As with any mammal in particular, they also understand when their own life is in danger and react accordingly, using the flight or fight response. In regards to this particular situation, it is a shame that the son chose to follow his mother's wishes. People who know they are dying do not always make rational decisions, just as people who are not dying also can make stupid decisions. In my opinion, this woman's decision was not entirely different to people who choose to have a fairly young and healthy dog put down for other nefarious reasons. They get cues that something is different but they don't understand that in the future my owner will die and I'll never see them again. Some go through periods where they behave as though they are grieving, but it's not the same grieving we do. When the fight or flight adrenal response occurs it's instinctive, it's not a cognitive process, it's hard wired. Dogs don't have theory of mind or meta-representation (yes, evidence for that) so they cannot understand that things will be different in the future and mourn that, they live in the now.

Hi eschlachter, just wondering about what happens if a person takes an animal and rehomes knowing that the owner had specified the pet be PTS in the will? Are there any legal ramifications for them? This thread and the other has been quite useful in highlighting all the steps that need to be taken to ensure your last wishes are adhered to.

It's hard to disinfect large grassed areas without killing the grass. I wouldn't want a vulnerable dog going into a pen that a lot of other dogs have been into without some sort of disease prevention.

I have no quibble with someone making an ethical decision that might be different from mine. Well clearly you do because you would refuse to honour what the other thought was their ethical decision.

Point to where I said that a dog I rehomed could never end up somewhere undesirable? Best we can do with anything that relates to the future is to minimize risk. And some considerable effort is made in that direction. Certainly was in the case of the rehomed little dog I've cited. If anything less than that was not available, then a totally different scenario exists to make ethical decisions on. So you are admitting that the dog you rehome against the owners wishes could end up in a poor home? Which would be the exact reason the friend wanted the dog PTS, so that could never happen. If you rehome you are now admitting it could happen. Which was my point entirely. If I choose to make sure it can never happen then that's my choice, all risk is gone. But you don't have the right to decide how much risk is acceptable to you when it's someone else's dog. Not your choice to make. I think it has to be really discussed if you want a dog to go with you Aussie, I don't think you can spring something like that on a friend.

Yes, that was the second time I asked you. How would you feel if a friend ignored your wishes and PTS your dogs, but assured you they would be looked after and rehomed?

By proxy, please, if that's good enough then why not tell the owner that's what you intend doing? I think you know that a photo is not the same. The only time you can be confident is if the dog doesn't leave your care. You might kid yourself that you have done all you can do but you've been on DOL long enough to know there are no guarantees once a dog leaves your care. People take the cowards way out all the time and drop dogs off at the pound or advertise as FTGH. They are ashamed they can't keep the dog and take the easy way out rather than go back to the original owner. Breeders drum it into puppy buyers but they still don't want to lose face and go back to the breeder. You are just kidding yourself by saying that a dog you rehome could never end up somewhere undesirable.

That's your choice, I don't expect others to live by my rules, just as I expect that others don't impose their rules on me without my consent. Still interested to know how Mita would feel if her friend PTS her dogs but told her she wouldn't.